Vol. 14, Part II · pages 66–70

846 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the proper stage, but I cannot forget the fact that a large number of hon. Members of this House are new Members and were not present at that stage. So, a very brief resume of those points may, I submit, be not irrelevant. Mr. Speaker : I may inform the hon. Member that, so far as the representative character of this House is concerned as also its competency to consider such a Bill, that has been sufficiently thrashed out before and the present stage is not the proper stage of again raising that kind of an argument. We are now discussing the Bill clause by clause and clause 2 is before the House, so, he will restrict his remarks only to the provisions in clause 2 and the amendments before the House. Of course, the scope for that is wide enough, but not for questioning or even doubting the representative character of the House or its capacity to pass this Bill. That will be unnecessarily repeating what was said at the previous stages. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I bow down to your ruling. I am not at all questioning the representative character of the House or its competency. But the question is that we have not consulted the people. Not that we have no jurisdiction, not that we do not represent the people, but on a social legislation of an all-embracing character like this we should have obtained some mandate. That was the point which I was going to submit. I do not wish to elaborate it. I wished to refer to this matter in order to develop my argument with regard to amendment No. 31. I want by this amendment to restrict the application of the Bill to the different States, upon the State, by Act, prescribing its application, and also limiting the conditions on which the Bill should apply, the persons or classes of persons to whom the Bill should apply and the stage or stages through which this application should come. Therefore, my point, so far as this amendment is concerned, is that the Bill should not be made applicable to all persons outright. The State Government are in a better position to know the conditions of the people, their wishes and desires and their needs. It is therefore proper to allow each State to apply the Law and to such extent and through such stages as the Legislature, by Act, may provide. I know that so far as reports are concerned the Government of Bengal has opposed this bill. Though it was given out yesterday that in private conversation some hon. Member was told, some individual Minister in Bengal was in favour of the Bill, that is not the official position

847 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL taken by the Government of Bengal. I dare say that each State has its different problems to solve with regard to this Bill: its stage of civilisation, its state of economic condition and various other factors must, I believe, obtain in different degrees and in different circumstances in the different States. My point is that for those hon. Members who feel that this Bill is good there are a much larger number of hon. Members who feel the Bill is not good for them. Therefore, my submission would be to strike a via media . Let the Bill be accepted by those who think that it is good for them, but let them not force the Bill upon others. Now, so far as the States are concened, the State Legislatures would be the proper authority to apply law, adapting the application to suit the differing circumstances of the case. Though the Hon. Minister in charge of the Bill is enamoured of uniformity in the laws, I think that it is a principle which should yield to practical considerations. I submit that the State Legislatures are the proper authority to ascertain the Actual opinion on the Bill and the application of the Bill should also be controlled by them. To this principle, there should be no objection. If, as is claimed, the Bill is a very beneficial one, acceptable to the people, acceptable to the Hindus of India, nothing could be lost by letting the State Legislatures express their opinion. The State Governments have their Departments through which they are in a position to know the wishes of the people and the members of the State Legislatures are also in a position to know the minds of the people. I therefore, submit that the application of the Bill in different circumstances and to different people should be left to the local Legislatures. If this is done, then much of the sting about the Bill and much of the objectionable features of the Bill would at once disappear and the controversy would immediately stop. The more the supporters of the Bill are convinced that the Bill is highly acceptable, the more they should be ready to subject themselves to this test of acceptance of the Bill by the local legislatures. I submit that this amendment raises an important principle and if the claims are as high as they are alleged then this principle should be accepted. It is conceivable that there are corners in the States where this law would Act adversely. There are various provisions bearing on divorce and there are various customs in different parts of the country for marriage and divorce. If we apply this Bill to them straightaway, that would take away the simplified marriage and simplified divorce and substitute complicated forms of divorce and marriage. To that extent,

848 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES their existing rights would be affected. There are, again, people who do not like to enjoy the rights of marriage and divorce as prescribed in this Bill. To them also, it would be a hardship. From any point of view, therefore, the application of this law to the peculiar circumstances of each State must be left to the local Legislature. Then Sir, I have been jeered and jibed at many times. 12 noon Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar) : No. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That has been my privilege. I believe that the delay that has occurred was due to two reasons, the author of both the reasons being Dr. Ambedkar himself. First of all the Bill was sent to the Select Committee. For reasons best known to him, it came back from the Select committee in the form of an altogether new Bill. That led to some controversy, which took about six months’ time. I submit that this portion of the delay was not due to me. If I had any fault, it was to point out the error and thereafter it was for the House to give a ruling. Shri B. Das (Orissa) : Why apologise ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That delay was due to Dr. Ambedkar himself. I do not blame him for this. I do not attribute any motive to him. Dr. Ambedkar : He forgives me! Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Probably, he wanted to improve matters and make matters worse. The next reason for the delay was………… Dr. Ambedkar : I do not think any hon. Member of this House has charged my hon. friend with dilatory tactics and I do not see why he should indulge in an explanation which is certainly not wanted, so far as I am concerned. He is wasting time. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : No, Sir. At least one word by way of explanation is necessary. Although I might not have referred to it, the charge has definitely been made and it goes in the proceedings to be read even after 100 years. I submit that the next reason for the delay was that in the Bill which was referred to the Select Committee, there were enormous numbers of substantial changes and those matters had to be put before the House just to argue that the members of the Select Committee had not a proper opportunity to consider them in detail. Those controversies are gone, but public memory is short and Ministerial memory is shorter. By a strange

849 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL coincidence, by a strange freak of fate, the delay is attributed to me. I think it is quite unnecessary to take it up and discuss it. So far as this matter is concerned, as Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya said on one occasion, dilatory tactics are permissible. If any Member is satisfied that a Bill must be opposed, dilatory tactics are permissible. He may oppose—so long as he may—fairly, and even unfairly, if he must. I submit that I do not take recourse to this extreme step. I believe that the Bill is a controversial one and therefore some amount of controversy is inevitable. The controversy is embedded in the Bill itself. Dr. Deshmukh (Madhya Pradesh) : In Dr. Ambedkar ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes, of course. When the draft Bill was circulated, the Hindu Law Commission went round the country and collected a large number of opinions. The opinions were preponderantly against the Bill. These very women who are supposed to be anxious to liberate themselves through this Bill opposed the sittings of that Commission in different places in large numbers. Shri Tyagi (Uttar Pradesh) : Clause 2 is now under discussion; what has all this to do with it ? Mr. Speaker : The Chair is taking care of it. But if hon. Members want to do so, they may ; but in that case his speech will be prolonged and may go on till tomorrow evening. Therefore, let him go on in his own way. If he is irrelevant, the Chair will stop him. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, it is these interruptions which certainly create a certain amount of difficulty. When a question is asked, it certainly requires an answer. After all I am accustomed to these interruptions and nothing is more acceptable to me than these interruptions. Sir, clause 2 is a very important one because it deals with the application of the Code. Many amendments have been suggested to this clause, the underlying idea of all of them being to prevent its universal application straightaway, considering the magnitude of the legislation, I for one feel that the house should take serious consideration of the suggestion to proceed slowly and to adapt the Bill to suit local conditions. If that is done, the impact of the Bill would be more tolerable and the objections would largely vanish. Sir, I have done.

850 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES *Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (Punjab): Sir, in regard to the application of the Hindu Code to the various subjects and peoples who come within the purview of clause 2, I have to submit for your consideration a few words. I agree with the previous speaker that the scope of clause 2 is very wide and therefore, all these matters which have been submitted for the consideration of the course are quite appropriate and should be considered by the House in regard to application of clause 2. But at the same time, I am of opinion that by practical considerations we are compelled to limit the scope of clause 2 to such persons to whom the Hindu law applied previously. I am not here to minimise the efforts of those who think that in pursuance of the directive principles we ought to have a Civil Code for this country. I am for it, the whole country is for it. We should, therefore endeavour to have a Civil Code for the whole country and I would very much like that Hon. Dr. Ambedkar who has done so much for this country in the matter of giving us a Constitution and bringing forward the Hindu Code which affects about thirty crores of people will in time bring forth a new Civil Code for the whole country. But at the same time I do not think it is practicable to say that this Hindu Code should be turned into a Civil Code, ( an Hon. Member; Why not ?) The question is being asked “ Why not ?”. I would certainly submit the reason. Now, as I have just pointed out. I admire the spirit of the previous speakers Mr. Sarwate, Shri Vidyavachaspati and Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor, when they want one Civil Code for the whole country. As a matter of Act this attempt of Dr. Ambedkar in incorporating certain principles which ought to have been the real basis of the Hindu Code is simply laudable. This Hindu Code, according to some, is a Code which ought not to apply to Hindus alone, because this Hindu Code embodies principles which are not taken from the Hindu law alone. In regard to certain principles, they are so broad based that I should think they may eventually furnish a basis for having a Civil Code. As remarked by the previous speaker, marriage is certainly one of the ten samskars. It is a religious affair. But in this Code we have ‘got the provisions of the Civil Marriage Act also. My humble submission is that so far as the question of Civil Marriage is concerned it ought to have been contained in the Civil Code which we have all in view and which will be equally good for all the citizens of *P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 6th February 1951, pp. 2430-52.