Vol. 14, Part I · pages 801–805

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 783 later. We should decide clearly the nature of the motion. If it is a dilatory motion and if the hon. Member wants the motion to be considered, let us consider it here and now. We are not going to postpone that motion. I do not want to prevent any motion. If we have a dilatory motion, it must be decided here and now. Pandit Malaviya (Uttar Pradesh) : We know that there are very emphatic differences of opinion on this point; that acute differences of opinion exist between different sections of this House. Our Prime Minister has taken the practical view, and as we have the right to expect always, he has given us a lead in this matter and has said that this is a controversial issue on which a great deal of time has, in the very nature of things, to be given. May I appeal that since the matter is to be postponed, since no practical purpose is going to be served by our continuing this debate today on any motion or on any section; since there is a very keen and definite difference of opinion on this issue; and since the question of the enactment of the Hindu Code itself will not in any way be advanced by its being taken up now, may I respectfully submit that no section, no viewpoint, will lose anything if we leave the matter where it stands, as the item is going to be postponed. If the intention were to take the Bill into consideration and make any real progress, I would have nothing to say because, then, every Member would have the opportunity of expressing his views, and then whatever the house decided in its collective wisdom, would come on the Statute Book. But, since, according to the course suggested, no real progress is going to be made, I suggest that the very great opposition, the very great anxiety which prevails in the country should not be worsened, should not be deepened. I know that one view unfortunately is that it does not matter what the country thinks on this matter. But there is the other view that every side of the question should be carefully considered and respected. I do not wish to go into that matter in detail now. But I most earnestly appeal to Government not to do an unnecessary thing which will serve no useful purpose, but which will, on the other hand, create still greater resentment and dissatisfaction in the country. I submit that if we are going to postpone this matter and I fully approve the proposal—we should do so wholeheartedly instead of saying that we are postponing and yet we are not postponing, we are not taking it up now and yet we are taking it up, we are not going on with it and yet we are going on with it. Therefore, if the matter is to be

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES784 postponed it should be postponed immediately as it is till such future date as Government may fix for it. Pandit M. B. Bhargava (Ajmer): I have not been able to follow the Hon. Law Minister’s proposal. Does he want the Chair to rule for all time to come that in this House no adjournment motion shall be brought forward ? It is a constitutional issue that is sought to be raised and it is for the Chair to rule. As I understand it, it is an absolute right of every Member of the House to bring forward an adjournment motion at any time. Of course it will be for the Chair to admit it or not. If the Chair thinks that it is a dilatory motion it will not grant permission. Even if the Chair rules that such a motion is admissible, then it will be for the House to discuss it and then accept it or reject it. But so far as the right of a Member is concerned, it is an absolute right and he can move an adjournment motion at any stage. If you put clause 2 to the House and say that any time during the progress of the Bill there can be no postponement whatsoever, it is a constitutional issue. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That is subject to the speaker’s consent. Mr. Speaker : I do not think I will express any opinion just at present as to whether in future any motion for adjournment can or would be allowed. That will depend upon the circumstances existing at the time such a motion is brought before the House. The Hon. Law Minister’s point seems to be that the House is—not constitutionally or legally but— morally committed to the position that no dilatory motions just with a view to obtain the postponement of the Bill should be brought forward . . . . . . Dr. Ambedkar : That is all. Mr. Speaker : That seems to be his only point. I do not think that he meant to fetter the constitutional rights of Members. I would, therefore suggest that instead of putting clause 2 to the House and then postponing the matter, let us adjourn straightaway without putting the motion on clause 2 of the Bill, with a declaration about our moral commitment that such a motion will not be brought forward just for the purpose of securing postponement and no other object. Some Hon. Members : No, no. Mr. Speaker : The point is very important one. While the Law Minister was making a statement to that effect, though I could see his point and the force of it, I myself am not expressing a final opinion. I am open to conviction. No one need think that it will be possible

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 785 to bar each and every Member of this House from bringing an adjournment motion, if one is inclined to do so. The Chair may refuse to put it on the ground that it is a dilatory motion but that will depend upon the circumstances then existing when such a motion is brought forward. From my point of view it really makes no difference whether clause 2 is put and then the matter is adjourned. Therefore, as I said ; I would make a declaration about this moral binding on the part of the members of this House not to have any dilatory motion so far as this Bill is concerned and then adjourn the matter. I would therefore not like to have that constitutional issue raised again nor keep it alive for a second time as to whether such a motion could or could not be brought forward. I will proceed to adjourn the business and Government. . . . Dr. Ambedkar : Do these motions then stand out ? Mr. Speaker : These motions will fall through. Dr. Ambedkar : What is the fate of these motions ? Mr. Speaker : The members do not press the motions. If they had pressed their motions, then I was bound to put them to the House. Some Hon. Members : They have not said so. Mr. Speaker : I have asked them. Mr. R. K. Chaudhari : Because a moral question has been raised I would rather like to have my motion put to the House and the House will decide whether it is dilatory or not. Mr. Speaker : Then the position is quite clear. I will straightaway put it to the House and then we may proceed further. I am putting Mr. R. K. Chaudhari’s motion to the House now. Shri R. K. Chaudhari : Sir, on a maturer and second consideration I, do not propose to press my motion. Mr. Speaker : So, since the consideration of the matter is now mature, let us proceed to postpone this and Government may fix a date .... Some Hon. Members : He should withdraw by leave of the House. Mr. Speaker : Our rule is when no motion is moved no leave is necessary. Shrimati Durgabai (Madras) : I want to know whether this adjournment motion is under consideration. Mr. Speaker : The whole thing falls through. The adjournment motions that they have tabled fall through. Nothing remains now. They

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES786 have been asked and they do not press them. As regards the others that have tabled similar motions they were not present when they were called upon to move. That is the position. Now the debate is being adjourned. It is not possible to bind all people for all time. If the circumstances arise we shall then meet them. Shri Tyagi : Only such persons who have moved . . . . Mr. Speaker : Unfortunately the hon. Member does not seem to have followed the discussion. No motion has been placed before the House by me. Unless I place a motion before the House there is no occasion for putting it to the vote of the House or even to withdraw it. Shri Tyagi : There is no moral obligation then ? Mr. Speaker : The moral obligation is there. Shri Tyagi : I would rather prefer to be immoral. Shrimati Durgabai : These motions were moved but not pressed. Mr. Speaker : These motions are not moved at all. I have not placed them before the House. Shrimati Durgabai : The hon. Member moved and then did not press his motion. Mr. Speaker : What difference does it make ? If he moves the motion and it is voted against, does it mean that no such motion can ever be brought again ? Shri Tyagi : Today only we are morally bound. Mr. Speaker : It is a moral binding for all time. Let there be no further discussion. We shall proceed to the next item of business. Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal) : rose — Mr. Speaker : The matter is closed and there can be no further discussion.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR WRITINGS AND SPEECHES PUBLISHED VOLUMES Vol. 1 l Castes in India l Annihilation of Caste, Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province, Need for Checks and Balances l Thoughts on Linguistic States l Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah, Evidence before the Southborough Committee, Federation versus Freedom l Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It l States and Minorities l Small Holdings in India, Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society Vol. 2 l In the Bombay Legislature l With the Simon Commission l At the Round Table Conferences Vol. 3 l Philosophy of Hinduism l India and Pre-Requisites of Communism l Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India l Buddha or Karl Marx l Schemes of Books Vol. 4 l Riddles in Hinduism Vol. 5 l Untouchables or the Children of India’s Ghetto and other Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability Social—Political—Religious