Vol. 14, Part II · pages 406–410

1186 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES *HINDU CODE—contd. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House will now proceed with the further consideration of the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee. Yesterday we disposed of Clause 2 ; the major contentious clause is over. I hope the other clauses will be passed quickly. Clause 3.—( Definitions) The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I beg to move: In clause 3,— (i) for the words “unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context” substitute “unless the context otherwise requires”; (ii) renumber the existing items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as items (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and insert the following as item (i), namely: ‘(i ) “Aliyasantana law’ means the system of law applicable to persons who, if this Code had not been passed, would have been governed by the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949 (Madras Act IX of 1949);’; (iii) in term (iii), as to renumbered, omit “except in sections 41 and 49”; (iv) in the Explanation to item (v), as so renumbered, for “this clause” substitute “clause (iv) and (v)” ; (v) renumber the existing items (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) as items (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) and insert, the following as items (vi) and (vii) namely : ‘(vi) “Marumakkattayam law” means the system of law applicable to persons— (a) who, if this Code had not been passed, would have been governed by the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 (Madras Act XXII of 1933), the Travancore Nair Act, H of 1100, the Travancore Ezhava Act, III of 1100, the Nanjindad Vellala Act, 1101, the Travancore Kshatriya Act, 1108, the Travancore Krishnavaka-Marumakkathayee Act, 1115, the Cochin Thiyya Act, VIII of 1107 ; the Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113, or the Cochin Marumakkathayam Act, XXXIII of 1113 or (b) who belong to any community, the members of which are largely domiciled in the State of Trvancore Cochin or Madras, and who, if this Code had not been passed, would have been governed * P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 21st September 1951, pp. 2974-3008,

1187 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL by any system of inheritance in which descent is traced through the female line; but does not include the Aliyasantana law ; (vii) “Nambudri law” means the law applicable to persons who, if this Code had not been passed, would have been governed by the Madras Nambudri Act, 1932 (Madras Act XXI of 1933), the Cochin Nambudri Act (XVII of 1114), or the Travancore Malayala Brahmin Act of 1106 (Regulation III of 1106); (vi) in item (viii) as so renumbered, for “any” substitute “a”. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) : I think that it would be better to proceed seriatim, sub-clause by sub-clause, and subject by subject. Otherwise, the difficulty would be that the debate would be of too general a nature. In clause 2 the debate was much of a general nature because we did not consider individual items or groups. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I agree, I shall proceed in the order in which they have been noted in the order Paper. Dr. Ambedkar : My amendment is so to say in two parts. Item 1 of my amendment is merely a verbal change. It has been pointed out to me that the words that are used in the existing clause “unless mere is anything repugnant in the subject or context” are not in consonance with the language which we have been using since the passing of the Constitution, the Constitution uses the phraseology “unless the context otherwise requires” and in order to bring the language of this Bill in consonance with the language of the Constitution, I am making that particular amendment, it is merely a change of words. With regard to the other amendments, they are necessary because it has now been proposed that the marriage and divorce law should also apply to persons who are governed by the Marmuakkattayam and Aliyasantana law. As the subsequent sections deal with that aspect; of the matter, it is necessary to enlarge the definition clause so that necessary definitions which relate to that matter may be brought in and the definition clause be made complete. Mr. Deputy Speaker : amendment moved : In clause 3,— (i) for the words “unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context” substitute “unless the context otherwise requires”; (ii) renumber the existing items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as items (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v),and insert the following as item (i), namely : (i) “Aliyasantana law”, means the system of law applicable to persons who, if this Code had not been passed, would have been

1188 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES governed by the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949 (Madras Act IX of 1949); (iii) in item (iii), as so renumbered, omit “except in sections 44 and 49”; (iv) in the Explanation to item (v), as so renumbered, for “this clause” substitute “clauses (iv) and (v)”; (v) renumber the existing items (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) as items (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi), and insert the following as items (vi) and (vii), namely : (vi) “Marumakkattayam law” means the system of law applicable to persons— (a) who, if this Code had not been passed, would have been governed by the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 (Madras Act, XXII of 1933), the Travancore Nair Act, II of 1100, the Nanjindad Vellala Act, 1101, the Travancore Kshatriya Act, 1108, the Travancore Krishnavaka-Marumakkathayee Act, 1115, the Cochin Thiyya Act, VIII of 1107, the Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113, or the Cochin Marurnakkathayam Act, XXXIII of 1113, or (b) who belong to any community, the members of which are largely domiciled in the State of Travancore-Cochin or Madras, and who, if this code had not been passed, would have been governed by any system of inheritance in which descent is traced through the female line ; but does not include the Aliyasantana law ; (vii) ‘Nambudri law’ means the law applicable to persons who, if this Code had not been passed, would have been governed by the Madras Nambudri Act, 1932 (Madras Act XXI of 1933), the Cochin Nambudri Act (XVII of 1114), or the Travancore Malayala Brahmin Act of 1106 (Regulation III of 1106) ;’ ; (vi) in item (viii) as so renumbered, for “any” substitue “a”. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : My amendment No. 410 comes in by way of priority according to the subject because this amendment is the real clause. My amendment seeks to delete ‘Aliasantana law’. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Hon. Member may move it. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I beg to move: In the amendment proposed by Dr. Ambedkar, in part (ii), omit the proposed part (i) of clause 3.

1189 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Before that I have certain verbal and formal amendments which I think, need not be pressed before the House, that is in the amendment proposed by the Hon. Minister of Law in item (ii) there is the renumbering amendment that runs all through the amendments. If we take up the renumberings at this stage it will create confussion, and we do not know where we would be. They should be done by the Secretary or the Draftsman and therefore I suggest that for the time being we should eliminate these renumbering amendments. I have a lot of amendments to cure these verbal irregularities, but I do not wish to move them because I want to leave them entirely to the Secretary. Coming to my amendments, they are for the deletion of the definition of Aliyasanatana law and I have other amendments to delete the definitions of Marumakkattayam and Nambudri law. The reason for moving this amendment is this ; that this is as well as other amendments relate to these special laws, which I want to delete because this is the policy of the Bill, namely to make no reservation, no exceptions in any case. In the case of Sikhs we have decided to make no exception. In the case of others we have made no provision to exclude them from the operation of the Code. That being the accepted principle ... Mr. Deputy Speaker : I understand the Hon. Minister to say that he now proposes to extend all the provisions of this Act to both these classes also. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That means the marriage and divorce law laid down in the Bill will also apply to those Hindus who are now governed by Aliyasantana, Marumakkattayam and Nambudri law separately. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Therefore, the objection is over. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The objection is that if general provisions are to apply to all Hindus so far as marriage and divorce is concerned, the definition is absolutely unnecessary ! It is rather misleading. Mr. Deputy Speaker : We have accepted this. We had included others as in the case of Sikhs. There is no need for separate definition. The Bill includes it and therefore it is not necessary. Exception is made for Aliyasantana and Marumakkattayam law. They are excluded from the operation of marriage and divorce laws as envisaged in the Bill. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not think they should be excluded at all.

1190 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is exactly what the Hon. Law Minister is trying to do. Dr. Ambedkar : That is what I am trying to do. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : By the inclusion of this definition ? If that is the specific purpose, then, my amendment is needless. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Originally, those who were governed by the Aliyasantana Act and Marumakkattayam law were excluded and they were allowed to be regulated by those two laws. The Hon. Law Minister now feels that they must also be brought into the frame work of the Act so as to bring about uniformity. That is why he is adding this. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : My perplexity arises from the fact that even apart from this definition, they will ordinarily be included. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Bill specifically excludes them. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That portion should be deleted. There is repetition. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member began under the wrong impression that originally they were included and the Law Minister wants to exclude them. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The exclusion should be by amending the general clause; not in the definition. Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is another matter. As a matter of substance, hon. Member’s amendment has absolutely no force. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I quite agree. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Then, why should he look at formal affairs and verbal amendments. If it is necessary, let us have this definition for the purpose of clarification instead of relegating it to some General Clauses Act. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Not the General Clauses Act, but the general definition of Hindus under this Act. It should apply to all Hindus. This Aliyasantana law governs the Hindus. This is special mention and then inclusion. The inclusion is already there. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The backbone of his objection is broken. The hon. Member is trying to get at some formal affair. Is it necessary ? The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajagopalachari) : I think the hon. Member has not realised the actual position. There are two ways of excluding certain classes or groups; one by actually ignoring them in the whole Code and another by referring to them and providing for them as exception. If the Hon. Law Minister has chosen now to