Vol. 14, Part II · pages 61–65

841 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL An hon. Member : Why did my hon. friend go there ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : It is my business to be informed : not to suggest anything to them, not to control, guide nor mislead them. It is for me as a Member to ascertain public opinion. If I know that Hindu opinion moves in a particular way, even at the risk of being called backward I would bring it to the notice of the House. There is no point in trying to be fashionable and clever at the cost of commonsense and equity. Some hon. Members asked me in an oblique manner, “Who says so ?”. They think that the Hindu community has accepted the Code and are agreeable to it. I come from Bengal. At the request of the Government of their opinion they said that they were opposed to it…………. Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal) : What have they said now ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : If they are changing, I do not know about that. Shrimati Durgabai : You too must change along with them. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not think they have expressed any recent opinion. Apart from rumours their legal opinion duly approved by the Government has been sent by their Judicial Secretary and it has been circulated to us. Any other opinion has not been circulated to us. If they have been circulated to the private ears of any Members I cannot take any notice of it here. The Government of Bengal is against the Bill. The big people are against it. Shri Sondhi (Punjab) : They have compromised, I am told. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not think they have put themselves in a compromising position at all. Go to any Bar Association and listen to what they talk. They are getting tired of it. The very eagerness with which the Bill is sought to be pushed through the House…………… An Hon. Member : Is it all relevant to the amendment ? Mr. Chairman : I would draw attention to amendment No. 31. It is quite relevant. Shrimati Durgabai : He is only repeating himself. Shri Tyagi : Since the Hon. Member has alleged that the Bengal Government was against this Hindu Code I want to know from him if the Chief Secretary of the Bengal Government is opposed to it ? Shri Khurshed Lal : He is not the Government of Bengal. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The Government of India circulated the Bill and asked for opinion. The various State Governments gave their opinion and those opinions have been circulated to us. I have no private communication with the Bengal Government. The public

842 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES opinions which have been circulated to us are there, any hon. Member can see them. There you will find that the Bengal Government opposes the Bill. Pandit Malaviya (Uttar Pradesh) : Why should they see if it is not convenient to them ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : They find that the law is not convenient to Bengal soil. What is more, all the judges of the Calcutta High Court— I suppose they should be regarded as educated people, not orthodox, not the rabble, they are fine, cultured, intelligent men. They are not mere orthodox men—gave their opinion jointly that they are opposed to the Bill. Shri Raj Bahadur : May I know, Sir, whether it is permissible for the member to attack the very foundation and principle of the Bill now ? Is he speaking on clause 2 or on the whole Bill ? Sardar Hukam Singh : It was an answer to the interruption on his statement that Hindus did not want it. Mr. Chairman : Order, order. So far the observations of the hon. Member were relevant under amendment No. 31. But at the same time I would request him not to be very general in his remarks. He ought to confine his observations to the particular points made out by him in his amendment. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The point before us is whether the law should be made applicable to persons who do not agree to be bound by it. If you do not give the option you will be forcing the law upon people who do not want it. That is why I thought that in order to strengthen that point the objection of eminent authorities like High Court Judges and the Government of Bengal was relevant. It shows that the people are against it—not the backward people but intelligent, civilised people who have some status in society. That was my purpose in referring to it. I, therefore, submit that in view of all these objections, the law should be made applicable to those who are particularly enamoured of it, who think they will be benefited by it, but it should not be made applicable to one and all to those who do not want it. I submit that those who are opposed to the Hindu Code Bill are a minority in the House, but those who are in favour of the Bill are a microscopic minority in the country. The whole question is : is it enough for you to be fired with the idea that the Hindu Code is a good thing if the people do not want it ? In a democratic society you must not force

843 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL a benefit upon those who do not want it. The people do not want it. Therefore, you must not force this upon them. I therefore heartily support the two suggestions made by the two hon. Members that the law should be made applicable first to those who want it. Then if we find that there is ready acceptance, that it is palatable to the Hindus, that they want it, that they readily accept it, then this Parliament may later on extend it do other people or to other classes of people. That should be the proper way. As has been suggested, if once we accept this principle, make its application voluntary, the whole controversy will vanish. The bitterness of the majority outside and the minority in this House will disappear at once. Then there will be no question of a difference of opinion. If it is good it is good for the highest class of society. It is not good to the condition of people who belong to the middle classes and to the lower classes. It is for this reason that I think that the suggestion in that amendment should be accepted. Then, one of my amendments is that sub-clause (3) should be omitted. That sub-clause runs to the effect that : “The expression ‘ Hindu’ in any portion of this Code shall be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion is, nevertheless, governed by the provisions of this Code.” It says in effect that though a man is not a Hindu, if the Code applies to him he is a Hindu. It begs the very question. It could have been said a Hindu is a Hindu ! The draftsman was not satisfied and he tried to make confusing words confounded by the addition of sub-clause (3). To whom would you make the Code applicable ? If you say a man is a man who is a human being it does not help anyone. It simply shows some confusion of mind. You cannot say that a Hindu is not a Hindu but that although he is not a Hindu provided the Code applies to him he is a Hindu. I think a simpler way of approach should have been far more satisfctory and better. If you say all persons having two legs and two hands are Hindus I have no objection. If you say all Hindus are Hindus even that would have made some sense. You say, all Hindus are Hindus, all Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are Hindus, the illegitimate children of those are Hindus and then all those are Hindus who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews. You are not satisfied with this round-about and circumlocutory way of expression. You say that even though a man is not a Hindu he is a Hindu if this Code applies to him. You should be more straightforward, more logical, more clear in your expression. The draftsmanship of this clause

844 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES shows the hand of many a person but it has not been properly drafted. That is why there has been so much of confusion, so much of roundabout expression. I therefore submit that sub-clause (3) should be omitted. A Hindu should be a Hindu, one who follows the Hindu religion. With regard to Buddhists, Jainas and Sikhs, I should quite agree to them being included provided the Buddhists, Jainas and Sikhs agree to be bound by the Hindu Code. Those persons also are Hindus who are not Muslims, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. But you say that a person is a Hindu, though he is not a Hindu, if he is bound by this Code. Somehow or other that is a most unsatisfactory way of approach. Shri Tyagi: He is a de jure if not a de facto Hindu. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : If you want to call a person a “Hindu”, I have no objection. That is a simple way. You simply enumerate him as “Hindu”. Why this circumlocutory, roundabout and circuitous way of expressing it ? It shows, I say with respect, some confusion of thought. Dr. Amhedkar : You are more confounded than anybody else in this House, I am afraid. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I have other amendments which I shall try to deal with tomorrow, if I am not interrupted like this. The House then adjourned till a Quarter to Eleven of the clock on Tuesday, the 6th February, 1951. ll 5 P.M.

845 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL HINDU CODE—contd. *Mr. 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. Clause 2 was under discussion. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad will continue his speech. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) : Sir, at the very outset the House is in a very hilarious mood. I believe the subject is extremely important and it requires very grave consideration. Yesterday I dealt with some of my amendments. I shall now come to amendment No. 31 which reads: After sub-clause (4) of clause 2 add the following new sub-clause : “(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section this Code shall apply only to such areas or to such persons or classes of persons in any state from such time or by such stages as the State Legislature may from time to time by Act provide.” The Bill is highly controversial and it is improper even for those who believe it to be highly beneficial to the country to force this Bill upon the entire Hindu population. I submit that this House should not take this hasty step. I do not contend that this House has no jurisdiction, but I do submit that this House should not take upon itself the serious responsibility of forcing a law upon an unwilling people. This House was specially constituted to obtain independence from the British Government, and in due course through its constituent side it passed the Constitution. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : Sir, is this relevant at this stage ? I do not like to interfere in the debate but certainly we have spent more than four hours in discussing a single clause. Mr. Speaker : I was just watching for a minute or two whether the hon. Member’s reference was leading to some sound argument that he was coming to. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I was submitting that this House has not the mandate of the country to pass this Bill. This is a fundamental matter affecting the religious and social structure of India. Therefore, it is proper and relevant to consider our exact position. I am not going elaborately into all the history because that has been done at *P.D. Vol. VIII, Part II, 6th February 1951, pp. 2425-83.