Vol. 14, Part II · pages 136–140

916 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES with children and forget many of his worries, he is not prepared to greet their first arrival in this country. He has said so openly, and the prospect of more and more children certainly frightens him as well as it frightens everyone. It is a patent fact. I have no doubt our Muslim friends will realize it and try to fall in line, whatever their present religious law or practice may be. So it is not as if there are insurmountable barriers in the way of evolving a common civil code for this country. I would like to quote the example of China. It is as ancient as our country. Apart from the ancient texts, they have recently evolved a civil law which embraces and tries to enact the three principles of the people enunciated by Dr. Sun Yat Sen. These principles, as the House knows, are nationalism, democracy and popular economic progress. We can very well follow the example of China, as we are placed in a similar situation, and try to put in our principles, the principles that the Father of the Nation placed before the country, and make them a reality. Nothing would have pleased him better than the bringing within the ambit of one civil code all the great religions that inhabit this country, My hon. friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava waxed eloquent and welcomed most of the things that are found in the Code because he was sure that they would not apply to him. He welcomed all the salient features of the Code because he was sure that they would form the basis for the future civil code of this country, and he felt that this was a right step in that direction. But I am afraid I am unable to accept his plea. I am afraid it only side-tracks and postpones the question of evolving a civil code. Now that we have done our best by the Hindu community we would not bother about a common civil code, because the impression generally is—and I think there is good ground for it—that we are prepared to meddle with everything that is Hindu but we are fighting shy when it concerns others.] Prof. Ranga : One by one. Shri Alagesan : I only wish that the prophesy of the professor will come true, that you will approach others also and try to reform them also. But as it is, the impression is gaining ground—and that is the ruling impression—that we are prepared here to go only to the Hindu community and none else. And that in my opinion is the chief psychological barrier to the passing of this measure. I hope the Hon. Law Minister with all his ingenuity will devise something which will dispel this

917 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL misapprehension and try to convince not only the members of this House but also the people outside and then launch upon his offensive. *Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa) : Sir, I thank you very much for having given me a chance to have my say in the course of discussions over the Hindu Code Bill. I was really trying to play the role of a backbencher in regard to the discussions on this Bill. But certain views expressed by the Hon. Minister of Law have goaded me to speak and record my protest. In the course of his speech—need I say very lucid and analytical, speech—he used certain choice expressions which are not only unwarranted but uncalled for. He has declined the demand for a referendum. I am not very much in favour of a referendum. I am not very much in favour of a referendum after all that has taken place. But to call it ‘absurd’ is as absurd as the absurdity itself. You are going to legislate on very important matters, namely, questions relating to marriage, divorce, adoption, joint family, women’s property, succession, maintenance and the rest. The Hon. the Law Minister himself has recognized and admitted that the system of Hindu Law involves not only the legal frames of the society but also of our religious precepts would it be fair for him to take up the legislation of such important questions which concern the society, the life and living of crores of people of this country, without consulting the people themselves ? In the course of his speech he stated that he does not know of any country where a plebiscite is taken for legislation. Even in ordinary matters, such as nationalisation and the rest, important political parties have refused to undertake such responsibility in a democracy. They dissolve Parliament and go and take the mandate of the country on such important issues. I would ask the Hon. Minister whether the principles involved in the Bill are less important than those in England and elsewhere where Parliaments have been dissolved and a mandate of the people has been demanded and taken. Does it come well from him to say that these are not matters on which a popular mandate is necessary. Let me not think of a plebiscite or even a dissolution of Parliament or anything of the nature demanded by some of my friends though those are relevant, logical and constitutional. We are an indirectly elected Legislature. Parliament has to carry on business till the House is duly constituted. It is more or less in the nature of a caretaker Parliament I do not dispute the technical *P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 7th February 1951, pp. 2504-17.

918 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES right of this House to pass any legislation. But constitutionally, it looks to me odd to say that on such an important legislation as this, we are to be refused to take the mandate of the people. Is it because he is well impressed of the fact that the people on consultation would not allow him to go on with the legislation ? Otherwise, where is the need on his insistence not to put off legislation which is hanging fire so long and also to insist upon one question, namely, that it shall be passed only in this House. I ask why in this House ? What sin has this Parliament committed ? Is it because it is an indirectly elected legislature ? I would tell him that he is as good a representative as myself. I am elected by the Provincial legislature of the State of Orissa and he is elected by the State Legislature of Bombay. I have a right to ask the Hon. Minister whether he has consulted his electorate and whether he has got the mandate of his electorate in this regard. Dr. Ambedkar : I do not want a mandate. Shri Biswanath Das : You do not want a mandate. That is the sort of responsibility you owe to your constituency and that is the sort of constitutional notion that you want to inculcate into the people of our country. I will only refer my hon. friend to the Preamble of the Constitution which this House has enacted and to which my hon. friend, the Minister of Law has made a very notable contribution. The Preamble of the Constitution says : “……to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens : Justice, social, economic and political ;…….” I want to ask him whether this is his sense of democracy to say “I refuse to consult the illiterate masses who have sent me here, who have given me the chance of representing the Province and which has given me the chance of assuming the reins of office as a Minister.” Sir, all this is under the Constitution. We assure all its citizens social, economic and above all political justice. I would join issue with my hon. friend if he says that he has not assured political justice to the people of the country, because he refuses to consult them, the very electorate that have sent him here. Dr. Ambedkar : Next time they won’t elect me. Shri Biswanath Das : It does not matter. You can stand by yourself. You do not need their vote and that is the reason why you find it an easy safety-valve. Dr. Ambedkar : I care more for the Code than for my election. Shri Biswanath Das : I am not thinking of my election. I am thinking of my responsibility as an elected Member of this Parliament.

919 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Dr. Ambedkar : It is one o’clock. Have you concluded ? Shri Biswanath Das : I will continue in the afternoon. The House then adjourned for Lunch till Half Past Two of the Clock. The House re-assembled after Launch at Half Past Two of the Clock. [mr. D eputy-Speaker in the Chair ] Shri Biswanath Das : Sir, in the course of my speech this morning, I was speaking how, in democratic countries, when important, legislations and questions have to be taken up and are being placed on the statute book, the party foresees the legislation, …….. Shri Ramraj Jajware (Bihar) : On a point of order, Sir. There is no Member on the Treasury Benches. Mr. Deputy-Speaker : It is regrettable that there is nobody to represent Government. The Minister of Law has just come in. Shri Biswanath Das : ... places its programme before the country in the form of a manifesto, then on the basis of that manifesto, elections take place, and the party gets a vote in favour of the principles for which it stands. I claim that nothing of that kind is possible in an indirectly elected legislature as the present Parliament is. None-the-less, we have an electorate. That electorate is an enlightened electorate. Neither the Hon. the Law Minister nor his friends in this House or outside this House could say that the electorate to which we have the honour to belong is not enlightened. They are no other than the Members of the State legislatures. I claim that Government and the Law Minister should have taken necessary steps in this regard to consult the State Legislative Assemblies on this important legislation by requesting them to have their say in the matter, which would have given an opportunity to the country to speak itself. At the same time, it would have made the passage of this legislation easy and convenient: easy because with the command given by our electorate, it would not have been possible for the hon. Members of this House to oppose this legislation without resigning their seats ; convenient because no one would have had the audacity to say, “I differ from this legislation and yet I continue to be a Member of the House”. No one could have it both ways. No one could afford to be a Member of the House and refuse to carry out the mandate of the electorate. Therefore I claim -that the Hon. the Law Minister as also Government have failed in

920 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES this important respect, which was and is still open to them. I agree with the Hon. Law Minister, though differing from him that this legislation is urgent, and immediate to be passed in this Parliament. By all means do not take recourse to a plebiscite ; but the time is still there to make a reference to the State legislatures. After all, we are not going to pass this Bill in this Budget session. I may, in this connection, state that I for myself doubt the sincerity of Government regarding the need for passage of this Bill. Several Hon. Members : No, no. Shri Biswanath Das : My hon. friends who are anxious may say, no, no. I have a right to put forward my point of view in presenting my case before the Members of Parliament. If they were really anxious, it would not have come before this House for discussion for three days. What is the meaning behind it ? I must frankly confess that I am unable to understand how in a legislation of this nature, in respect of which there are wide differences among us and protests all over the country, the Law Minister or the Cabinet expects that these could be solved and the Bill could be placed on the statute book within three days as my hon. friend Mr. B. Das was claiming. I refuse to live in a fool’s paradise. A legislation of this nature, unless it is to be pursued through a party mandate, has to continue from day to day and each person being allowed to have his say in the matter and try to place his points, if possible, for the acceptance of the House. Under these circumstances, I very much doubt the wisdom of the Hon. Law Minister in allotting three days, and that in this Budget session when you have not only to pass the Railway Budget, and the General Budget, but have also forty or fifty important Bills that are pending. Government say that they are hard-pressed for money. The newspapers announce that fresh taxation is awaited. I do not know how far that is correct. If there is any speck of truth in that, I have a right to ask the hon. Members on the Treasury Benches as to what they have done regarding the passage of the Estate Duty Bill which is hanging fire for the last. one and a half years. I claim that first things should come first. What is the problem that you have solved up till now ? You have solved no problem ; but you have succeeded in creating problems. I believe, therefore, that Government, or at least the Law Minister is not anxious, nor is he very alert to see that this legislation is passed into law. If they were so, a special sitting, that was promised by the Leader of the House should have been conveyed, or a special session could be convened to discuss the Bill thoroughly and pass it into law.