Vol. 14, Part II · pages 306–310

1086 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES within myself that at that stage it may be a bit too late. He has suggested an alternative that on clause 2 he will make a reservation to move the necessary consequential amendments. Even there I have a difficulty. I shall no doubt conclude the debate on this clause with that background that this clause, that is clause 2, will apply only to marriage and divorce. But I shall withhold putting it to the House. I shall conclude the entire debate and take it over after the Chapter is concluded. Now, in view of what has been said, hon. Members must be prepared to conclude the debate today. Sardar B. S. Man : He need not dilate upon the other matters. Shrimati Durgabai: Now that one hon. Member has stated that certain State Legislatures have passed monogamy Acts, may I point out that only three States—Madras, Bombay and Baroda—have passed such Acts. In view of the fact that there is a lot of confusion being resulted on account of all the State Legislatures not passing the laws and on account of differring High Court judgments, it is highly necessary that there should be a Central law on monogamy and divorce so that it will be applicable to all States whether they wish it or not. Therefore, hon. Members may facilitate the discussion and passing of the Bill upto clause 55. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Now that the scope of the discussion has been narrowed down let us pass it as expeditiously as possible and avoid, if possible, even sitting during Dusehra. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: May I suggest, Sir, that we sit on next Saturday ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not referring to that. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru : I know, Sir, I was merely suggesting about next Saturday. Mr. Deputy Speaker: That can always be done. But let us pass this as early as possible and not sit beyond 6th October, if it is possible to avoid it. Pandit Malaviya: Even if it is necessary to sit beyond 6th October, I hope we do not sit during Dusehra but sit afterwards. Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is accepted. We will not sit on any public holiday. Sardar B. S. Man : Frankly speaking I am not able to understand completely........... Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I suggest that in discussing clause 2 the relevant merits of all the clauses that follow need not be referred

1087 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL to. References here and there are enough. I therefore wish to draw the attention of the hon. Member who is on his legs and also other Members that while the applications of those other clauses may be generally indicated here and there, matters as to how they ought to be or ought not to be and how they ought to be modified and so on may all be taken up when we come to the other clauses. Shri Sarwate (Madhya Bharat) : In case we are to postpone the final passing of this clause, would it not be better that all discussion on this clause be withheld to a later stage ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have already spent a sufficient time over this clause, hon. Members may now take it definitely that it is the view of the Government as stated by the Hon. the Law Minister that the effect of this clause will be confined only to marriage and divorce. On that footing it is open to hon. Members to say where it should or should not apply—to Sikhs or Buddhists or Hindus or to certain territories etc. The discussion will be confined to that extent only and not extend to other things. Pandit Malaviya : May I suggest for the consideration of the Hon. the Law Minister one procedure ? We may finish this discussion on clause 2 today. But after the discussion has taken place, instead of putting it to the House, we may leave it over. There may be no more discussion on it. I am only making a constructive suggestion. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have said so already. I will conclude the discussion and call upon the Law Minister at one o’clock. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): If clause 2 will apply only to marriage and divorce, what will apply to the other clauses ? What about the other clauses of the Code ? What will be the application clause ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : All the other clauses also will be suitably modified. When they are taken up submissions may be made. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Are there to be two application clauses in the same Bill? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members were either not here or were not hearing properly…… Shri Sarwate : I request one point to be made clear. We have tabled certain amendments. The amendments depend upon the scope of clause 2. So we may be allowed to move those amendments or take up those amendments later on.

1088 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Speaker : All the amendments are being discussed now. I am not going to allow any other amendments. Those amendments together with the clause, including the amendments moved by the Hon. the Law Minister, have been discussed. We have reached a stage. If in pursuance of all the other clauses that are taken up and adopted, we go back to clause 2 and any incidental amendments have to be made to clause 2, the discussion will be confined only to incidental, auxiliary and consequential amendments. Today we may take it that this must be over. Shri R. K. Chaudhari: I want to have my doubts cleared on this point. I understand that clause 2 will apply only in cases of marriage and divorce. I want to know that when the inheritance chapter comes up will there be a saving clause in that and should it not apply to the rest ? This is not to apply to all but only to those who want to be governed. Will there be such a saving clause in that part ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : For the time being the Hon Minister and that this Code was confined to marriage and divorce and all the other general clauses also would be suitably changed. As to what will happen when another Law Minister or this Law Minister will introduce at that time, it is a matter of conjecture and it is too early to predict what will happen. Shri R. K. Chaudhari: How can you allow this clause to be passed ; possibly it will be like the Damocle’s sword hanging over us. Mr, Deputy Speaker : Another clause will be introduced, a similar clause with suitable amendments and then the hon. Member can continue to speak as vigorously if not more vigorously. Let us not spend any more time on this. Shri J. R. Kapoor : May I therefore, submit that as you are anxious to close the discussion at one o’clock today, the discussion may now start on the amendments rather than on the general aspects ; otherwise, we shall have hardly any time to deal with specific amendments which really matter so far as clause 2 is concerned. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There will be discussion both on the clause and the specific amendments. I am not going to allow any hon. Member merely because he has tabled an amendment just to go on speaking here. Shri Bhatt (Bombay): Sir, what has been decided today and what you have conveyed to the House, is that Clause 2 will not be put to

1089 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL the vote of the House today. I would, therefore, like to know whether any hope is left for us to move our other amendments in view of the stand taken by the Hon. Minister of Law today. Now he wants to enact the Marriage and Divorce Law separately. Will it be in order in this connection to table any amendment, as suggested by me previously, to the effect that the Law should be made applicable to the whole of India and would you permit it to be moved ? Dr. Ambedkar: You have already tabled an amendment to that effect. Shri Bhatt: The amendment tabled by me is not on the lines of a similar amendment that was moved in connection with the Sarda Act. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is no good asking the Hon. Minister whether he wants it to be applied to every individual in this country and every part of this country. Amendments have already been tabled. Those amendments will be put to the vote of the House and if the vote decides against the Law Minister, he will gladly accept it. Therefore, there is no question of any further amendment regarding territorial restriction or restriction regarding communities. They are all before the House and I am not going to put them to vote today. I will put them later on. It is for the House to accept or reject so far as that matter is concerned. Pandit Maitra (West Bengal) : The Hon. Law Minister says he has not agreed. He says “I will not gladly accept”. Dr. Ambedkar : I said gladly I will not accept. Shri Radhelal Vyas (Madhya Bharat) : On a point of order. May I know, as the debate on clause 2 will conclude today and also the Hon. Law Minister is replying, whether later on any amendment would be allowed to be moved to clause 2 at that stage ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are unnecessarily raising points of order. It is not for the hon. Minister to accept or reject an amendment. Consequential amendments, if found in order, will certainly be moved and allowed by the House. Secondly, the discussion on the amendments on clause 2 tabled today will conclude. If any new amendments come in as consequential to the clause that we are now going to pass, they will be placed before the House. Such consequential amendments to clause 2 will necessarily be made either by the Law Minister or by any hon. Member and then

1090 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES discussion on the consequential amendments will follow and the original clause with the consequential amendments will all then be put to vote and ultimately accepted or rejected. Shri Ramlingam Chettiar : I do not know what a consequential amendment is. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I ask whether it is fair to discuss only divorce and marriage. Is this procedure adopted in any House in the world that we should discuss only divorce and marriage, without knowing the implications and the rights and duties of the husband and wife or how they will succeed each other ? I think this will be extremely disingenuous and the real context of cognate matters will be missed. Pandit Maitra : Sir, you just now ruled that only consequential amendments will be allowed to be moved but how could you know what is the consequence unless the amendments are put to vote and are either carried or rejected. Then we will be in a position to know what may be the consequential amendments. Therefore, this requires clarification. One cannot move a consequential amendment at a certain stage unless he knows the consequence after the amendments that have been tabled have been rejected or accepted. Unless one knows which particular amendment has been accepted or rejected, the question of a consequential change cannot arise. It is only when one knows the implications of a particular motion or amendment being accepted or rejected that the question of putting any consequential amendment would arise. Shrimati Renuka Ray : Cannot the discussion, as to what is consequential and what is not, be allowed to be taken up afterwards ? That may take another six days. Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I stated, subject to what the Hon. Law Minister may say—and I would like to have information—hon Members are anxious to know beforehand, whether any particular communities are going to be excluded and whether any particular territories are to be excluded—whether they have to be applied in part or wholly at one stretch etc. These are the subject matter of various amendments. This will apply not only to marriage and divorce but all the other things also. But there is nothing peculiar in this which cannot be applied as it is into marriage and divorce. As has been suggested by the Hon. Law Minister, he does not pursue the other matters. Only for the words “Hindu Code”, he might say that this is an amendment to that extent.....