Vol. 14, Part II · pages 56–60

836 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Several Hon. Members: Never, never. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : My next amendment, No. 21, I would repeat my argument, enforces a condition that a man, whose religion is in question, is a Hindu if he is a Hindu after attaining the age of eighteen years; because at the age of eighteen, he is entitled to act in a legal manner, and if he has attained the age of eighteen years, he may change his religion. Therefore, the option of a boy, on attaining the age of eighteen years, to change his religion, is provided for. That contingency has not been thought of by the draftsmen. Therefore, I am submitting this amendment for the consideration of the House. I now come to my next amendment No. 23. It runs thus: For part (d) of sub-clause (1) of clause 2, substitute: “(d) to a convert to the Hindu religion, subject to his rights and liabilities before his conversion.” You say that a convert to a Hindu religion would be a Hindu. It is plain commonsense that a man has freedom of conscience and religion and he would be fully entitled to convert himself to Hinduism. But, what happens to his rights and liabilities before he is converted ? I will explain the position. A Christian, a married man, is converted today to the Hindu religion. What happens to his wife ? Would the wife be automatically divorced because she is not a Hindu ? A marriage between a Hindu and a Christian would be illegal. I agree that a convert to the Hindu religion should be treated as a Hindu. But, what about his rights and liabilites before conversion ? There are numerous rights and liabilities. I do not wish to detain the House by detailing the various considerations which may arise on account of this. I simply put it generally that a convert should be a Hindu, subject to all the rights and liabilities he had before the conversion. Suppose there was a non-Hindu possessing rich property, and suppose he is converted to Hinduism. Should you ask him to lose all his property ? If he is to inherit from some one, before conversion, should he lose this inheritance after his conversion. There are laws relevant to this which occur to me, but I only submit that we should preserve all the rights and liabilities acquired by the man who is converted, before his conversion. The status quo of the rights previously acquired should not be disturbed. All those rights should not be lost simply by the conversion. Rights once acquired should not be allowed to be lost.

837 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Liabilities incurred should not be allowed to vanish, all because of a later conversion. The conversion should not affect past transactions, past rights and past liabilities. Then, my next amendment is that sub-clause (2) of clause 2 should be omitted. This sub-clause is to this effect : “This Code also applies to any other person, who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.” This sub-clause, I submit, is based on erroneous considerations, and on erroneous analogies. In part (a) we have said that this Code applies : “to all Hindus, that is to say, to all persons professing the Hindu religion in any of its forms or developments, ...” And we also say that it applies: “ to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion.” But the Sikhs, I feel, do not very much appreciate the conferring of the so-called benefits of this Code on them. My friend Sardar Hukam Singh is ready to give up the so-called benefits of the Hindu Code now being conferred upon the Sikhs. So long as he remains a Sikh, I do not think he would very much appreciate the Hindu Code being applied to him and……… Shri Tyagi : He can become a Hindu. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : But let Sardar Hukam Singh speak for his own community. I am only………….. Shri Khurshed Lal : Yes, you are speaking for yours. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Then we come to part (c)(1) which says that the Code applies to any child, legitimate or illegitimate etc. A Hindu is a Hindu and the child of a Hindu should also be a Hindu. But what I say is this. Sub-clause (2) seems to be somewhat misplaced, because it states that the Code applies also to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. Looking at it from the drafting point of view, this is a circuitous way of drafting the thing, and it shows the piecemeal introduction of an idea. If this is the idea, why not say straight away that all persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews are Hindus ? Instead of doing that, you first of all say that Hindus are first of all Hindus. Then you say that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are Hindus and then you say that the

838 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Code will apply to other persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews. I think the most straightforward and logical way of putting this definition would have been to say that all persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews are Hindus. It comes to that. Therefore, I submit, at that time, there might have been some hesitation in the mind of the draftsmen and this idea was introduced at a later stage. Otherwise there was nothing to prevent them from saying what they actually meant. But there is a snag in this clause 2, sub-clause (2). Does it necessarily follow that a man who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew is a Hindu ? He may be a communist, as is suggested by a friend here. Or he may belong to the religion of Shintoism as professed in Japan. Or he may have no religion at all. How can it be accepted as an inexorable principle that a man must be a Christian, Parsi, Muslim, Jew or a Hindu ? There may be a person who belongs to no religion, or there may be a person whose religion is apart from any of these great religions. Shri Tyagi : Hinduism is a cocktail of all religions. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Of course, to say that all the rest belong to the Hindu religion may sound very sweet to Hindu ears. But the question is whether we should force the so-called benefits of this Code on anybody ? Should we call anyone a Hindu and force the Code on him ? That is the point. Suppose there are some foreigners here, or their servants or subordinates or friends. We are encouraging tourist traffic and we can expect many such persons in India. And suppose one such foreigner dies while in India. Who will inherit his wealth ? Dr. Ambedkar : You will inherit his wealth if he dies in India. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The question is, are those persons who do not belong to any of those religions to be the victims upon whom the so called benefits of this Hindu Code should be forced ? The Hindu community is docile and in an absolute minority in the House, but outside there is a great deal of objection raised and that being the case, should these so-called benefits be forced on all ? Should you force the Code upon all the persons who are neither Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews, and because they do not belong to any

839 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL of these religions, does it necessarily follow that they belong to the Hindu religion ? Should the Code be applied to them ? That is the question which the House will have to answer. I submit that this sub clause (2) must be omitted because it seeks to enact a proposition which should not be accepted. Let us proceed gradually. You must not force the Code upon such persons. There may be some who follow some other religion or who have no religion at all, or a new religion may come into the world and to them the law should not be made applicable. The application of the law should be gradual. The impact of this tremendous measure should be gradual. In fact I was very much enamoured with part of the amendment moved by my hon. friend Mr. Kapoor. There was a great deal of sense in that part of the amendment which said that the Code should apply only to those persons who want it. That was also the purport of the amendment of Shri Jhunjhunwala. Of course there were some differences with regard to detail. But the important principle is that the Code should apply only to those who want it to be applied to them. Therefore this definition of a Hindu is not warranted. If the Hindu Code was not a controversial one and had been an acceptable one to all there would have been no difficulty. So by accepting that part of the amendment………. Pandit Krishna Chandra Sharma (Uttar Pradesh) : It means that everybody should be allowed to make a law for himself. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : You are trying to force down the throat of a person a medicine which he does not like. However good the Code may be you cannot force it down the throat of the Hindu community. An Hon. Member : Who says that ? We all want it. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : First of all you must take public opinion on your side. You must approach them gradually. Make it first optional and then if the law is good for everybody they will gravitate towards it. They will themselves push each other and compete with each other in getting themselves registered earliest. The law should attract people voluntarily and not by force. That is the great principle which underlies these amendments and suggestions. It is not a case of everybody making a law for himself but a case of a few persons forcing a law upon 33 crores of people……….

840 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES An Hon. Member : Who are you to say that ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : That is also lately the correct position. Go ahead. Let them shout at the top of their voice. Mr. Chairman : Hon. members should not go on speaking to each other while sitting. It will create confusion. Let the hon. Member proceed. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That is why I heartily support the suggestion to make the application of the Code voluntary thereby robbing it of its sting. Then I dare say that if the law is good gradually every one will come to it. I therefore submit that the law should be made applicable to those who are fit for it. India is a vast sub-continent where there are highly advanced people as also extremely backward people. The law is a good law to hon. Members because it is good to the community from which most of the Members come. It is an advanced law suited to the advanced community from which hon. Members come. But why should it be made applicable to hill tribes, aboriginals and backward people who have no education and who do not even have two meals a day. Why should it be made applicable to them by a stroke of the pen against their wishes ? That is the point which arises out of the suggestions contained in these two amendments. It is experience and not logic that should guide law. I therefore submit that the law should be made applicable to those who accept it and those who are fit for it. Gradually those who are semi-fit for it will qualify for it……….. Shri Khurshed Lal : That is why it is not being applied to you. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I agree that I am too backward to appreciate the benefits of this law. This law is a jumble. It does not contain much of the Hindu law. It is borrowed from the Muslim law, from the Christian law and borrowed all the worst elements of those laws. Therefore I would prefer to be called a backwardman so as to please my hon. friend Mr. Kurshed Lal rather than be looked upon as civilised and be made to accept a law which is not applicable to me and which does not appeal to me either. The great difficulty is that the Government is committed to a principle rather prematurely and the people outside are against it……………. Shri Bharati : Who are you to say that ? Who said that ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Just go out and see. If you had gone to the Gandhi Grounds yesterday you would have seen something of that.