Vol. 14, Part II · pages 101–105

881 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Bill as it was placed before the House at the time of the first reading. This clause was introduced in the course of the proceedings of the Select Committee. The idea of those who sponsored sub-clause (4) was this. It was their view that since the intention of the Code was to bring all Hindus under all denominations under the purview of this Code, there was no purpose in setting apart those Hindus who had already performed their marriages under the Special Marriage Act of 1872. It was for that reason to make the Bill all inclusive, that this sub-clause (4) was brought in. I have however found that there is one point which was, I am sure, not present to the mind of the Select Committee when they introduced this clause. It is quite obvious that if sub-clause (4) remained and it applied to persons who were married under the Special Marriage Act of 1872, they would, in the matter of succession and inheritance be governed by the present provisions contained in this particular Code. Now, anyone who is aware of the provisions contained in the Succession Act with regard to inheritance and the provisions contained in this Bill will have no doubt that so far as women are concerned, the provisions of the Succession Act are far more liberal than the provisions contained in the present Code. It does not, therefore, seem right that people who have already married under a particular law and have on that account, become entitled to the more liberal provisions contained in the Succession Act should be dragged down and brought under the present Code which as I said, contains provisions relating to inheritance which are somewhat illiberal as compared with the other provisions. It is for that reason that I propose that sub-clause (4) should be omitted. Now, Sir, I will turn to the points made by the critics of clause (2). Examining the amendments that have been tabled, I do not find any difference between myself and my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. His amendments is, more or less, the same as those contained in clause 2. I will presently explain why I have in my draft, named certain communities which he thinks is unnecessary. With regard to the other amendments, one can see that there are really three points which the amendments seek to make. One is this that there is no necessity for a Hindu Code at all. What is necessary is a Civil Code applicable to all citizens. That is one point, of view which is adumbrated in the amendments. The second is that this very Code which is placed before the House and which, according to its terms, is intended to be confined to the Hindu community should be made applicable to non-Hindus, such

882 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES as Muslims, Parsis, Jews, Christians and so on. That is to say, it should itself be regarded as a Civil Code, and the third suggestion is that the application of the Code should be voluntary. It should be a matter of choice either for any particular citizen or any particular member of the Hindu society to go before a magistrate and to register his will that he would like to be governed by this particular Code. In no other circumstances should this Code be made applicable in this country. And I believe there is one suggestion—I forget now the author of that suggestion—that this Bill should not come into operation except on a referendum to be taken after the elections or something like that. Pandit M. B. Bhargava : That comes up later. Dr. Ambedkar : Somebody said that, I cannot recall who. Shri J. R. Kapoor : He intends to say so later on. Dr. Ambedkar : Yes. Now, I must say that I am very very much surprised to see some of those who until yesterday were the greatest opponents of this Code and the greatest champions of the archaic Hindu Law as it exists to day should come forward and say that they are now prepared for an All-India Civil Code. There is a proverb that a leopard does not change its spots and I cannot believe that those leopards which have been pouncing upon this Bill every time I came before this House have now suddenly so reformed their mentality as to become revolutionary enough to accept a new Code altogether. If they want a Civil Code, do they think that it will take very long to have a Civil Code ? Probably the underlying motive why they have made this suggestion is this. As it has taken four or five years to draft the Hindu Code they will probably take ten years to draft a Civil Code. I would like to tell them that the Civil Code is there. If they want it it can be placed before the House within two days. If they are ready and willing to swallow it, we can pass it in this House in half an hour. What is the Civil Code ?—let me ask. The Indian Succession Act is a Civil Code. Unfortunately it does not apply to Hindus. I do not know if there is any person with the greatest amount of legal ingenuity who can devise a better Civil Code than the Indian Succession Act. All that would be necessary to make the Indian Succession Act universal and civil, that is to say, applicable to all citizens, would be to add a clause that the words contained in clause 2 of the Act, namely that it shall not apply to Hindus, be deleted and then you

883 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL can have a Civil Code tomorrow. If you want the marriage law as part of your Civil Code there again the text is ready. The Special Marriage Act is there. All that you have to do is to remove the words that it shall not apply to this or that it shall only apply to that. All that you have to say in clause 2 is that it shall apply to all citizens and there is an end of the matter. I want to know whether those who have made this suggestion have done it with a serious intention and pious purpose of really having a good law on these matters. . . Shri Sondhi (Punjab) : Take them at their word. Dr. Ambedkar : I am not prepared to do it, because I know them very well. That is the reason why yesterday I did not accept the suggestion of my friend Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhary. He said, “Adopt whatever measures and either take the Code through or if you cannot take it through, keep it to the end.” I could have accepted the word and the suggestion of my friend Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhary if I could believe and trust him or that he will not have any opposition if I adopted the course that he suggested. I now find that he has been completely isolated. Some of his friends who were walking with him and forming a solid front, I find have now fallen away. They have seen light and they are prepared to support the measure in some parts, if not on the whole. Therefore, this idea of having a Civil Code just does not appeal to me, because I do not think there is either much firmness behind it or, I was almost going to say, seriousness behind it. With regard to the plea that this Code should be applied to all citizens, I think my friend Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava has replied to the critics who have made this suggestion and I do not think I can improve upon what he has said. I do not know that those who made this suggestion could be regarded as so ignorant—I was almost going to say so foolish—as not to realise the sentiments of different communities in this country ? It is all very good to say that we have proposed in our Constitution a Secular State. I have no idea whether any Members, when they use these words “Secular State” really mean what the Constitution is intended to mean. It does not mean that we can abolish religion : it does not mean that we shall not take into consideration the religious sentiments of the people. All that a secular State means is that this Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. That is the only limitation that the Constitution recognises. We are not here to fluot the sentiments of the people.

884 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Babu Ramnarayan Singh : You are doing it. Dr. Ambedkar : I am not doing it at all, as I will show you. Therefore, it seems to me that it is a suggestion which really lacks even commonsense and I do not therefore propose to deal with it. Now in regard to the other question that the Code should be made voluntarily applicable. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. What does this suggestion mean ? It means that this Parliament is only a body to recommend a certain thing. All that the Parliament can do, if we accept the suggestion is to say to the people outside. “ This is a law we have passed. We think it is good. Gentlemen, it is for you to say whether you will accept it or not.” If that is the position that we are going to adopt and if we accept this principle now, we shall be setting a precedent and there will be no end to such recommendations that may be made by Parliament, namely that much of its legislation should be left to be passed by people outside on a referendum. I do want to say that this Parliment is a Sovereign Parliament. Beyond seeking the mandate of the people it has no obligation to the people to obtain their consent. It can decide what it likes. It is supreme : It has authority to make a law, to unmake a law. If every time this Parliament is to be subjected to the vote of the ignorant people outside who do not know the A.B.C. of the technicalities of the law, this Parliament will have to be suspended : it would be much better not to have a Parliament at all. Secondly, I have not seen any single example in the history of the Legislative Assembly of this country of such a course being recommended to Parliament. This is not the first time that Parliament is passing a law dealing with Hindu Law. I have made a modest computation of the laws passed by the Indian Legislature ever since legislative power began to be exercised, practically from 1833. Altogether 29 laws have been passed, some of them of a very drastic character making fundamental changes, but there never was any plea in this House that any of those laws should be left to be passed and sanctioned by public opinion or public referendum. ( An hon. Member : They were not elected legislatures). It is worse still. Even when the legislatures were not elected legislatures, they exercised the lawmaking power and imposed it upon the people. Now when the legislature is far more representative than it ever was a plea is made that this Parliament cannot make a law for the people. An Hon. Member : Nobody has said that.

885 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Dr. Ambedkar : That is what some hon. Members suggested when they said there should be a referendum. Now, I will go back to some of the comments which were made on the draft of clause 2. These comments were made particularly by my friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, and my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. Yesterday you were not in the Chair, Sir, but . . . Prof. Ranga (Madras): But the Chair was there. Dr. Ambedkar : The Chair was there. What I wanted to say was that Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad started in a very accusing mood. He tried to prejudice the House against me by saying that the language of my amendments was mandatory : “ substitute this.” He thought that the more polite way of putting down amendments was to say, such-and-such words shall be substituted for such-and-such words”. Really speaking, I need not have taken this point seriously because drafting is not my business—drafting is the business of another body of people who have their set rules of drafting and I could have very easily said that I am not responsible for it. But I did make enquiry into the matter whether the draftsman in using the language which he has used bad really fallen from grace or from the usual standard. The facts are these. For instance, the formula suggested by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad that is, “such-and-such a word shall be substituted”, I found is generally used when you draft an Act. There seems to be a distinction between the language adopted in drafting an Act and the language to be adopted in drafting an amendment. Therefore, as the draftsman was drafting the amendments he did not use the usual formula which I said is used in drafting an Act. The second thing is this. As the House will remember, the President has issued certain orders under the Constitution which he is entitled to issue. In that series of orders—I think it is a very fat book which some of my hon. Friends must have seen—the language that is used is the language which the draftsman has used in these amendments. He says, “I have followed the precedent which has been adopted by the President, in making these amendments”. I went further and enquired, “Why did the President depart from the usual practice” ? And the answer given was that the orders were so bulky that it was necessary to economise in printing paper and ink. Therefore, the draftsman who helped the President in framing his orders followed this particular way of putting these amendments. My draftsman, therefore, has really committed no error, no fault, in following the percedent adopted in the Constitutional orders. I, therefore, submit