Vol. 14, Part I · pages 551–555

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 533 Shri H. V. Kamath : Does he accept everything that exists or does he want a change in anything at all ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House is not concerned with changes other than in the Bill. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The question of change is an academic question. The question of changing the law has been as old as history. In fact there are temperaments who try to make changes simply because it is a change. They would effect a change on the mere ground that it is a change. There are others who will never agree to any change because any change is a innovation. This was discussed in a classical passage by Macaulay and he said that the best brains lie near the border line, between the two extremes. So a change in the law is not to be adopted merely for its own sake. Again, a strict adherence to the old law, irrespective of all considerations would be equally bad. The position is that you must march with the times and the overriding consideration would be that you must take the people with you. I am referring to moral right. Legal right we have. We have ample legal right to break any law we like and create any law we like. That legal right is assumed. I do not question it. But what moral right have you to effect a change……………. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : No. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: ………………affecting large classes of people— 30 crores—without their consent ? I am not here to oppose all changes. I am here to oppose any change which is not sanctioned by public opinion. What moral right have you to introduce drastic changes without their sanction ? Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: We have got their consent; we represent them. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: You then raise a very important constitutional question. This House was elected for the purpose of drafting the constitution Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am afraid so far as the constitutional issue is concerned there is already a ruling by the Chair. This is a sovereign body which can legislate on anything. If the honourable Member has other grounds he can go on. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I do not dispute the authority of the House. We have the right to destroy the Hindu society or Muslim society and blend them into something new devoid of religion. That

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES534 right is never for a moment in dispute. But the question is are the people behind this law ? Some Honourable Members : No, no. Some other Honourable Members: Yes, yes. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I believe they are not behind the law, they are against it. (An Honourable Member: ‘They are for it’) How do you know they are for it ? A matter of this gigantic magnitude should be placed before the electorate. That is the constitutional procedure. In fact the day before yesterday Mr. Osborne told us that he could not agree to add certain things unless the matters were specifically brought to the notice of the electorate and permission is given by them. In fact they cannot do any such thing. They consider themselves incapable of proceeding in a constitutional manner without the consent of the electorate. But we are so far advanced that we can afford to disregard the opinion of the electorate. In fact at one time it was argued that the dilatory method is meant to defeat the purpose. If there is any election the Hindu Code would not be passed. This session the argument has been entirely the reverse. They say that they have shown that the electorate is with us. It is with their sanction that we have brought this Bill. It is neither with their sanction nor with their consent that you have brought forward this legislation. How did this law start ? It was framed under the authority of a foreign government which was then desperately fighting for its own existence. English power was threatened with total extinction. It was a life and death struggle for the British. It was in these times that a Home member, Sir, Reginald Maxwell appointed the Rau Committee. So the thing was conceived under the pressure of a global war when the existance of England was at stake. When the Bill was prepared it was introduced by Mr. Jogendra Nath Mandal, the Minister of Law of the Interim Government. At that time the country was being ravaged by destructive struggles, enormous loss of life and disturbance to public peace on an unprecedented scale, when the then Minister knew the temporary character of the tenure of his office, when his thoughts were already focused on Pakistan and when he was no longer interested in the Bill, it was under those circumstances that the Bill was presented before the House. In fact Pakistan was more than a conception at that time it was already a reality. It was at that time the Bill was introduced in the Assembly…………….. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I find that there are a number of people on the waiting list. The honourable Member has already taken one and a half days. When is he likely to conclude ? Has he any idea himself ?

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 535 An Honourable Member: In this House nobody has any idea. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Even the Law Minister has no idea. In fact this remark arose out of interruption. I may take some-time. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : How long ? The House is anxious. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The House was entitled to know how long the Bill would be considered and there was no reply and therefore my position is more difficult. The Assembly then adjourned for Lunch till Half Past Two of the Clock. The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Half Past Two of the Clock, Mr. Speaker (The Honourable Mr. G. V. Mavalankar) in the Chair. Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, there does not appear to be a quorum in the House. Mr. Speaker: I think there is a quorum. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, when we rose before Lunch I was dealing with the question as to whether it will be proper for this House to pass this legislation. With regard to the constitutional power of this House I have no doubt that we are constitutionally competent to pass a law of this nature. The question really is whether we have the moral right, or whether it would be morally proper for us to pass this law. The whole question would be whether this House has been authorised directly or indirectly by our constituencies to agree to this law. Some honourable Members say that the people are behind the Bill. My impression is that the people are not behind the Bill. The number of objections which are already on record is great. I believe that objections are pouring into the Legislative Assembly Department and they are so numerous that they could not be classified or docketed or dealt with in any systematic manner. They are pouring in on a gigantic scale. That shows the intensity of public feeling. The question is whether we in a democratic society, in a Legislature constituted on a democratic basis, should pass the law without ascertaining the opinion of the public. As I was submitting the Bill owes its conception to an alien Government which was, at the lime of its inception fighting for its own existence and was busy and otherwise occupied. The Bill was submitted to the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES536 House by a Minister of Law who was Minister of the Interim Government at a time when that Minister was contemplating a departure to Pakistan and had no interest in the Bill at all. Shri H. V. Kamath : He is repeating what he said in the morning. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Now the present Bill was continued by the Honourable Minister, Dr. Ambedkar, when India was very much occupied with a large number of serious problems. It is evident, as it appears from the admission of the Minister of Law himself, that the present Bill was merely continued without any adequate thought. It was only when it was sent to a Select Committee that it occurred to the Minister of Law that the Bill had not been properly drafted, that it required amendments—whether substantial or not is a different matter, but it required amendments all through. So he himself set down to redraft the whole Bill. In fact the product of that Committee is a book called “The Hindu Code” which is almost exactly the same as the present revised Bill, and it purports to be “a Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu law” by “Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Minister of Law”. So what was a Bill submitted by Mr. Jogendra Nath Mandal was informally transformed into a Bill by Dr. Ambedkar. The point I was driving at is this that the Bill not at any time received any consideration or any adequate consideration before the Government first tried to sponsor it. In fact as soon as it was apparent that the Bill was not properly drafted, that it required to be re-written wholesale and that it required to be changed in a large number of particulars, that was the moment to withdraw the Bill. But without withdrawing it the Minister of Law made numerous changes and presented a new Bill. This shows that the Bill was never considered in detail. If it is a fact that even the Government had to change its mind to make serious alterations in the body of the Bill it shows that the Government with its enormous resources were unable to accept it—much less has the country accepted it. Now, Sir, the present Constituent Assembly was elected for a specific purpose. Mr. Tajamul Husain : I am afraid the honourable Member is repeating the same thing. Mr. Speaker : I do not know whether he said this. Shri L. Krishnaswamy Bharathi : He said it in the morning. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I had hardly begun it. This House was not elected for the purpose of passing this legislation.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 537 Mr. Tajamul Husain : Sir, he said exactly this. It was in your absence. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Let me develop my point. The question is whether we had been authorised in this direction. In fact the authority of this House is based upon an indirect election; there was no direct election. Shri H. V. Kamath : He said the same thing earlier and the Deputy Speaker gave a ruling also on the point. Mr. Speaker : I leave it to the honourable Member, if he has said it because I do not know. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir. I want to elaborate it. Mr. Speaker: Then, of course, no elaboration is necessary. He may go to the next point. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : We rose at that time for Lunch. Mr. Speaker : The point seems to be very clear and it does not require any elaboration that this House was not elected by direct election, that the election has been indirect, that it was elected for a specific purpose, namely of making a Constitution, and therefore it should not go into this kind of legislation at this stage—that is the point. It hardly requires any elaboration. If it is the idea of the honourable Member to carry on for a long time. I shall be unable to support him. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The point is that as soon as I began I was contradicted by Mr. Krishnaswamy Bharati. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati : On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I never opened my mouth at that time. Mr. Speaker : Whether a particular Member asserts or denies a particular thing, it has no effect so far as the real fact goes. If he has authority he has, if he has not. Mere assertion by one Member in one way or the other really does not make any difference. He may just state his point without going into detail. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The question is that it is not so obvious. Mr. Speaker : It is obvious. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : No, Sir, To Mr. Bharati it is not obvious. Mr. Speaker : The honourable Member need not care to convince one Member who refuse to be convinced, He is addressing the whole House. He should know the House consists of Members, who have some level of understanding.