Vol. 14, Part I · pages 781–785

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 763 discussion, and give and take which might prevail more easily if the procedure were more flexible and informal. Therefore, I make this proposal to the House and I do submit that in this matter, having considered all the discussions and debate that we have gone through, this is a reasonable proposal which should meet with the approval of all sections of the House because it is an attempt, a real attempt on the part of the Government to carry some thing through this House and through the country with the largest measure of support. That does not mean that in any matter over which we may disagree violently we give up our opinions or surrender to anyone else’s judgment. No one expects any Member of this House to do that if he believes in something. But it is the essence of democratic procedure for us to debate and consider and try to convince each other and try to meet each others points, but somethings giving up sometime so as to arrive at a decision which can be enforced with the largest measure of consent that is the procedure. I would submit to the House, that we should follow in this important measure also. I do not wish the house to think in the slightest degree that we consider that this Hindu Code Bill is not of importance, because we do attach the greatest importance to it, as I said, not because of any particular clause or anything, but because of the basic approach to this vast problem in this country which is intimately allied to other problems, economic and social. We have achieved political freedom in this country, political independence. That is a stage in the journey and there are other stages, economic, social and others, and if society is to advance, there must be this integrated advance on all fronts. One advance on one front and being kept back on other fronts means functioning imperfectly, and also means that the first advance also is in danger. Therefore, we have to consider this matter in this spirit, how we should advance on all fronts, always keeping in view, of course, that the advance is co-ordinated and meets with the approval of the great majority of the population. I say this because, after all, we function as a democratic assembly answerable to the people of India, and we must carry them with us. Keeping that in view it is not good enough for us and for this House merely to be led. We have to lead and we have to give the lead, and in giving that lead we have to carry others with us, and we propose to give the lead in this and in other matters, but always carrying others with us.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES764 This, therefore, is the procedure that I have detailed, that is to say, that we may put an end to the present stage of consideration of this motion by adopting it, and then the House may permit Government to take those informal steps which I have indicated in regard to consultation about the various parts and clauses. That might be undertaken so that when the matter comes up again, as I hope, at the next session, it may have the support of a very great majority in this House and outside. *The Honourable Shri Satyanarayan Sinha (Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs) : Sir, I move: “That the question be now put.” Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad ( West Bengal : Muslim): May I ask for a clarification ? Mr. Speaker : I do not think we need take any more time now, specially in view of the very frank statement made by the hon. the Leader of the House just now. I may remind hon. Members that this stage of the motion has been debated for full nine days and to-day is the tenth day. Thirty three speakers have taken part in it and we have devoted thirty hours and twenty eight minutes. I think the time devoted is sufficient and…………. An Honourable Member : May I know ………. Mr. Speaker : I am not bound to give any reasons when I accept a closure, but I think I should also explain what I feel about it. I am convinced from the statement just now made by the hon. the Prime Minister that everybody inside the House and outside the House is going to have a full chance of having a say with respect to the various provisions of the Bill. The present stage is the stage of general consideration and we are not discussing any particular clause of any particular item. It is possible that people may differ about details and yet so far as the generality of the Bill is concerned, there might be a great measure of agreement. If we were to continue our discussion at this stage, I am afraid our discussion is bound to be very vague, general and rambling; perhaps it will consist of repetitions also. The more important stage, therefore, is the clause by clause consideration of the Bill and before that stage comes, hon. Members will have every opportunity of considering all questions and discussing them with the Government and also other people outside the House. * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VII, Part II, 19th December 1949, pp. 785-87.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 765 Therefore, I think that proceeding with the further consideration of the Bill will mean practically a waste of time. I am therefore inclined to accept this closure and I would then call the Hon. Minister of Law to speak. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam : General): I would like to make a statement. Mr. Speaker : What statement is the hon. Member going to make? If I permit the hon. Member to make a statement, everybody will feel entitled to make a statement. The hon. Member will please resume his seat. Shri Mahavir Tyagi ( U. P. : General): I want to have an interpretation from you, Sir whether, after this motion is adopted at this stage, would it mean that the House would be committed to the principles of all the clauses of the Bill? Mr. Speaker : I will clarify the position. In fact, when the House accepted the motion for reference to Select Committee, it accepted the principle of the Bill. Now, in a Bill of this type, it is very difficult to decide what the principle is, because every clause may be made into a principle. I may make the position clear. Looking to the extent of the provisions of this Bill—its wide extent—it is clear that the only principle accepted by the House is that it is desirable to codify the Hindu Law and every provision of the Bill is open for discussion, alteration, change and all that sort of thing. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Then we have no objection Sir. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : I want to make a suggestion to the House on this motion. Closure may be moved and accepted. I have no objection to that. I do not want any further discussion on that subject. As a matter of fact, in order to create an atmosphere of compromise, I have myself not spoken in opposition to it. What I want to suggest is that this motion may not be put to the vote now. We want to convince the opposition outside that a practical gain has been made by the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker : I think that after the statement of the hon. the Leader of the House as regards the procedure and what I have said as regards what is going to be binding and what is not going to be binding, there remains no doubt as to the effect of carrying this consideration motion. In fact, it is not desirable to keep that point open so that when the consideration is again taken up, there may be further discussions and further inducements to speeches. I will therefore put the motion to the House.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES766 Dr. P. S. Deshmukh ( C. P. and Berar : General) : On a point of order, Sir. We have all heard the excellent suggestion made by the hon. the Prime Minister and there is no doubt that the House is likely to accept it. My point of order is that the question before the House is a motion for consideration. The suggestion now made really means referring the Bill back to the Select Committee. Some Honourable Members : No, no. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I put it to you, Sir, that this is circumventing the parliamentary procedure. The only procedure rightful and just, would be to commit the Bill to the Select Committee, either the same or an expanded committee. The suggestion made is against parliamentary procedure and should not be accepted. If the suggestion is acceptable to the House, I have not the slightest objection, but the regular procedure is to commit the Bill to the same Select Committee or a Select Committee, which may be enlarged. Mr. Speaker : I see the force of the Hon. Member’s objection from the procedural point of view, but what the hon. the Leader of the House has done is not to place any motion for further consideration before the House. He has merely explained his position. He has stated how the Government is going to act and how it will proceed with the consideration of the clauses of the Bill? There is no reference there for further reference to any formal Committee of this House. If such a motion were to be made, then of course I would have been glad to accept that point of order. At present there is no such motion before the House, and I think it is not against parliamentary procedure. On the contrary, even if it is a little different from the ordinary procedue, as, in my opinion democracy means a spirit of accommodation and give and take, we must evolve a new procedure. I will now put the motion to the House. The question is “That the question be now put.” The motion was negatived. * The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar ( Minister of Law) : Sir, there are before the House in all three motions. Two of them are sponsored by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. One of them proposes a reference of the Bill to the Select Committee for further consideration. The second motion proposes that the Bill be circulated for eliciting further public opinion. In addition to them there is my motion before the House * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VII, Part II, 19th December 1949, pp. 787-92.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 767 which proposes consideration of the report of the Select Committee. I propose to say a few words with regard to the motions moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. The one thing that I have noticed in the course of the debate which has ranged over nine days, is that it has had no support even from the opponents of the Bill. At the most, only two members out of the thirty three, who have taken part in this debate, have favoured his proposition. The rest of them have not supported him at all. Secondly it is quite clear to those who have followed his speech which was for more than six hours, that notwithstanding the fact that he was questioned from time to time while he was speaking to give us the reasons why this Bill should again be referred to the Select Committee or circulated to the public, he has in my judgment not succeeded in giving us any good ground for supporting his motions. I therefore, think that it is unnecessary for me to waste my time as well as the time of the House in dealing with his two motions. Now Sir, I come to my own motion. As you have said, there have been altogether thirty three speakers who have taken part in this debate. I would like to give to the House some idea of the measure of support and the measure of opposition exhibited by the members of the House to this measure. Out of the thirty three members who have taken part in this debate, something like twenty three have spoken in favour. Out of these twenty three, there were only two who have said that they were prepared to give only qualified support to this Bill. Three remained neutral; three were for circulation and four for the postponement of the consideration of the Bill. It is therefore, quite clear that a very large majority of the Members of this House are in favour of the Bill—as I said, as many as twenty-three. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : But does he know that thirty-four persons who wanted to oppose the Bill, whose names were given had no opportunity to speak? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am only making an analysis of the speeches of those who have spoken. (Interruption). Mr. Speaker : Order, order. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Taking the matter a little further and analysing the stand taken by those who have opposed the measure in order to see which part of the Bill has been attacked, I find that in this Bill which seeks to codify the Hindu Law relating to eight matters, there are five to which there has been no opposition whatsoever.