Vol. 14, Part II · pages 106–110

886 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES that my learned friend’s attempt to depict me in rather unsavoury colours has fallen to the ground. I will not deal with that further. Now, my friend’s objection was to sub-clause (d). He said that I am hoping in the convert to Hinduism. His point, if I understood it correctly, was that I have made no provision either here in clause 2 or in any other part of this Bill to have the rights of the convert in the family in which he was born. I must say that my friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad who legitimately claims a very extensive knowledge of law should have forgotten that there is a very old Act called the Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 which was passed just for this very purpose namely, to remove any disability from a person who wants to change his religon in order to safeguard what is called liberty of conscience. It was an Act which was passed on the agitation of the missionaries in this country who found that the Hindu were not prepared to change their religion because under the ancient Hindu Law a man who went out of the Hindu fold was a pant—a patit could not inherit property. In order to do away with that rule of Hindu Law this particular Act was passed and I have done nothing to abrogate the provisions of the Act. If my friend had refered to the Schedule which deals with the Acts which are repealed by this Code he would have found that the Caste Disabilities Removal Act is not included in that Schedule. Therefore, the convert will retain all the rights of inheritance in his father’s family if he wants to change his religion. And therefore Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad’s complaint is absolutely groundless. My friend said he had an objection to sub-clause (2). Sub-clause (2) says— “ This Code also applies to any other person who is not a Muslim. Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”. Obviously this sub-clause (2) is what I call a residuary clause, a clause which refers to the balance of people who are not included either among Hindus who are specifically mentioned or the Parsis, the Jews, the Christians, or the Muslims. There can be no doubt about it that there are in this country a vast number of people who do not follow any of these recognised religions, so to say. What are we going to do about it ? Certainly this Bill either should say that it does not apply to them or it should say that it does apply to them. And if it said that it does spply to them, it should say to what extent it applies to them. Everybody knows that there are in this country a vast number of people such as, for instance, the Adi Dravidas, the tribal people,

887 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL the jungle tribes, the backward classes, the animists, and so on and so on—one can go on enumerating ad infinitum. What about them ? Surely some provision must be made for them. Sub-clause (2) therefore applies to this class of people whom I called a residuary class. Now, it might be said that in making this Bill the Government has a political motive, namely, to absorb these non-descript people into the Hindu community so to say, by a side door. That is not our purpose at all, because you will see from the proviso what we are doing. The Hindu Code will apply to them only if it is proved that Hindu customs and Hindu usages are prevalent in that class; otherwise, they are free to do whatever they like. There, again, the criticism of my friend was quite misplaced. Prof. Ranga : Can they opt themselves out ? Dr. Ambedkar : Once they have adopted the customs and so on, they are in; otherwise they are out. Now, Sir, I will deal with certain points that were raised by my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava and by Sardar Hukam Singh. Sardar Hukam singh’s amendment is that it should not apply to the Sikhs. Later on, I suppose, he moderated his attitude and said that he had only objection to some parts. With regard to the question whether this Bill should apply to persons or communities other than Hindus in the strict sense of the word, I think it is desirable to have some general idea about the matter. The first thing that I would like to emphasize and which I would like Members of Parliament to bear in mind is this, that from a sociological point of view the variety of religions that we have in India or elsewhere seems to me to fall into two categories. There are religions which have as their part a legal system, which you cannot sever from those religions. There are religions which have no legal system at all, which are just pure matters of creed. The peculiarity about the Hindu religion, as I understand it, is this, that it is the one religion which has got a legal framework integrally associated with it. Now, it is very necessary to bear this thing in mind, because if one has a proper understanding of this, it would not be difficult to understand why Sikhs are brought under the Hindu religion, why Buddhists are brought under the Hindu religion and why Jains are brought under the Hindu religion. When the Buddha differed from the Vedic Brahmins, his difference was limited to matters of creed. The Buddha did not propound a separate legal system for his own followers; he left the legal system as it was. It may be that the legal system that then prevailed was a good system; that it had 4 P.M.

888 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES no blemishes and no faults. So, he did not direct his attention to making any changes in the legal system in consequence of the changes that he introduced in certain religious notions. [mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair .] In the same way, when Mahavir founded his own religion he did not create a new legal system for the Jains. He allowed the legal system to continue and I think Sardar Hukam Singh will correct me if I am wrong when I say that none of the ten Gurus ever created a law book as such for the Sikhs. The trouble is—you may call it trouble; you may call it good fortune; you may call it misfortune; I am not particular about words—the fact is this. In this country, although religions have changed, the law has remained one. That is why the Sikh follows the law. Sardar Hukam Singh : But now you are making a new law. Dr. Ambedkar : It is a new thing now. The Jains come and ask, “What are you going to do to us ? Are you going to make us Hindus ?” The Sikhs say the same thing. The Buddhists say the same thing. My answer to that is this : I cannot help it. You have been following a single law system and it is too late now for anyone to say that he shall reject this legal system wholesale and will have nothing to do with it. That cannot be done. Therefore, the application of the Hindu Law and the Hindu Code to Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs is a historical development to which you and I cannot now give any answer. All that we can do is to say that the thing has gone wrong and change it, reform it or make it more equitable and this is what we are doing. So far as the Sikhs are concerned, I find from the judgments of the Privy Council that this question was debated much earlier than even 1830, when the decision was taken that the Sikhs were Hindus so far as law is concerned. Just count from 1830 to 1950—for how many years you have been regarded as Hindus for legal purposes ! Sardar Hukam Singh: It has not been doubted. Dr. Ambedkar : In law, we have a principle which is called stare decisis—a decision taken a long time ago and on which people have gone had better be stayed although it is wrong. Sardar Hukam Singh : You are going to change it now. What should I do ? Dr. Ambedkar : Now, Sir, with regard to the points made by my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. I was really very happy to hear his speech.

889 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shri J. R. Kapoor : No praise will bring him into your parlour. Dr. Ambedkar : I have used no temptations. I now find that really he has been digging various trenches one after the other. He knows very well and I see from the last trench that he knows very well that he would not be able to defend the first trench or the second trench or the third trench. He has got a very small last trench which, of course, is concerned with ousting the married daughter and I think that if that point could be conceded his opposition would be extinguished completely. He has raised other questions also with regard to customary law. I agree and I have examined this position with great care. The Punjab Law does show that certain matters relating to personal law shall be decided by customary law, but I also know and I think my friend Thakur Das Bhargava also knows that the customary law is Hindu Law really. I do not think that that proposition can be denied, namely, that what is called customary law in Punjab is Hindu Law. The reason why it was not called Hindu Law was because the same customary law prevailed among the Muslims, and the East India Company was frightened about using the words “Hindu Law” when the law was also applicable to the Musalmans. But these are merely differences of words. It cannot be said that Punjab is not governed by Hindu Law : Punjab is governed by Hindu Law. Now his great point was that I was laying an axe on their customary laws in the province. Well, as I listened to some of the instances which both my friends Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava and Sardar Hukam Singh gave, I found that these customary laws were really not appealable in any sense. I would merely call their marriage laws marriage made easy, their divorce laws divorce made easy and their inheritance law inheritance made easy. There is nothing fundamentally different about it. Therefore, I am not going to discuss the question on this occasion,— what extent the customary law should be saved ; to what extent the Punjab should be excluded. But I want to make this statement that I should never agree to exempt any province from the operation of this law. Let there be no doubt about it at all that the Hindu Code shall be a uniform code throughout India. Either I will have that Bill in that form, or not have it at all. With regard to the second point as to saving customary law, I think that is a point that he could raise on the various clauses of the Bill where he wants to introduce the customary law, and if he proves that the deletion of the customary law is going to introduce any kind

890 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of hardship I shall certainly consider the matter with great sympathy. I want to make this Hindu Code as easy as I can possibly make it. Shri Tyagi : As marriage in Punjab ! Dr. Ambedkar : Easy in the sense that I do not want any kind of hostility, or hostile camp against the Hindu Code standing out. If my hon. friend sees clause 4 he will find that it does not altogether oust custom. Therefore, when any particular clause comes up for consideration, if my hon. friend considers that the existing custom in the Punjab should be saved from the operation of that particular clause and if he can make out a case for exemption, I have no doubt that the matter will be sympathetically considered. I do not intend to give a more detailed reply to that because I think it is quite outside the scope of this particular clause. *Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : rose— Shri Raj Bahadur : May I know how many more members are there to speak on amendments. Dr. Ambedkar : I suggest that this clause be disposed of today. We have spent two days on it and there has been more than enough debate on it. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Sir, I claim the credit of being isolated in the matter of this legislation. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : The hon. Member can come to the front bench and speak. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Will you let me sit there tomorrow during the question hour ? I confess that in this House I am isolated. But I hope the Hon. the Law Minister will have the courtesy to admit—which is a fact—that he is completely isolated outside this House. I do not regret the position in which I am placed, because I find that hon. Members of this House are afraid of speaking out the truth of telling the hon. lady Members of this House what they ought to be told that they are proving themselves far too aggressive. This, I respectfully submit, is not a matter to be laughed over. Hon. Members of this House would have noticed the way in which my revered friend Babu Ramnarayan Singh was squeezed out of his seat yesterday. It is only on account of the relenting heart of a certain lady Member that my hon. Friend has found his way to his seat. * P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II. 6th February 1951, pp. 2473-83.