Vol. 14, Part I · pages 796–800

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES778 we consider certain objections and later on at a suitable time we take up the clause by clause consideration. That entirely satisfies my point of view. It would be for the Government to consider and fix a suitable date or time. We no doubt technically accepted the principles of the Bill, but subject to a certain understanding. Though not incorporated in the proceedings, the Hon. Law Minister gave an undertaking that he will seek representative public opinion conversant with the Hindu Law, and suggest amendments to the Bill. As I have already submitted, though the first reading was passed, it was substantially subject to Government being able to find suitable amending formulae to be placed before the House, and which would be acceptable to both sides. I find, however, that a large number of amendments of a very important character have been tabled by the Hon. the Law Minister. I also find that a very large number of amendments have been tabled by the members. There are 17 lists already before us and from the newspaper reports, I find that Government have decided to hold another final session for clause by clause consideration. There is every reason to suppose that if it were not so, many more amendments would have come and that is a matter for serious consideration. My point is this. These are very important matters. In clause by clause consideration, we must not lose sight of the fact that the House is very seriously divided in matters of detail. In these circumstances, it would be better, I submit, for Government to give the House sufficient time to consider, the amendments, and find out the points of agreement. The Hon. Law Minister said that he consulted a number of people ; but he did not, so far as I am aware, consult the different sections of the House which were opposed to the principles of the Bill. A number of Members opposed the first Reading who have not been consulted. Shri Tyagi : All of them were not Hindus. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : At least there was one who was not a Hindu, that is myself. The point is this. All these matters could not properly be discussed and decided upon on the floor of the House. They go to the fundamentals of the Bill. Each clause is practically a new and important subject. Each clause calls for a detailed consideration. Therefore, my submission is that the Government should give us time and should be willing to sit at a Round Table Conference to straighten out all these differences so that a Bill more acceptable

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 779 to the House in general may be evolved. These things should not be allowed to be decided on the spur of the moment and on the floor of the House. Great things have happened meanwhile. The Indian States have been integrated. Their opinions were never taken. I believe agricultural land is now within the purview of the Bill. This creates another new situation. Therefore, in the light of important amendments coming from Government, and in view of the extension of the area geographically as well as to subjects. I think enough time should be given so that full consideration may be given to the Bill by members. There should be good machinery to settle these differences so that some agreed or some largely agreed formulae may be evolved. On a controversial legislation like this, we should be given sufficient time. I submit that the point of view I submitted during the first reading stage was fully justifed in view of the fact that at that time, the Hindu community’s attention was not sufficiently drawn to it. My objection has again been justified by the fact that Government, itself has come forward with a large number of substantial amendments. My task is done. I supposed at that time that I was doing a public duty in drawing attention to certain defects which would have otherwise escaped attention. What kind of law would suit this House and the Hindu community is really primarily a matter for the Hindus. I am not primarily interested in the exact form and shape in which the Hindu Code is to be passed. My position is merely to indicate certain practical considerations and suggest amendments. From these points of view, I think Government should consider the matter and let us know what they want to do, and I am ready to offer constructive help to the passage of the Bill. The exact shape which the disputed clauses will take is not a matter of much personal interest to me, though not a matter in which I have no concern at all. I submit that these are matters which would induce Government to give us sufficient time and devise a machinery to solve the differences of opinion and adopt a code which would be more or less acceptable generally to the House. That is all I have to submit. Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : On a point of information, Sir. The hon. Member had two amendments, one for adjournment sine die and .... Mr. Speaker : I am not permitting that. I was just considering as to what would be the best form of the motion. One is for a special session, and the other is still a date during

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES780 the Budget Session ; the third is, sometime after the Budget Session is over. Shall we postpone till the next session ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I am entirely in the hands of Government. Mr. Speaker : “The usual amendment is of course till the next Session. Shall I say : “That the debate on the Hindu Code Bill be adjourned to a date during or after the next Budget Session ?” 3 P.M. Dr. Ambedkar : So far as the objective is concerned, there is, of course, no dispute between Members of Government and others who are in perfect harmony with Government’s view on this subject, namely, that more time may be given to Members to study the Bill and to give their considered opinions. As the Prime Minister just now said, it is not the intention of Government to proceed seriatim with the consideration of the Bill, clause by clause. Therefore, my submission is this, that it should be left to Government to take up the Hindu Code Bill next session whenever they want to take it. They may have a special session, they may have a larger Budget session, so that part of it may be devoted to the Hindu Code Bill and part to the usual Budget discussion or it may call for some other session after the Budget Session. I do not want Government’s hands to be tied down by any particular motion. As I said, I do not propose to carry through this Bill during this session. It is quite impossible. And it might probably be quite unfair. All the same, I want to oppose the motion, because I do not want to postpone the consideration of the Bill as a result of the motion moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Government have given an assurance and Government will abide by it. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not know why I should become the target of these oblique remarks. Mr. Speaker : Therefore, I need not seriously consider the form of the motion. Dr. Ambedkar : He may move all the motions and we shall negative them. Shri Tyagi : Or we may move the previous question and this question may be postponed. Mr. Speaker : I do not think that is necessary. Well, supposing I say that the matter is adjourned and we take the next business ? Dr. Ambedkar : May I suggest that it would be very good, in my judgment, if you, after disposing of the motion by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad ....

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 781 Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Dispose of me! Dr. Ambedkar : If after disposing of it, you merely say that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. And then I myself will move that the further consideration of the Bill be now postponed. I am prepared to put the Hindu Code Bill at the bottom of Government’s agenda. Shri R. K. Chaudhari : I had tabled an amendment, though I cannot say exactly what it is, because I have not got the papers with me now. I was not prepared for this subject. But if I remember a right, my motion was that we may have a special session for the purpose of dealing with the Hindu Code Bill. My grievance against bringing this sort of discussion in the midst of a very busy session is that we cannot get proper opportunity to study the subject. Therefore, I want to have this question considered in a special session. Shri M. A. Ayyangar (Madras) : After all, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad’s motion only asks that sufficient time should be allowed to Members. And the Prime Minister has also agreed to this. Therefore, I would request Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad not to press his motion, and now, in view of the Prime Minister’s statement, this may be adjourned to some day next session. And it is for Government to fix the date during the next session, or call for a special session immediately thereafter. Now that we agree that we should not take up the clause by clause consideration of the Bill, I think both sides are satisfied. Therefore, let the Prime Minister’s statement be accepted and Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad need not press his amendment. Therefore, this may be adjourned to some day next session and it will mean that the Prime Minister or Government will fix the date that is suitable and convenient. Dr. Ambedkar : May I again intervene ? I do not want a repetition of what has been taking place in this House. Every time this Bill comes in, some hon. Member takes it into his head to move a dilatory motion. Now this thing must stop. We have reached a stage when it is proper that the Bill should be taken up clause by clause, and therefore, in token of the fact that the House has consented to the consideration of the Bill, clause by clause, I would request you, that you should put clause 2 to the House ; and thereafter we may adjourn the discussion. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I think the object of these oblique remarks is my humble self. I can give even a fuller undertaking that I will not bring in any dilatory motion.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES782 Mr. Speaker : But there are not only the positions stated by the Law Minister and Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, but there is also the difficulty of Mr. Chaudhari. Therefore, I think what I should do is this. I shall place the motions before the House and it can vote upon them. Shri R. K. Chaudhari : But I have to explain my motion, Sir. Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member has already explained it. I don’t think any further time need be taken over this. Shri M. A. Ayyangar : May I tell Mr. Chaudhari that as the object of his motion is that this question should be adjourned to a special session, we will assume that it is defeated. It is impossible to have a special session. Anyway, let us leave the entire matter in the hands of Government. They may tag it on to the Budget session to fix some convenient time. Why should he commit to have a special session ? If government finds it necessary to have one, they may have one. It does not serve any purpose committing them to have a special session. Dr. Pattabhi (Madras) : The attitude of Government has more or less taken a change favourable to a more leisurely consideration of this subject. I do not want to dilate upon the subject at any great length. But I shall certainly object to the Hon. the Law Minister saying in a pedagogic manner that this kind of asking for adjournment will not be allowed. It must be allowed. It is the right of every member of this house to use all legitimate methods of opposition where there is an honest and sincere conviction on the side of opposition. I do not go the length of Balfour who said that it is the duty of the opposition to oppose the Government by all fair means if possible, and by all foul means, if necessary. But I will only say this much that if the Prime Minister in the abundance of his wisdom admitted that there are two schools of thought, and he has conceded the adjournment of the proposition very generously and very fairly, in view of that for the Hon. Law Minister to assume this professorial, pedagogic and pontifical attitude, is not desirable. It will only alienate attitudes that have almost been reconciled. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : And persons call up an opposition where there is none now! Shri Jawaharlal Nehru : I want to make it perfectly clear that I stand by every word that the Hon. Law Minister has said. The position is this. Everyone feels that there should be fuller time for the consideration of this question, and therefore we decided to suggest to the House that the clause by clause consideration might take place