Vol. 14, Part II · pages 521–525

1301 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL An Hon. Member: Closure, Sir. Shri Bharati : I move that the question be now put. Several Hon. Members : No ; no. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Members will kindly take their seats. I will put the question to the House. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Before that, Sir, I beg to state that we have submitted amendments. We have a right to speak on them. We have something to say upon them. The merits of our amendments should be discussed. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : One more submission Sir. You had just now announced that after Mr. Jhunjhunwala, Mr. Bhatt would speak and that after that, you would decide as to what should happen. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I least expected that the Hon. Member Mr. Jhunjhunwala would take up so much time. His amendment is a very small one. He has taken too much time. I thought that within that time two Hon. Members might speak. We have had a discussion on this particular clause since yesterday. So far as this clause is concerned, if it had stood alone, I would not have come to any conclusion. We have discussed this to a large extent on the definition clause, what custom is, what its ingredients are, and so on. Taking both of them together, I feel that there has been sufficient discussion on this. Therefore, I shall put the motion to the House. Let the House accept it or reject it. Shri Bhatt: There is an amendment in my name also. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : As Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad stated, we have tabled amendments. We wanted to speak on clause 2 also. After all, even if you pass this clause today, this matter is not finished. There are 50 or 55 clauses to be gone through. Therefore, I wish to make this submission. This is a very important clause because it is here that we lay down that the texts will not be taken into consideration. It is a matter of very primary importance. It will be another matter if we are dealing with clauses about procedural matter, clauses laying down the procedure for marriage and divorce. You may accept a closure or proceed comparatively quickly. But the question whether the texts should be abrogated, whether custom should be abrogated, that is a very vital matter. Therefore, I will again submit most respectfully this. If you are going to finish the Bill today and

1302 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the Act is going to be passed, then, it is a different matter and we will submit to the closure. That is not the case and therefore we should allow time to the movers of the amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker : How can you say that ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : We have to go through 55 clauses. So far as this clause is concerned, you should allow some more discussion. I think in this matter I have the opinion of a good number of Members on my side. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : May I submit in all humility, Sir, that sometimes when amendments are moved in this House by a large number of members and the real intention of the mover is to get a chance to speak, the situation is quite different. When, on a Bill particular amendments are given, I beg of you kindly to see if the amendment is one of substance. Then, the person moving the amendments should be allowed to speak ordinarily. Shri Bharati: It is left to the discretion of the Chair. Pandit Malaviya (Uttar Pradesh): There are still many people who wish to speak on this point, and even though the House may pass the thing, I feel that in a matter of this nature, the least that we can do is to listen to them and then come to any decision. I feel therefore, that we should allow people an opportunity to speak. And indeed, if there is an opportunity, I myself would like to say something about this clause. I hope, sir, we will have the opportunity at least to have our say. The House may not agree with our view; but I feel it will be tyranny if we are not allowed an opportunity even to have our say. There might have been a good deal of discussion on any point, but that does not mean that we should not give an opportunity to those who have not been able to have their say. Therefore, I humbly request that you may kindly allow the discussion on this to go on. Shri Bharati : Sir, it is absolutely within your discretion to decide, after taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. We cannot ……… Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I can only appeal to the Chair that since there are many who have yet to ……… Dr. Ambedkar : There has been sufficient debate already and (Interruptions) Sir, I would like to submit that in deciding whether closure should be applied or not, the issue is not whether every Member who wants to speak has spoken. The issue is whether there has been sufficient discussion or not.

1303 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shri Syamnadan Sahaya : But every Member who ought to speak should have been allowed to speak. And, sir, you yourself said that you would allow me to move my amendment to make this provision consistent with the clause. Pandit Malaviya : While a Member is actually in the midst of his speech, I think, the question is even a little different from what it is when normally the question for closure is put. There is some difference. Mr. Deputy Speaker: But no Member is now speaking. Pandit Malaviya : This is a matter of sufficient importance. You will find that those who want to speak have not spoken on this point at all. For instance, I have not spoken a word on this point. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Hon. members must remember this point— and it has also been referred to by the Hon. Law Minister—that it is not as if every Member who wants to speak on an amendment or a motion, should be given an opportunity. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : But those who have given amendments ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then every Hon. Member will submit an amendment so that he may be allowed to speak. That cannot be the criterion. The Chair can be expected to weigh the pros and cons and come to the conclusion whether there has been sufficient debate or not on a particular view-point. It may be that the particular Hon. Member who has tabled the amendment has not pressed it; but some other Hon. Member may have done it, perhaps much more eloquently and forcibly. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: No, sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is a question to be judged by a third person, and I feel that there has been sufficient discussion over this matter. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : The points raised in these amendments are different. It is a quite different matter if the same type of amendments are discussed together. But there are particular aspects of these amendments which have not been pressed and those aspects must be considered. That is one submission as this. We are to decide here and now and once and for all, that texts, customs and usages will be given the go-by. Therefore, the importance of this clause

1304 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is far more than that of any other that you might discuss in the whole of this Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Now that this point has been raised. I would like to ask the Hon. Law Minister whether in view of what has been said, it is possible to use the word “ inconsistent” in both the parts. Dr. Ambedkar : That is another matter. I do not propose to make the change and if you will give me a chance. I will explain why. Pandit Malaviya : Sir, now that the Leader of the House is here, can we make an appeal to him ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I feel that there has been sufficient discussion. The question is : “That the question be now put. ” The House divided : Ayes, 63 : Noes, 34. Division No. 3. Ayes 12-54 p.m. Alagesan, Shri Das, Shri B. K. Guha, Shri G. S. Ambedkar, Dr. Das, Shri Ram Dhani Hasan, Shri M. A. Ansari, Shri Devi Singh, Dr. Hazarika, Shri J. N. Baldev Singh, Sardar Durgabai, Shrimati Hazarika, Shri M. Barman, Shri Gadgil, Shri Himatsinghji, MajorBharati, Shri Ghalib, Shri General. Borooah, Shri Gandhi, Shri Feroz Iyyunni, Shri Brajeshwar Prasad, Shri Ghose, Shri S. M. Jagjivan Ram, Shri Chaudhuri, Shrimati Ghule, Shri Jain, Shri A. P. Kaimala. Gopalaswami, Shri Jajoo, Shri Jangde, Shri Moidu Moulavi Satish Chandra, Shri Jayashri, Shrimati Nehru, Shri Jawaharlal Sharma, Pandit Kanaka Sabai, Shri Obaidullah, Shri Chandra. Kesar, Dr. Pant, Shri D. D. Shi Charan Lal, Shri Krishnamachari, Shri Pillay, Shri Shivan Shukla, Shri S, N. T. T. Poonacha, Shri Sidhva Shri Kunzru, Pandit Pustake, Shri Subbiah, Shri Lakshmanan, Shri Raj Bahadur, Shri Subramaniam, Dr. V. Mirza, Shri Venkataraman, Shri

1305 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL NOES Achint Rm, Lala Indra Vidyavachas- Sahaya, Shri Shyam Bhargava, Pandit M. B. pathi Shri nandan Bhargava, Pandit Jhunjhunwala, Shri Shah, Prof. K. T. Thakur Das. Maitra, Pandit Sharma Pandit Bhatt, Shri Malaviya, Pandit Balkrishna. Chandrika Ram, Shri Man, Sardar B. S. Shukla, Shri A. C. Das, Shri Nandkishore Naziruddin Ahmad, Shri Singh, Capt. A. P. Das, Shri Sarangdhar Oraon, Shri Snatak, Shri N. Das, Shri S. N. Pannalal Bansilal, Shri Sondhi, Shri Dholakia, Shri Ramnarayan Singh, Babu Tek Chand, Dr. Gupta, Shri V. J. Ranbir Singh Ch. Vaidya, Shri V. B. Hukam Singh, Sardar Raut, Shri Yashwant Rai, Prof. *Dr. Ambedkar: I have already explained, when I intervened earlier, as to what exactly is the position of custom under clause 4 which is the subject matter of discussion. At that time I explained that so far as clause 4 is concerned, it does not say that no custom shall be recognised. My amendment to clause 4 is “Save as otherwise expressely provided in this Code”, which means that if Parliament agrees to save any particular custom from the operation of any particular clause it is still open to Parliament to do so. Therefore, it is quite wrong on the part of Members of Parliament who have dilated on the question of custom to suggest that this clause is so worded as not to leave any room or place for custom. All that has been said that this Code is trying to abrogate custom altogether is to my mind based upon a complete misunderstanding. As I have already said, it is still open to members of Parliament who are interested in a particular custom to raise that question under the appropriate clause of this Bill when it will be open to discussion and I shall be able to express my opinion whether I am in a position to accept that custom or I am not in a position to accept that custom. Therefore, that position is perfectly safeguarded even if clause 4 is passed in the form in which I have suggested it should be passed. The only other point to which I wish to make reference is the point made by my friend coming from one of the tribes, Mr. Theble Oragon. It seems to me that he has not read the provisions of clause 2 which this House has already passed. Sub-clause (2) of clause 2 says to what *P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 22nd September 1951, pp. 3183-88.