Vol. 14, Part II · pages 466–470

1246 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “A member while speaking shall not—, * * (vi) use the President’s name for the purpose of influencing the debate;” Sardar B. S. Man : In fact, it is the Government that is using the name of the President. When I criticise certain actions of the President, the odium attached to them may be of the government or the advisers of the President. It is up to the people to pass it on to wherever it belong. But when the orders issued are of the President, criticism ought to be in the name of the President. Because, at present in the Punjab we are being governed by the President, am I to forego the right of criticism ? It may close the door for all future time to come. That is my point. Mr. Chairman : My own personal feeling is that if Hon. Members are not prevented from criticising, as they are doing it in the House, they may direct their criticism to the government who are giving bad advice—if it is bad advice in their opinion. If the Government is at the bottom of the President’s action, if in their opinion it is not the President who is acting but it is the government which is tendering bad advice, it is aboslutely open to the Members to criticise the Government on their actions without bringing the name of the President. Dr. Deshmukh : Can we also say that we are not criticising the President and that we are criticising the Government ? Mr. Chairman : Therefore, where is the difficulty? When the Members are free to criticise the actions of the Government and there is absolutley no bar to their expressing their views frankly and openly, they need not feel or suffer from the trouble that they are not able to bring in the name of the President directly. Sardar B. S. Man : We are not bringing the name of the President but the actions of the President, as they are the actions of the Government. It is for you to presume just as it is for me to criticise. Mr. Chairman : I think I have made the point quite clear. If it is in their mind that it is the Government that is at the bottom of the President’s action and that is not advising properly, if the Government is the subject matter of the attack, they are absolutely free to attack the Government. Nothing bars them. Sardar Hukam Singh : I am sorry that my appeal has been lost in this discussion that took place over the question whether we can

1247 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL criticise the President or not. But my purpose is not to criticise the President at all. He is not to blame so far as my point is concerned. I bring the charge directly against Dr. Ambedkar, because he made an appeal to me and other Sikhs that we should not think in such separatist terms. But the blame lies on the other side. He has started this game and kept us at a distance when he was advising the President to make that order about scheduled castes. That is my complaint. Before he makes an appeal to me that I should change my mind, he should begin from his own sphere and remove that injustice. That was my first point. The second point is when we submit that custom in Punjab is much simpler and much more easily understood by the average citizen, we are confronted with this question whether we want monogamy or not. That is not the question. Monogamy we do want. We support and welcome it. Everybody wants monogamy. Nobody is against it. Already public opinion is so strong that now normally all people are for monogamy. Moreover the economic condition of the country is such that nobody can now bear the burden of more than one wife. There is no denying the fact that it is not possible for an ordinary man now, except those that are placed in a privleged position like our Doctor himself, to have a second wife. Therefore no question arises about monogamy. Even if it comes we are not against monogamy, we welcome it. But the question is that there are other things that will follow. There are prohibited degrees. There are other ceremonies. So far as Punjab is concerned, our prohibited degrees are much fewer. You are contracting it by this Bill and you will have to contract it further. Though we are not passing the protion relating to inheritance at this moment, it is contemplated to pass it in the near future. If you want that the girl should have a share along with her brother, then this long list of prohibited degrees cannot remain. Obviously we would be compelled to contract it more and more unless you give inheritance to our cousins and sisters and others ( Interruption ) like Muslims certainly. Both the things have to go together and already in the Punjab custom, there is a list of prohibited degrees which is recognized and permitted by custom and if you are doing anything against that progress which you claim you are helping to proceed, surely you are bringing us back when we have gone so far forward. ( An Hon. Member : Leading). Yes. We are leading the whole of India. 1 P.M.

1248 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (mr. Deputy SpeAker in the Chair ). So far as the other things are concerned, a short while ago the question arose when my esteemed friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava moved his amendment that along with the adopted son, the appointed heir should be added, and this was opposed on the ground of certain objections and interruptions. The adopted heir is as good as an adopted son as in any other part of India. The only advancement or progress that is there is that no particular ceremonies are observed. The age is not restricted and so far as relationship is concerned, that is not restricted also. Dr. Ambedkar : Did not we decide that we will take the case of the adopted heir at a later stage ? I thought that the House agreed to that. When we were discussing clause 3 on the definition of son, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava raised that qustion and I submitted to the house that this was a matter which may be considered later on at the appropriate stage either when we come to the conclusion Mr. Deputy Speaker : When we were in the definition. Dr. Ambedkar : My hon. Friend is referring to the adopted son. We have not come to that yet. I am only saying that we can save the time and get through clause 4. Mr. Deputy Speaker : We agreed to put it off till Part VII. We can discuss this at a later stage when this matter comes up. Sardar Hukam Singh : This interruption of the Hon. Minister has created an apprehension in my mind that he is not following or I am not able to make mysef clear. Dr. Ambedkar : I am following and I have caught this point that the whole of Punjab is very progressive as against all others. Sardar Hukam Singh : That he has caught all right but if I am giving the reasons and instances, he would not care to follow. I am giving an instance where the usage or custom is so necessary and I am saying..... Dr. Ambedkar : This part of my education will be better left out now. I will receive it at a later stage. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : That you will have to learn. Sardar Hukam Singh : It is not only the doctor himself who is to be educated, but there are others also. If I have to request Hon. Members to give their vote for me, I have to convince them Dr. Ambedkar : Later on. Mr. Deputy Speaker : What is now suggested is that this discussion should be blocked. But in another place when the same

1249 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL matter was raised in clause 3 it was suggested with regard to the definition of a son that an adopted heir must also be a son. When we come to clause 7 where the prohibited degrees are narrated, it may be considered whether it should be included, or an explanation added. Let us take up this when we come to clause 7. Sardar Hukam Singh : I am extremely sorry that I have not been understood. What I wanted to say was this. I am only advocating that usage and custom should continue to override the law. In advocating that I am explaining the utility of usage and custom, the progress that it has made over law and why it should be retained and what differences there are between custom and other laws. In that connection I am referring to the son ; I am not trying to define ‘son’ or other people. That was my object. But, if the Doctor Saheb says that I should not continue, I will stop. Dr. Ambedkar : I was only saying that we may discuss this later on. Mr. Deputy Speaker : We may discuss that later on. Sardar Hukam Singh : Then, I was submitting, Sir, that so far as custom and usage in the Punjab is concerned, it is recognised and well understood. It has continued to override the Hindu Law as was understood by the common man or even by lawyers and law-givers. There is no reason why, when it has been overriding Hindu Law for such a long time, has stood the test of time, has stood the test of scrutiny of judicial pronouncements and other tests, it should now be abrogated because a new law has been discovered and that is being given by another law-giver it should continue. It has been definite. It is reasonable. It has stood the test of time and has been uniform. As I have already submitted it is contained in public documents and can easily be ascertained. There can be no ambiguity about it. Therefore I submit that these word ‘usage or custom’ should be omitted from this clause. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. Dr. Ambedkar : If I may plead. Sir, I would like this clause to be put to the House before we disperse, if the House permits. Some hon. Members : No, no ; this is a very contentious clause. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am giving opportunity to the Members who have moved amendments. First Dr. Deshmukh, then Sardar Hukam Singh, and then Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava; there are then Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad and Mr. Jhunjhunwala. I am afraid it will not be possible with the best of intentions.

1250 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Some hon. Members : This is a very controversial clause. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I think we must sit tomorrow. We shall be sitting tomorrow also. Some hon. Members : Yes, yes. Some hon. Members : No, no. Capt. A. P. Singh : Tomorrow we must have a holiday. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is so much of work in the Order Paper. We have not even finished clause 4. There are 55 clauses in all, in this chapter. In these circumstances, I am afraid we will have to sit tomorrow. Capt. A. P. Singh : We have got to study so much about this Bill and about so many other things. We should have some time. Mr. Deput Speaker : There are no questions tomorrow. I have no objection to sitting from 9-30. We will sit at 9-30 a.m. This will be the only work tomorrow. Some hon. Members : Yes. An hon. Member : Up to ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : 1-15 as usual. An hon. Member : 9-30 to 2 O’clock. Pandit Maitra (West Bengal) : Up to 12 O’clock, Sir. We have got other work. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : This is the most contentious clause in the whole Bill (interruptions). Sir, I was submitting that clause 4 is the most contentious clause in the whole Bill. As a matter of fact while we were considering clause 2 which took so much time of the House, the contentions were really such as appertained to clauses 4. Human nature as we know it, loves its own customs. In societies where the lawmaking power is not fully evolved the conduct of the people is governed by customs, and custom gets fixed in the affections of the people and its seat is deep in the hearts of people to such an extent that people love it in preference to imposed law. Therefore, the question which is put to us when we go out into the country is “Are our customs to be safe or not ?” a few days ago I was in the house of one of my friends who happens to be a Minister of the Govrnment of India and his orderly asked me. “What are you doing, Sir, with regard to the Hindu Code ?” I told him that the Hindu Code Bill was being discussed and some portions of it will be passed. The very next question that he puts me is, “Will it do away with