Vol. 14, Part II · pages 51–55

831 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Mr. Chairman : I am not impressed by the speech of the hon. Member in regard to the facts to conclude that any point of order regarding my ruling has been made out. He was making certain observations to which the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar will in time reply. Threrefore there is no point for ruling. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The two other amendments which I suggested depended upon the rejection of the form or otherwise of the amendments. That is why I want a ruling from you. If it is in good form, of course, we shall also indulge in such forms and the House can also be allowed to degenerate to that sort of form. Then with regard to clause 2, one important point has been raised by the several amendments and supported by several hon. Members. It is that the Code should be made applicable to all persons in India. I was asked to sponsor this idea and when I raised the point of order, I did nothing of the sort at all, but my point is that the Bill is bad for the Hindus and when it is bad, this bad law should not be made applicable to all. A bad law can not be made good by making it applicable to all. If it is bad for the Hindus, it should be rejected. The point I was driving at was……….. Shri J. R. Kapoor : The fate should be shared equally by all the Hindus and non-Hindus alike. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That is a form of logic which amounts to a joke and is certainly acceptable but seriously in a legislature this cannot be accepted. If a law is bad, it should not be extended to put pressure on those on whom it is going to be applied. Constitutionally this law will bring degradation. This point has been seriously raised outside the House; it has been freely talked about and it is more than certain that this law could not be taken before a court of law. We have passed several principles in the Constitution. We have worded the clauses in the Constitution in a general way with the result that they have landed us already into difficulties. The Constitution stands in the way of this Bill being passed. Shri Tyagi : We will change the Constitution. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : My learned friend says if the Constitution is badly drafted and has landed us into difficulties, why not change the Constitution. I ask why should it be that you are at liberty to pass a law for the Hindus ? Why should there be a policy of distinction followed between Hindus and Muslims in their own

832 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES domestic sphere ? I think it is not logic. It is not good. The Hindus should remain Hindus at home and they should be Hindus in their religious practices. Similarly the Christians and Muslims should have their freedom of thought, worship and religion which has been granted in another part of the Constitution. I ask the House to consider whether in view of the number of defects noticed in the Constitution, it requires revision. I think it is easier within two years of the passing of the Constitution to amend it than it would be after two years. So it is time for us to amend the Constitution to make it possible to pass a good law affecting the Hindus. So far as religious and semi-religious matters are concerned the law could not interfere and at least it should not be dictated from the top. This is a kind of dictatorship which does persist in democratic society. Shri Tyagi : Marriage and divorce do not come under religion. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I believe the Hindu marriage is one of the Samskaras ; it is the tenth Samskara; it is part of their religion and it is idle to argue that it is not part of their religion. I say you may abolish religion and the law gives you freedom and this House is a sovereign House within the Constitution. You can abolish religion, if you like but will you go so far as that ? So far as this is concerned. I do not want to pursue it further but then look at the condition in which we exist today. We have no food. We had to spend Rs. 200 crores for importing food from foreign countries and to make us live for this year. (Interruption). We have no clothes. There are no shelters for many of our countrymen; we cannot give primary education at all but what we give is a free gift to the Hindus in the shape of the Hindu Code. If you want to make them happy, you must give them food, give them education. The Deputy Minister of Communications (Shri Khurshed Lal) : This might have been a very good argument on the motion for taking the Bill into consideration. We are now considering a specific clause. Mr. Chairman : I was waiting to hear the last words of his concluding remarks to know the inference he proposed to draw from his preceding observations. Shri Tyagi : I want to know how is it that a Muslim is quoting our scriptures. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : We should not think of this Code but we should think of more and more constructive things which would

833 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL make the people happy, give them elementary education etc. In these dangerous times there is the other danger of the world situation deteriorating. War is approaching India step by step. Mr. Chairman : I am very sorry. I do not want to interfere but I think the hon. Member is at sea on his arguments. He ought to proceed with his amendments. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I was only submitting that this is not the proper time to go on with this Bill. Shri Khurshed Lal : We are not discussing the consideration motion. Mr. Chairman : I will ask the hon. Member to speak on his amendments. If he wants to say that so far as the particular amendments of Dr. Ambedkar are concerned, they are not right, I would certainely allow that but if he goes on to say that this Bill should not be proceeded with, I think it is beyond the province of any hon. Member at this stage to say so. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I was encourged to make this suggestion only for one reason that it is understood that Government has decided to proceed with this Bill only for two or three days………… Mr. Chairman : I would ask the hon. Member to proceed with his amendments. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : ( Interruption) I rather think that many hon. Members have nothing to think of except interrupting . Sir, there are a number of amendments standing to my credit and I shall deal with them one by one. The first two amendments Nos. 16 and 17, were suggested to improve the form in which Dr. Ambedkar’s motion has been tabled. They do not deal with any other principle except improving the form. Then, I come to amendment No. 19. In part (c)(i) of sub-clause (1) of clause 2, after “Illegitimate”, insert: “who, if he has attained the age of eighteen years, is himself a Hindu and” I am sorry that a very large number of widely divergent subjects have had to be moved separately, and have to be argued upon in a lot. That is why some hon. Members seem to lose thread of the argument. Sub-clause (1) which I seek to amend, reads thus: “This Code applies— (c)(i) to any child legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus within the meaning of this section.”

834 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Satish Chandra (Uttar Pradesh) : This has been read several times. Mr. Chairman: Let the hon. Member proceed. To keep up the thread of the argument, he must be allowed to read. Shri Tyagi: This thing about illegitimate child was not read. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: The child of a Hindu, particularly, if he be illegitimate, may not himself remain a Hindu. This sub-clause proceeds on the supposition that a child of a Hindu remains a Hindu. But, it is quite possible for him to change his religion. He may discard all religions ; he may be an atheist. He may become a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim, and then again be re-converted to Hinduism. The supposition that an illegitimate child of a Hindu is a Hindu presupposes that he does not change. As a matter of fact, he can change. If he changes his religion, certainly, he cannot be a Hindu, and cannot inherit his father’s property and so forth. An illegitimate child of a Hindu father will inherit his fathers properties ; but if he changes his religion, he ceases to be a Hindu and therefore, he ceases to be the heir. Shri Tyagi: A father can never have an illegitimate child; a mother only can have. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That is a legal question. If a father cannot have an illegitimate child, this clause should have been deleted. Shri Tyagi: The child is……….. ( Interruption). Mr. Chairman : Order, order; let him proceed. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : My amendment says, “ if he has attained the age of eighteen years, is himself a Hindu………..” That is to say, after attaining the age of eighteen years, when he attains the age of discretion and is permitted by law to act in a legal manner, if he remains a Hindu, then, of course, he is a Hindu. He is a child of his father entitled to inherit and enjoy all the benefits of the Hindu Law. This amendment tries to remove a lacuna which exists in the drafting. An illegitimate child, if he attains the age of eighteen years and if he does not change his religion, then, of course, he could come in. That is what I have sought to clarify here. Let us come to another amendment; it is of a drafting nature. It reads as follows: In part (c)(i) of sub-clause (1) of clause 2, for “whose parents are Hindus” substitute “whose parents are or have been Hindus”.

835 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL It may be that the parents of a child are Hindus; but they may change their religion. So, I want that in order to have this relationship………… Shri K. C. Sharma (Uttar Pradesh) : May I draw the attention of the chairman to the convention of the House that all drafting amendments be left to the draftmen and the time of the House be not wasted ? Mr. Chairman : There is no such absolute convention; it all depends on the particular amendment. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : This only shows that the hon. Member is not listening to the arguments, but is only trying to find and create objections. Although this is more of drafting nature, I think it involves a substantial thing. The question is this. You say that a child, legitimate or illegitimate of a Hindu, is a Hindu. Supposing the father changes his religion in that case, he is not a Hindu at the relevant time when the question arises. I therefore want to make it clear that he is a Hindu or has been a Hindu. It may be that a father was not a Hindu, but has accepted the Hindu religion at the relevant time. If you say, a man who is a Hindu, it means, who is a Hindu for the time being; he might not have been a Hindu before. That is why I am saying : “a person who is or has been a Hindu”; who has been a Hindu all along. The child of such a parent would be a Hindu. Suppose there is a Muslim who adopts the Hindu religion today. The question of the status of his child comes into question. Could his child, who was born at a time when the parents were Muslims, be a Hindu today because today the father is a Hindu ? That is why I have tried to change the clause. Though it is of a drafting nature, it has substantial effects. I submit that these small points require careful consideration. The question, in effect, is, if a man is converted to Hinduism today, whether his child, who may be a Christian, or a Muslim or a Jew according to the religion of his father before his conversion, would be a Hindu. This is a serious constitutional question, and I hope the House will seriously consider that. But, the difficulty would be for the Hon. Law Minister to carefully listen to these points and to reply to them, and for the House to follow all these arguments and replies. As a matter of fact, Dr. Ambedkar will say, “I oppose all the amendments” and the House will say, “We respectfully agree”.