Vol. 14, Part I · pages 556–560

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES538 Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is not the understanding that I deny, it is the mind being locked up—that is the difficulty. Some people are unwilling to be convinced. Mr. Speaker : They cannot be convinced. Let us not take our time to convince them. The honourable Member may take his next point. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : You would be pleased, therefore, to consider that we have no moral authority to pass the law. In fact, the Government framed a Bill and then sent it out for circulation. I refer to appendix II at page 41 of the second Hindu Law Committee Report. “The Bill as framed by the Rau Committee was sent for circulation and the Bill was sent to large number of public bodies and individuals of weight and authority and their opinion was sought”. It is made absolutely clear in the notification dated 5th August 1944 that the Hindu Law Committee intend to revise the draft in the light of public opinion as elicited by them in writing and orally. This is very important and should supply a key to unravelling the present matter. The Bill was submitted for public opinion and it was clearly stated therein that the Bill would be revised in accordance with public opinion. What was the public opinion. The public opinion at one stage of the matter is contained in the “Written Statement submitted to the Hindu Law Committee, volumes I and II”. I believed this opinion has never been adequately considered by the Members of the House or it was never considered by many Members of the House. When these opinions were received they were analysed and then oral evidence was also invited and a large number of witnesses were examined. That is to be found in the “oral evidence tendered to the Hindu Law Committee dated 1945”. These volumes, if analysed and carefully read, would show that public opinion which was consulted was very preponderatingly against the Hindu Code. Therefore, it follows that the Hindu Law Committee proceeded to adhere to there own views and revised the Bill here and there not in accordance with public opinion, but in spite of it. The effect of this evidence has been carefully analysed in the dissentient note by D. N. Mitter, the ex-Judge of the Calcutta High Court who was also a Member. In fact, he had written an elaborate minute of dissent. I do not wish to go over this matter, but he has analysed this opinion under different headings, namely whether we should have codification or not, whether the marriage law should be changed, whether there should be divorce and so forth. He has analysed the opinions and the evidence, for and against under each head, and I submit

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 539 his report deserves careful consideration at the hands of the House. The opinions are again classified according to Provinces as according to subjects. With regard to the effect of the evidence, according to Dr. D. N. Mitter the opinion on each point is preponderatingly against the Bill for codification, for divorce proceedings and for other matters. The opinion of the public was directly against the codification. These opinions and evidence are preponderatingly against the principles of the Bill. The Hindu Law Committee Report is only a majority report. It was definitely opposed by Dr. D. N. Mitter but the other Members thought it fit to stick to their original Bill amended in slight respects here and there, not according to public opinion, but according to their own ideas. I therefore submit that the Bill has been framed in direct defiance of public opinion. That is the basis upon which my argument stands. Though Mr. Krishnaswami Bharathi said that the public opinion is behind the Bill, I venture to submit that public opinion is against it. An Honourable Member : Question. Mr. Tajamul Husain : No, not at all. It is for the Bill. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: So far as the written opinion is concerned, it is definitely against the Bill. I submit, therefore, that public opinion has not been properly consulted as a democratic Government ought to do. In fact, this Bill is a negation of democracy and it is conceived under circumstances which no longer prevail today. A full-fledged democracy is now in operation and public opinion should be taken into account and followed in giving effect to legislative proposals. I submit therefore, that so far as written opinion goes it is against the Bill, but what about the unwritten opinion ? We have a large number of protests lodged in your own office and we hear of proceedings of large number of meetings. In fact, we had meetings in the very heart of this city. The meetings were largely attended and many honourable Members and also the Honourable Minister for Law were invited. Some Members attended but the Minister for Law did not. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : He did not have the courage to attend. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : He did not think it necessary to attend, because it seems to me that public opinion is not the criterion or his guide so far as this Bill is concerned. In fact, Dr. D. N. Mitter gave a clear analysis of the opinion. The Honourable Minister for Law said that he would quote an earlier of Dr. D. N. Mitter to contradict him.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES540 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : What did the honourable Member say, I did not follow ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : That he would quote an earlier writing of Dr. D. N. Mitter to contradict his present report. We have his earlier writing as well as his later writing and I have considered both. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : His later writing I have not seen. What is it ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Later writing is in the report. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That you call later writing. I thought it was something after this. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The question is what was his earlier writing and what was his present writing and is there any change and if so what. He had long ago written a pamphlet. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : A pamphlet ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : A book. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I thought you said pamphlet just now. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Give in any name you like. I do not quarrel with the name. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : How big is that book ? Have you any idea ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : You will have it in the Library. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : You call it a pamphlet. How big is that pamphlet ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : If I am to be cross-examined, I should be put in the witness box and I will then answer. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I should like to know that my friend has ascertained the facts before he refers to them. If it is a pamphlet I should be very much surprised. The book is a book of 700 pages, somewhere about that. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The most important thing is not the size, but the view expressed therein. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, what was the view ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The view expressed therein was that the rights of Hindu women should be better safeguarded and given better rights. I cannot repeat everything to the honourable Minister because I do not like to trouble the House and I do not like to speak louder

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 541 than what, I am doing. In the present opinion he has opposed the Bill and the Honourable Minister evidently had his earlier writing in view and that is taken advantage of by the majority Members. I submit that the reason for the change of opinion has been given by Dr. D. N. Mitter himself. If change of opinion is a crime, blind adherence to an opinion, although it is proved to be wrong, is a worse crime than change of opinion based on reason. Dr. Mitter clearly expressed an opinion in favour of giving more rights to women. I have read the passage in Appendix II that the Government gave an undertaking to the people that the Bill will be re-shaped in accordance with public opinion. That was the thing that trouble Dr. Mitter. In fact, he found that his individual opinion was far ahead of public opinion in India which was definitely against it. So he has referred to this passage in the notification declaring the intention of Government to change the law in accordance with public opinion. Dr. Mitter was faced with a volume of opinion against the Bill and he changed his opinion. This is a legislation which affected the whole country and it was this reason which induced him to go against the Bill, because this is the public opinion. There is no illogicality in giving up one’s personal opinion in deference to public opinion. I believe the Honourable Minister and other Ministers too have their personal opinions, but they have to subordinate them for the collective good. We have often heard Ministers speaking against their personal conviction. This is neither improper nor wrong. It is perfectly natural. Here Dr. D. N. Mitter had accepted a position of great public responsibility with the express object of ascertaining public opinion and changing and re-shaping the Bill in accordance therewith. I ask : is there anything improper if Dr. D. N. Mitter changed his opinion ? He accepted a job, and what was it ? To ascertain public opinion, and public opinion was against the Bill. He himself was present when the evidence was taken and there is one passage in the report on oral evidence which is very significant which has been specifically referred to. When the Committee was in Lahore and was sitting... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : They were greeted with black flags ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : No black flags ; something more. A large number of ladies, thousands—I do not remember the exact number—I do not wish to trouble the House with the exact number. Mr. Speaker : What year was it in ?

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES542 Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It was in 1945 in connection with this enquiry. They went to Lahore and a large number of ladies came and absolutely blocked the progress of evidence. They said, “We do not want it. It is not to our benefit. It is against our idea.” Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Hear, hear. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In fact, the situation was so grave, that this gentleman when he was faced with the sad spectacle of thousands of ladies opposing the Bill, he could not proceed and it was difficult to repress them and their sentiment and so further evidence was absolutely stopped. This is what he has referred to. If he is guilty of inconsistency, he is certainly to be credited with some amount of honesty. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Hear, hear. Mr. Nazruddin Ahmad : Does consistency lie in sticking to one’s opinion although it is proved wrong ? This is inconsistency. This is doggedness. This is neither good nor fair. This gentleman when found that not only male opinion but female opinion was absolutely against him, he said he was also against it. Would it be fair or proper on anybody’s part to quote that stray personal opinion of his ? If so, one could quote writings and speeches of the honourable Minister himself against him. This would not be fair. Every writing and speech has to be taken in the context. It may often happen that we have to act in public capacity and therefore, for that purpose, we have to sink our personal opinion. So Dr. Mitter acted patriotically and courageously in giving up his personal opinion in deference to the opinion of the public. In this Dr. Mitter performed a patriotic and obvious duty, and no blame should be attached to it. On the other hand, the other respected Members, what did they do ? I do not wish to be hard upon them, but they all of them, though they promised that the Bill would be considered in the light of public opinion, they stuck to their own opinion, and actually taunted Dr. Mitter for having changed his opinion. Is it to be, Sir, that we should never change our opinions ? If that be so, then mankind would cease to be rational. We have got to change our opinions. Mr. Speaker: Order, order. May I tell the honourable Member that on each point he need not necessarily go into the general principles and all the details. He may just invite attention to the point and then go to the next point; because if he carries on like this—he has now gone on for nearly two days—there will be no end to this discussion. 3 P.M.