Vol. 14, Part II · pages 201–205

981 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL moved at later stages, for once again hon. Members will have to apply their minds and .... Pandit Malaviya : But in view of the special circumstances that exist now... Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, during the course of the discussion, for the purpose of bringing about an agreement or some such thing, an amendment may be moved, and in that case the matter will always be considered. But with respect to new amendments I suppose the House will agree that for the reason that they will throw open the discussion once again, they should not be allowed. Khawaja Inait Ullah (Bihar): Would not an amendment that goes against the Constitution be out of order ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member may refer me to the points that are considered as out of order or beyond the scope of the House at the time the matter arises. Shri M. Naik (Orissa): If an amendment moved stands in the names of two or more Members, will that amendment be taken as having been moved by only one Member or by all the Members who have given notice of it ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall take it that all of them have moved it. Shri M. Naik : What happens if the hon. Member who moved it remains absent now ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall adopt the safer procedure. It is true that more than one Member has given notice of an amendment, and if he is not in his seat, it is open to any other of the hon. Members to move it. The question is, if all the Members are in their seats, whether all of them are to be taken to have moved it. By way of abundant caution we may say that all of them have moved it so that ultimately when there is any question of withdrawing that amendment and the Member who moved it is not in his seat, any of the other Members can withdraw it. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: If I want to oppose any of the new amendments now moved when can I do so? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Whenever he rises and is called upon to speak. He is entitled to speak on all the amendments. ( An hon. Member: Of one category ?) We have finished all categories. So far as clause 2 is concerned, I have allowed hon. Members to move all the amendments. Tomorrow I shall try to group them for purposes of

982 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES convenience according to their substance. The clause may be discussed as also all the amendments and amendments to amendments. Shri J. R. Kapoor : You may direct the office to circulate to us a consolidated list of all the amendments moved today as also on the previous occasion, so that we may have in a simplified form all the amendments for ready reference. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Though there are various lists of amendments, what is done is that they are put consecutively and, therefore, no further arrangement is necessary. As regards circulating the amendments moved today, I thought hon. Members would have noted them as I have done. Dr. Ambedkar : I have also noted them. Shri J. R. Kapoor : Amendments to the same part of the clause may be at different places and for the sake of convenience it is better they are put in one place. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall ask the office to circulate a list containing the numbers of the amendments moved instead of once again repeating the amendments. Shri J. R. Kapoor : It should be sub-clause by sub-clause. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members have left their homes far away and come over here for parliamentary work. I do not believe the office should do it. Hon. Members should do it. Hon. Members may take one view and the office may take another view and does the hon. Member also want the Secretary to speak on his behalf in this matter ? As regards Pandit Malaviya’s amendment I shall allow it as an exception. With respect to other matters from tomorrow I would insist as a rule that I must have a copy of the amendment as also the Law Minister. Today perhaps hon. Members may not have had sufficient time to think about their amendments. Pandit Malviya may read out his amendment so that we may note it down. Pandit Malviya : I beg to move : to clause 2, add the proviso : “Provided further that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, no provision of this Act shall apply to anyone unless a referendum thereupon has been taken in the State to which he belongs and the Legislature of the State thereafter has decided in accordance with the result of the referendum that the provisions of this Act shall apply to the residents of the State. Further, that, thereafter, it shall be open to anyone to declare that he shall not be governed by this Act and the same shall then not apply to him.”

983 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shrimati Renuka Ray : Sir, there are two points which I want to raise. It is a dilatory motion. The hon. Speaker has given a ruling during the last session.... Mr. Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members ought not to start off straightway, unless I call them. It may be a valid point… Shrimati Renuka Ray : It is a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker : May be. The hon. Member should first stand up in her seat and I must call her. Dr. Ambedkar : It might come under clause 1. Pandit Malaviya : It is a matter of application and not a matter of extent. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Let it remain here as it is. Shrimati Renuka Ray : Sir, there are two points which I want to raise. First of all this amendment which has just been dictated to this Parliament—a procedure which we have never known before—is of a dilatory character... Pandit Malaviya : Sir, I object to the word dilatory. Shrimati Renuka Ray : This amendment is of a dilatory nature and the Speaker has given a ruling last time, if you will remember, on this. Secondly, I would like to know whether this procedure of dictating amendments to the House, while the Parliament waits is going to be a precedent which is going to be followed hereafter. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member too well knows that so far as dilatory motions are concerned, it is open to the House to discuss the amendments moved and throw them out, if the House is not inclined to accept them. I am prepared to adopt the advice of the hon. lady Member. I have not considered whether it is appropriate or relevant or irrelevant. I will take time to do so and if at any time before put it to the House. I find it is best to say that it is not relevant and therefore does not arise. I will do so. I will reserve my judgement so far as that is concerned. As regards dictation, we have been accustomed to taking small sentences but I never expected it to be a long sentence and therefore I submitted myself to his dictation. Let us now go on. Let me place this before the House. Amendment moved : To clause 2, add the proviso : “Provided further that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, no provision of this Act shall apply to any one unless

984 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a referendum thereupon has been taken in the State to which he belongs and the Legislature of the State thereafter has decided in accordance with the result of the referendum that the provisions of this Act shall apply to the residents of the State. Further, that, thereafter, it shall be open to anyone to declare that he shall not be governed by this Act and the same shall then not apply to him.” Pandit Malaviya : May I make a request ? It is a very serious matter which we are considering.... Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. member will have an opportunity... Pandit Malaviya : I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that unless we are all careful enough to use language with a certain amount of restraint we are likely to waste the time of the House and waste our energy. I should like to take objection, with your permission, to the use of the word dilatoriness for this reason :one Member may have one view, another may have another view. But if we feel that a certain thing should be done and if we wish to say it, the task becomes rather difficult if it is said that we are dilatory. I think we should be careful in this matter. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have appealed to hon. members, the same appeal I will repeat: hon. Members ought not to be too sensitive. “Dilatory” is an absolutely parliamentary word. Hon. Members may be anxious to get through this measure. It is not merely throwing any slur on hon. Members—there are some dilatory motions and there are some motions of substance. Therefore, it is quite a parliamentary expression. But I will appeal to all sections of the House. (We are engaged in a very holy cause.) This is a question of Hindu Law and the questions before us relate to marriage and other things. Let us address ourselves with all seriousness to this problem. We can iron out the differences and not only create a meeting place here but also give a lead to the rest of the country which is the intention of Parliament to give so far as this matter is concerned. Therefore, I hope the best of cheer will prevail here and with good humour we will get into the clauses. Though apparently any particular amendment may be unpalatable at the beginning, let us hear and reserve our judgment. That is my humble appeal to all sections in the House. No heat ought to be allowed to enter into this controversy. Let us keep our heads cool. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : May I ask your advice, Sir. .... Dr. Ambedkar : Why do you seek advice so often ? Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Just now you were pleased to address Shrimati Renuka Ray as madam. Has any Member got the right to be addressed by the Chair like that ?

985 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sorry. I would like to be corrected. I do not like any Member to be addressed by any other Member in the first person. Similarly I will not address any Member directly. I shall try to be careful, but these things need not be pointed out to me. Now let us proceed. We have had too much of advice. The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajagopalachari) : I take it, Sir, that in the last amendment the question of order is open ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : On all amendments. I merely placed that amendment for purposes of discussion. At any time it is open to the House or to me to consider it. Now, I shall give preference to those gentlemen who have moved the largest number of amendments, and so on in that order, and ultimately to those who have not moved any amendment at all and who want to speak. Those hon. Members who have already spoken on this will get a chance, if necessary, in the end. Shri Rajagopalachari : May I suggest one thing ? Those who promise and who believe they will make short speeches should be given preference. Hon. Members : No, no. Shri Rajagopalachari : And they may give way to others afterwards. If a member who wants to make a long speech is cut out by another we need not sympathise, but it is unfair that those who wish to speak for five minutes should be cut out by long speeches. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The suggestion that is given is certainly good, but I feel one difficulty. In the matter of resolutions of general discussion on a particular Bill, I can ordinarily give preference to those who want to speak for a short time so that there may be a number of members speaking on it. But with respect to amendments, hon. Members who have not tabled any amendment at all may occupy the time of the House. Shri Rajagopalachari : Without prejudice to other considerations I am suggesting it. Because, a closure may come at any time and those who may have something very important and brief may be cut out. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : How will we know beforehand whether a Member will make a long speech or a short speech ? Shri Rajagopalachari : This is a battle of the long and the short. Mr. Deputy Speaker : We should only have a general indication that all Members will make it, as short as possible.