Vol. 14, Part I · pages 561–565

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 543 And I do not propose to allow him to go on in this manner. He must bring his remarks to a close within a reasonable time, and I think another fifteen minutes would be quite reasonable. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I bow down to your decision. I hops, Sir, that these fifteen minutes will be entirely mine. Mr. Speaker: Yes, he may finish by 3-15. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Next I want to emphasise the fact that we are a democratic body. We are working as a democratic body. We cannot say that democracy is unfit for our society. It is democracy that has brought us into being. That democracy was sufficient to wrest power from the British Government. That democracy is sufficient to empower us to frame our Constitution. And I say that democracy would be intelligent and competent enough to understand its own interests in the matter of the Hindu Law. Therefore there should be no shirking, no by-passing, no flouting of public opinion. Where is the harm in ascertaining public opinion ? In fact, the Bill, I submit, has been mutilated. It has been interpolated upon. I do not mean to say there has been dishonest interpolations, but honest interpolations, but they are not the less interpolations. There have been interpolations in the Bible—honest interpolations. There are great authorities pointing out that fact. So, I say, there are interpolations in the Bill. The Bill, however, was presented to the Select Committee with the guarantee that there was no serious change, and that some changes made had been noted by the Members. Yet, is it possible, or practicable, Sir, for any one unaided to note all the changes ? In fact, all these changes, it is impossible to take note of. And therefore, the Select Committee was told, and they were asked to take it, that the Departmental Bill was merely a reproduction of the original Bill, and that no substantial changes had been made, and therefore, they failed to note and consider the changes. That is not their fault. In these circumstances, the Select Committee, although they tried their best, unconsciously, I submit, they must have omitted to note many important changes, on account of the guarantee. And then, Sir, if that is so, if there are so many changes, and when these changes are substantial, then the guarantee given by the majority of the Select Committee that the Bill was not so changed as to require re-publication is only the usual guarantee. They said that the Bill had not been so altered as to require, under Standing Order 41(5), any re-publication and that the Bill be passed as amended by the Select Committee. This is only the usual stock

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES544 certificate. I ask in all seriousness, is it contented, in the light of the disclosures of changes made that the Bill has not been substantially altered ? On the original Bill we have not got public opinion, and what public opinion we procured, was against it. We have, therefore, got to ascertain public opinion. And then, the Bill was sent to the various Provincial Governments for opinion. The opinions of the various Governments have not even been referred to in the House. They are collected and circulated to the Members. I shall, however, confine myself to the opinion of the Government of Bengal. I assert without fear of contradiction that in Bengal the opposition is the greatest. You propose to abolish the Mitakshra system of inheritance and do honour to Bengal by accepting their theory of family life. In Bengal you have the greatest objection. An Honourable Member: Objection is from everywhere. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Of course, from everywhere there is objection, but the greatest objection is from Bengal. It is the most persistent, and so very authoritative. The whole of Bengal, including some educated and cultured ladies think that the Bill is not wanted there. In fact, many ladies like the wife of the late Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, the mother of Dr. Mookerjee, here, lady Ranu Mookerjee, wife of Mr. B.N. Mookerjee, and a host of other ladies have opposed this move. Dr. Mono Mohan Das : Who are the other ladies please ? Please name them also. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have to respect the request of the Chair to finish soon. I cannot give my honourable friend preference over the request of the Chair. Sir, the names are there in the report. My honourable friend’s request to name them shows that he has not read the report. It is a pity that this volume of opinion has not been read. It is a pity that the Department has not supplied the report to all. It is a pity that private Members have to undergo all the labour and expense to collect the information and to supply the House with the information. But the names are on record, and it is useless for any member to ask questions about facts which are on the record. It is pity that I have got to refer to this matter. Well, Sir, I was submitting that there is lot of opposition in Bengal. There are five High Court judges of the Calcutta High Court—and one of them now adorns the Federal Court and they are against it. Their opinion is to be found in the Report also, and it is referred

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 545 to in Dr. Mitter’s report. Then there are ex-Judges of the Calcutta High Court. One of them is Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, and he is now a Judge of the High Court, and he was against it. The Hindu Mahasabha was then under the Presidentship of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and it opposed the Bill, evidently, with the consent of the President, Dr. Mookerjee on a major matter like this. And then there is Dr. R. B. Paul, a distinguished jurist of continental fame, and he has opposed it. Their opinions are before us. In fact, in the face of all this opinion in Bengal, I am surprised that a Member from Bengal should have asked for names. I submit, therefore, Sir, that the Bill should go out to the public for eliciting public opinion. If Hindu opinion is against it, why should you thrust upon it a law which is not wanted by them ? An Honourable Member: It is dictatorship. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Yes, it is sheer dictatorship. There is the fear that if it is sent to the public before the elections, possibly it will lead to complications. But do you know what complications will come up if you pass it before the elections ? The illiterate people will get furious. This Bill will dislocate their lives. It is not easy for them to change their lives all at once under the dictator’s command. Even in Russia, Lenin did not go so quickly or remorselessly as we seem to be going here, in utter disregard of public opinion. There is in Russia a desire and a pretence to respect public opinion. But here there is no such things. It is sheer dictatorship born of fear that if the Bill goes to the public it will be rejected. I find it is asserted that the public are in favour of it. If so, why not be public arm you with the authority to pass the law ? Sir, it is injurious to the Hindus in general; it is injurious to the ladies in the larger interests and it is injurious to the public at large, and it is no use forcing your opinion upon an unwilling public. Had it not been a matter of personal interest any one is entitled to enforce his opinion, but having come here as the Minister of Law in a democratic Government and basing their authority on public opinion, is it fair and proper for them to flout that public opinion and to bypass it, to circumvent it or avoid it ? It is a devious method, a circuitous course which is not warranted by any system of democratic Government. Why should you not go to the people if the law is favoured by them ? Are the people so backward in their ideas that they will not be able to determine what is good or bad for them ? The question is not what is good in the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES546 abstract, but what is good in the circumstances, and that depends on local conditions. There are certain practices which are considered to be good and there are others which are not and you make every body uniform; you are trying to make all the people uniform. The Honourable Minister for Law should try to make everybody as intelligent and as forceful as he is. Why should you stop at inequality; inequality is not bad. It is nature that there should be inequality in diversity. India is a big continental countries and it has developed according to its own genius and each province has a distinct culture of its own and why should you by one stroke of the pen remove all this and make the law the same? In fact, the great Hindu law-givers, they were extremely... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This is only a peroration and not an argument. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: They had tolerance and they did not enforce their law by force. A study of Manu Smriti will show that he never enforced his law. He said that the law should be enforced subject to the custom of the locality. That will be found by any one who has read it and therefore, the Hindu law givers did not like the law should be uniform. Their method of propagation of their law and their civilization was not by force, but rather by persuasion and they allowed free scope— I speak with authority, having read the whole thing; they allowed their law to spread on their own merit, not by their force. Local custom plays not only an important part now, but played an important part in the time of Manu and that is the reason why law is different today. It is an organic method according to local circumstances that leads to this difference of opinion. In fact differences are not bad. It is not a small country; it is a big country with all the attributes of a continent and this diversity as a matter of fact should not be done away with without adequate and careful thought. Sir, Mr. Kamath compared the present Bill to a new Smriti, Dr. Ambedkar’s 138th Smriti. I think this is not a Smriti at all, the Smriti proceeds from the srutis. There is a pretence to agree with the principles of these srutis. This is a Bill which is not a smriti but a new Veda, (Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : ‘It is vismriti !’). It is Vismriti i.e., forgetfulness of the past. All sacred laws and customs, rules, laws, decisions, principles of the Privy Council are brushed aside by one stroke of the pen by Dr. Ambedkar himself in defiance of the report of the Rau Committee. Everthing is gone. It is Vismriti

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 547 as Pandit Maitra with good humour suggests. It is vismriti —absolute forgetfulness. It is a new Veda. There are four Vedas, the Sama Veda, Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda. I think the new Veda should be called Dr. Amba Veda and this is the fifth veda in utter defiance and disregard of all the four Vedas which it supersedes. Sir, I thank you. * Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava : Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have been discussing the Hindu Code Bill from yesterday. We had discussed it in February also. Before I proceed to discuss the merits of this measure, which is admittedly of a highly controversial nature, which aims at the utter demolition of the structure of Hindu society. I would like to put on record my emphatic protest against the way in which the Government is pursuing this measure of vital importance, a matter of life and death to the Hindu Society. It is well known that this Bill was rushed through in the legislature almost on the last day, that is on the 9th of April 1948, when it was not discussed even to the extent that a very ordinary measure is usually discussed in this House. Further, in this session, we find that instead of giving consistent consideration to this matter the Government on the plea of want of time due to the Budget session, wishes to rush this Bill through this House. I would ask respectfully, though humbly, is it fair to the House that a measure of this vital importance, an equal of which, I submit, has never been on the anvil of this legislature since its inception should be rushed through in this manner ? However, it is for the Government to decide and I feel it my duty to sound a note of warning to the Government that it should pause and consider as to what is the haste and hurry about this matter, and why in preference to a number of very important and emergent measures, this Bill is being rushed through. I would ask what will happen to the Hindu society if the Hindu society could survive the onslaught of centuries of foreign aggression and foreign rule ? Will it die out of existence if this measure is not brought on the statute book ? I submit, Sir, this unusual haste and hurry is due to the fact which was hinted by my learned friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, that my honourable friend, the Law Minister is now sure that the public opinion of Hindus is behind the measure. I take courage even to submit, Sir, that the weight of public opinion is against the measure. What is the criterion to judge whether the public opinion is in favour of this measure or against it ? The only criterion that can possibly be applied to is: What is the weight of * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. III, Part II, 2nd April 1949, pp. 2276-89.