Vol. 14, Part I · pages 511–515

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 493 Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Then the question turns upon this whether these are substantial changes. It may not be very important from the point of view of the law-giver but it may be important to the heir. If you disturb the order of heirship in the slightest degree, it is a substantial change. Up to this time we had been assured that the changes that were made were only of a drafting character. The report of the Select Committee is that the Department made no substantial changes. The report is so clear and emphatic and they emphasize the points so clearly, that they say no substantial changes have been made—only renumbering and some merely verbal changes were made and that for this reason that the usual method of indicating the changes by side-lining or under-lining the changes had not been adhered to in the Departmental or the Final Bill. Now the question of questions at last boils down to this : Whether these are substantial changes ? What is the test for this ? Upsetting of heirs’ lists is not a substantial change ? I submit it is. If it is that I am arguing too much, arguing as if in a Law Court—if any honourble Member thinks it is so—then it seems that the seriousness of the changes has not been fully appreciated. Mr. Tajamul Husain : Except by you ! Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is very unfortunate that this should be appreciated only by one man ! Of course there is a highly paid department and a highly qualified Law Minister, who is able to appreciate the slightest differences and I am sorry that I have had to undergo all the trouble and expenditure of time and money to find out and explain all this. It has not been a very easy matter and the difficulty was further enhanced by the fact that the Department which introduced all these changes could not make available to me a copy of their draft Bill. It was after a great deal of searching that I could procure a copy. So the search has been prolonged and the consideration has been prolonged and it has been for me a very difficult matter. I do not mean to say that any other Member is not capable of appreciating it, but few have the time or the inclination to go through them. And why should they ? Isn’t it the duty and the obvious privilege of every Member—and I say this in defence of Members—to rely on the Ministry of Law, to rely upon the express guarantee in the Select Committee report that no substantial changes have been made ? I think they would be fully justified and when an honourable Member said that none expect me knew this, I cannot blame him. The blame

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES494 lies with the Department. Now, is that the end of these changes ? By no means. Come to Class V-A. It was introduced by the Rau Committee by an amendment of their earlier Bill. They have noted that this Class V-A should be introduced after Class V. Class V-A has been entirely omitted. I humbly suggest that it is an inadvertent omission, but inadvertent or intentional, it is absolutely damaging to the integrity of the Bill. Then, Sir, we come to Class VI. (Interruptions ) Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable member will go on. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Then we come to Class VI, items (1) and (2)— mother’s mother and mother’s father. The mother’s mother would be preferred to mother’s father under the original Bill but they have been put together in the Departmental Bill. So they now inherit equally together. In item (3) of Class VI, the mother’s brother and mother’s sister inherit—the latter after the former under the original Bill, but under the Departmental Bill, they inherit together. Under items (4) and (5) mother’s brother’s son has been entirely left out in the Departmental Bill. Items (7), (8) and (9)— mother’s sister’s son, mother’s brother’s daughter, mother’s sister’s daughter are also entirely omitted. Then item (3) in Class VI is also entirely omitted. This concludes the list of inheritance in which there are no less than 20 transpositions, additions and omissions. Heirs have been entirely eliminated either intentionally or deliberately but this does not appear from the Select Committee’s report. I have been repeatedly asked by honourable Members of the Select Committee in the House to point out where the differences lie. I do not want to blame any honourable Member for not noticing them. On account of the transposition or removal from their original places the changes would not be obvious. And there is the guarantee in the report of the Select Committee that there is no substantial change. These were changes through the Departmental Bill and may have escaped the attention of the Select Committee. At least their attention was not drawn to them in the Departmental Bill. There is a very respected and capable Member, Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand who says in his minute of dissent that the Select Committee confined their attention to the Departmental

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 495 Bill, because they were assured that no substantial changes had been made. I would ask Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand whether his attention was drawn by the Department or Dr. Ambedkar to these things. These large omissions and transpositions of places would not have been noticed by any Member unless he goes through the laborious process of comparing the two like a laborious lawyer. Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand (East Punjab : General): I would like to draw the attention of my honourable friend to page 9 of the report where my note of Dissent is printed. I have given there some of the substantial changes, at any rate changes which I considered to be substantial—and because of which I had suggested that the Bill should be recirculated for eliciting public opinion or in any case recommitted to the Select Committee. At page 9 the broad points on which changes had been introduced in the redrafted Bill, have been mentioned though not in such great detail as the honourable Member is doing today in his speech. It is not correct to say that no member of the Select Committee noticed them. Of course nobody had the industry or the patience which the honourable Member has, but the matter did not escape their attention. As he has mentioned my name I feel it my duty to bring this fact to the notice of the House. In the Note of Dissent I have referred to the changes to the order of inheritance which I considered to be substantial, and in regard to which I am in entire agreement with my honourable friend. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am extremely grateful for this clarification, A respected Member with the highest judical experience thinks that these are substantial changes and he thought that they were so substantial that the Bill should be recirculated. That is the thing which I am asking for. There is at least one Member of the Select Committee who thought the changes to be substantial. He noticed them, but was his attention specifically drawn to them ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab: General): Mr. Balkrishna Sharma has also signed it. An Honourable Member : He has had no judical experience. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : He has had social experience. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Pandit Balkrishna Sharma is also of the same opinion. It is however enough to quote the name of Dr. Tek Chand. His authority and position will not be seriously enhanced by the addition of any other names. These respected Members felt

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES496 that these are substantial changes and therefore thought that the Bill required recirculation. There are changes in other parts of the Bill which would required herculean labour to find out. In view of these changes made by the Departmental Committee and in view of the weighty remarks of Dr. Tek Chand that these were very substantial changes I think the matter should not admit of any doubt that the Bill should be sent to the Select Committee to reconsider these changes or to recirculate it. An Honourable Member : The same Select Committee. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have no objection to the same Select Committee. It consisted of men absolutely good and true, men with judicial and legal experience and who are practical authorities on those branches of the law. In fact, all kinds of talents were represented in the Select Committee. I have the fullest confidence in the Select Committee and I have not lost my faith in it. My point is that these matters should be carefully scrutinised and each change carefully weighed and deliberately accepted. Substantial changes have been quietly and deliberately introduced. We are assured by the Law Minister and again by the Select Committee that no substantial changes have been made. On the one hand we have the opinion of the highest legal talent in the House saying that these are substantial changes and on the other, another legal luminary says that he has deliberately introduced these changes and at the same time, that he has introduced no substantial changes. That is the guarantee under the signature of Dr. Ambedkar himself. So the Select Committee is hopelessly divided within itself. If two such eminent authorities differ on a broad matter like this I think the matter requires reconsideration by the Committee and that is what I ask for. Though the Law Minister thinks that these were not substantial changes only an unsophisticated House would agree with him. A man’s right to inherit is a substantial right. To say that changes therein are not substantial changes would be to say something that is palpably and obviously wrong. I submit therefore that the changes being substantial and the guarantee being that no substantial changes have been made, on this ground alone the Bill should be sent back to Select Committee or for circulation with the positive direction that their attention should be directed towards these changes and they should consciously, intelligently, wilfully accept or reject them. There are other substantial changes.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 497 Shri B. N. Munavalli (Bombay States): He is simply repeating the same arguments. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I thought he had concluded that topic. If he has no other topic he may sit down. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have other very serious changes. The point I would like to know is for how long the Honourable Law Minister would insist on saying that there are no substantial changes. Shri Khurshed Lal (Deputy Minister of Communication): Till you have finished. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Does the honourable Member with his experience as a lawyer ever expect the mover of a Bill to admit that what he has done is wrong ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I bow down to this weighty observation of yours. But this is not a law court for us to take sides. It is a Legislative Assembly where we have no sides. We may express our opinions honestly but we do not take sides for the sake of fees: we are not committed to one side or another. I submit that in the Legislature, a Law Minister responsible to the Legislature should make it his duty to make an admission if he is wrong. I therefore have a faint hope that this accumulation of errors, of changes, would induce in a slight degree the Law Minister to admit that he had made substantial changes and thereby to make further progress of my argument absolutely unnecessary. But in view of the fact that the honourable the Law Minister stands to his gun like a good fighter—he has been a fighter all his life and he is famous for his grit and moral quality— as he stands to his gun, I have to submit to him more and more changes just with a faint hope to induce him ultimately to concede. Shri Khurshed Lal : I do not wish to interrupt, but is it his intention to go on in this-manner till he has made the Law Minister admit that he has made a mistake ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Why the Law Minister alone ? Possibly other Members also agree with him for he has carried the House with him. Shri B. Das : How do you say so, Sir ? We can howl him down. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is not so very easy. Sir, I have been threatened with being howled down. I am yet to see a Member who can howl me down here—I have yet to see him. I respectfully invite anyone to howl me down. He will find that I do not even require the microphone to be heard in the House in the midst of howlings.