(11-45 A.M.)        

 [f3] HINDU CODE—could.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will proceed to the consideration of the Hindu Code.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (U. P. : General): May I raise a point of order ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A point of order has been raised by Mr. Kapoor.

The Honourable Dr.B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law) : I was going to refer just to that. Sir, the Order Paper contains sixteen different motions, some of them raise points of order and some of them are siubstantive motions. I was going to express myself on them before I actually spoke on my mention. However, if my friend has to say something, let him do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us hear his point of order.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : Sir, on the previous occasion when the motion was being taken up I stood up to raise a point of order. I was then directed by the Honourable Speaker to wait until the point oforder raised by my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad had been disposed of. That point of order was disposed of that day exactly at 5 p.m. thereafter the House rose for the day. I hope you will be kind enough to allow me to raise that point of order now. But before I do so I want to assure the House that my object . . .

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member will kindly state his point of order. There need be no apology or argument. I should like to hear the point of order.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : My point of order relates firstly to the rights and privileges of the members of this House and secondly to the competency of this House in the present Session to deal with such an important and controversial measure as the Hindu Code Bill when a large number of members of this House are not allending and cannot attend, not for personal reasons, or party reasons, but for reasons of state and in the interest of the country as a whole, being at present busy in the provincial legislatures with the budget sessions, although they are very anxious and eager to attend this House and participate in the discussion of this motion materially affects the whole Hindu society.

Honourable Members: This is no point of order at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am here to decide whether it is a point of'order or not. You will kindly bear with me. I expect he will conclude his sentence soon.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: I know many of my friends here arc very impatient to proceed with the Bill. It was therefore. Sir, that I at the outset wanted to assure the House that my object is not to sabotage the Bill with many provisions of which I am in agreement. My object is that things should be done constitutionally, the right thing should be done at the right time and in the right manner. As you are aware ....

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard the point of order. The honourable Member feels that this House is not competent to proceed with this Bill. This is number one. Number two is that certain members, whom he would like to have in this House, are not here. Neither is a point of order against the motion for consideration being taken up. This is a sovereign Legislative Assembly fit to pass any legislation it likes, I have heard the point of order and do not want to hear any more arguments in favour of it. As regards the absence of some members, it is no doubt true that a number of members could not be here both from the Provinces and the Slates. But it is always open to them to come here and lake part.

Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar: General): May I say, ....

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far as the Chair is concerned and so far as this House is concerned, no such direction has been given and therefore the House is competent to proceed with its business. Honourable Members can come in at any time and take part in the debate. I rule out this point of order.

Babu Ramnarayan Singh: With all respect to you . . ..

Honourable Members: Order, order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would not hear anything more.

Babu Ramnarayan Singh: The previous ruling given by your. ....

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have considered all the previous rulings. I have got them here.

Shri V. S. Sarwate (Madhya Bharat): I wish also to raise one point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it any point of order ?

Shri V. S. Sarwate: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Honourable Member will kindly briefly state the point of order.

Shri V. S. Sarwate: I shall be very brief. My point of order is this : That for the purposes of this Bill the provisions regarding publication have not been satisfied. It is due to the Chair to see that those provisions are observed. I refer to rule No. 20 which says : " As soon as may be after a Bill has been introduced, the Bill, unless it has already been published, shall be published in the Gazette. " There is also a provision that a report of a Select Committee has to be published with the amended Bill. My submission in this case is this : that the Bill was published originally sometime in April 1947 before the Independence day. The political set-up of India has since changed and changed for the better. What I wanted to draw your attention to is this : That the Indian Stales which were not a part of the then British India were not to be affected by this Bill. Subsequently some States have merged and some have acceded to the Union in all subjects in August 1948. This is subsequent to the publication. There has been a Covenant of these States as the Chair may know sometime in August 1948. "The result of that Covenant is that the States would now be automatically governed by any legislation which the Centre passes either in its powers of exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction. I therefore submit that it is the duty of the Chair to protect and guard the rights of the people of these States concerned who are affected by any Bill. I submit that the object of this is two-fold. Such provision enjoining publication enables the constituencies or the people affected by any Bill to express their reactions, their opinions and their feelings about it. I believe this is a fundamental principle of democracy that no Bill shall be passed unless the people affected thereby are given an opportunity to express their opinion thereon. Secondly, the object of this publication is that the members of this Assembly may have an opportunity to ascertain what their constituencies feel about it. I need not say that it is the duty of the members here not to represent their individual views. They have to represent the views of their constituencies when important matters are concerned. As far as details or minor matters are concerned they may have discretion to express their views. But when a measure affects the whole life, the whole structure of society, then in such causes, in such vital matters it is the duty of the members to ascertain the views of their constituencies and represent them here correctly. They should not state what they feel. They should state what their constituencies feel. For this purpose, it is necessary that the Bill should be published. I submit that the Bill was published in the Gazette, but it was not published at the time when the people of the acceding States and merged States were in a position to. give that serious consideration to this Bill, which this Bill deserves. Therefore I submit it was not a proper publication, as far as those people are concerned and now, since the Chair is here to guard their interests, I appeal to the -Chair to order that the Bill be published before it is taken up for consideration.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: My reply to the point of order raised by my honourable friend is two-fold. In the First place, there is never any obligation cast upon this House for circulating any Bill for publication before the House can take the matter into consideration. It is only in special cases, when the House by a Resolution or the Government by any executive action desire that the Bill is so important that public opinion might be invited; that public opinion is invited. There is no such right, no obligation at all on the Legislature or on the Government and therefore, from that point of view the point of order is no point of order at all.

My second submission with regard to the point of order is this, that we have deliberately confined the operation of this Bill to the provinces of India, and so far as the Provinces are concerned, the opinion has been canvassed three limes, and I do not think any more purpose would be served by canvassing public opinion for the fourth time. When the occasion comes for the extension of the Bill to the Indian States, no doubt, this Legislature when a proper motion is placed before it, or the Government of the day, will take care that the wishes and the intentions of the States which have come into the Indian Union, will be consulted.

12 noon

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I agree with the Honourable Law Minister that inasmuch as the scope of this Bill is confined in the first instance only to Provinces of India and it is highly problematical whether it will be extended to the acceding Slates and if so, on what terms and conditions of accession, it will be time for them to consider whether they can come in or not. As regards the other one, it is not obligatory to send the Bill for circulation unless by a motion accepted by the House. The Select Committee has considered this matter

and has found this has not been so materially altered as to necessitate a republication in the Official Gazette. For these reasons I rule out the point of order.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, before I proceed to speak on my motion, I think it would be desirable if I ............

Shri B. Das (Orissa: General) : There is obstruction everywhere. Everybody rises to a point of order. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad rose six months; ago.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim) : It is a different point of order. My honourable friends should have a little patience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only stale that honourable members will kindly consider well before they raise a point of order. I also expect they will consider that if it should turn out to be a dialatory motion, they will invoke upon themselves the criticism of the House.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: My point of order is not dialtory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is open to any honourable member to raise a point of order. An honourable member can take as many points of order as are reasonable and proper.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: The objection to the point of order is dilatory. My point of order is this : the honourable Minister for Law has already spoken on this motion. He completed the first part of .the motion and then the subsequent stages began. He has a right to    reply at the end of the debate. Now the motion has been made that the Bill be taken into consideration and a speech has been delivered on the 31st of August, 1948. We have on the agenda a list of amendments. We have to proceed straight to the agenda and then when a motion is made the Honourable Minister certainly has a right of reply, and in the end a general right of reply. At this stage, the Honourable Minister can not make a second speech on the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I find from the proceedings on the 31^st of August, 1948 the following :—

" The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Sir, I move: " That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration. "

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker : I shall hear the Honourable Minister first and then take the point of order.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, in view of the urgency of other Government business which is on the agenda and to which Government feels it must give precedence, I do not propose to make a speech in support of my motion, because it is quite obvious that if I were to make a speech in support of my motion, that is bound to give rise to a debate which will result in the consumption of a great deal of the time of the Government. We have already few days let before the House is due to rise, and I, therefore, request you to allow this motion to stand over for further consideration in the next session of the Assembly. "

In view of this, the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar is entitled to proceed. I am exceedingly sorry that this point of order has been raised. It is only a dilatory motion.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: As I was going to say, it would facilitate my work a great deal if I were to know from you what procedure you propose to adopt with regard to the 16 motions that have been tabled as against the motion which I have made, and about which I propose to speak during the subsequent period. These 16 motions fall into three different categories. There are certain motions which propose that the Bill be further circulated for eliciting public opinion. There are certain motions which propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, which is different from the Select Committee which already reported on the Bill. And there are motions which propose that the Bill may be re-committed to the same Select Committee which has already reported.

There was one other or rather two other motions, one standing in the name of my honourable friend, Shri Prabhu Dayal Himatsingka and the other standing in the name of my honourable friend, Shri Biswanath Das, which propose that the Bill should be circulated to people residing in the acceding States, before the Bill could be taken into consideration. With regard to these two motions, a point of order was raised recently by my honourable friend, Shri V. S. Sarwate, which you have been good enough to dispose of and I therefore take it that motions. Nos. 7 and 8 must be taken to have been deleted from the agenda of today. The other motions remain and I want to know whether it is your desire that these motions may be put simultaneously along with my motion, so that all of them may be debated together and ultimately each motion may be put to the House separately, or whether you propose to have these motions taken up before my motion, so that they may be disposed of and the ground may be cleared for my speech on the motion, which I have tabled.

I might say one or two points with regard to the motions that have been made. There are certain motions which you are bound to put, I agree, unless the movers of these motions by themselves voluntarily desire not to move these motions. There are certain motions which are within your discretion, and unless you are satisfied that these motions are not dilatory motions but have behind them certain points of substance, it would not be open in accordance with the rulings which have been given by previous speakers, who have dealt with these questions, to put these motions to the House, Because the Chair must be satisfied that they are motions behind which stand substantial grounds and they are not purely dialtory. For instance, the motion that, the Bill should not be taken into consideration now, but should be taken into consideration at some later stage is one of those motions, I submit, which according to the rulings of the Chair heretofore could fall within your discretion, where you are satisfied that the reasons advanced by my honourable friends are susbstantial reasons, and therefore, you should put the motion to the House. For instance, the motion for recommittal is one such motion, because if you will kindly refer to these two volumes of Rulings,—1 am sure you have ............

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I propose to do is this.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I should like to have your guidance in this matter.

Mr. Deputy Sopeaker: I have considered this matter and the number of motions that have been tabled. So far as motions 1 and 2 are concerned, motion I is that the Bill as amended by the Select Committee be withdrawn.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab : General) : I do not propopse to move it at this stage: not that I am not entitled to move it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then it is not necessary to go into the question whether it is in order out of order. The second motion is ............

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am not moving it at this stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then there is the amendment by Master Nand Lal that the consideration of the Bill be postponed to the Budget Session of 1951.

Master Nand Lal (East Punjab : General): I am not moving it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These three withdrawals clear the ground. By whatever name they may be called, these three motions, substantially are for adjournment of the debate. I thought that, before the Honourable Law Minister, the mover of the Bill proceeds the movers of these motions must have risen in their seats and pressed for the taking up of these motions, because, before their motions are disposed of, the honourable mover could not be allowed to speak. Inasmuch as they were not moved, I kept quiet. Now it is clear they are withdrawn. The other motions viz., those for re-circulation or for reference to Select Committee, whatever their nature might be, they are motions which under the Rules any person is competent to make. It is a question for the House to deal with them. So far as the Select Committee motions are concerned, I must be satisfied in the first instance, about their need. Apart from that, there is a motion for recirculation with respect to which some such requirements have not been laid down, so far as I can see in any rule or rulings. Therefore, I propose at this stage to allow the mover of the Bill to make his speech and after he concludes his speech, allow the motions for Select Committee and Circulation to be moved without any speech. Then, the discussion will go on on all the motions and I will put them one after another to the House.

^[f4] The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am obliged for your guidance. Sir. As usual when presenting a motion for the consideration of a Bill as reported by the Select Committee it is the duty of the Chairman of the Select Committee, in the first instance, to draw the attention of the house to such changes as may have been made by the Select Committee in the original Bill which has been referred to the Select Committee. I propose to follow that procedure in the first instance.

Sir, the first part of the Bill deals with marriage and divorce. So far as this part of the Bill is concerned, the Select Committee has added two clauses which relate to the restitution of conjugal rights and to judicial separation. These provisions specifically absent from the original Bill. The draftsmen of the original Bill felt themselves content by reference to the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 which contains provisions relating to the restitution of conjugal rights and judicial separation. The original draftsmen of the Bill felt that a reference in this Bill to the Indian Divorce Act would be quite sufficient to invoke these two provisions which were contained in the Indian Divorce Act and consequently it was not necessary expressly to mention these two matters in the Code. The select Committee felt otherwise. The select Committee felt that as this was going to be a complete Code of Hindu Law, it was wrong to leave the code incomplete, and so to say, legislate by reference. They therefore thought that, instead of leaving this matter to be invoked by reference to the Indian Divorce Act, it would be desirable to embody in the Code itself the provisions contained in the Indian Divorce Act relating to these matters and consequently the part dealing with marriage and divorce has been expanded by the Select Committee by the addition of the clauses relating to these two matters. The House will see that there is no change as a matter of fact between the original Bill and the Bill as drafted by the Select Committee. All that is done is that what was done by reference to the Indian Divorce Act has been done expressly and positively by the inclusion in the Code of specific sections relating to these matters.

With regard to adoption, the Select Committee has introduced a few new changes. The first change that they have made is that when a father is disqualified by reason of the fact that he had changed his religion and ceased to be a Hindu, the mother has been given the right to give a boy in adoption. In other words, change of religion by the father from Hinduism to some other religion has been introduced as disqualification in the matter of the right to give in adoption. Consequenly, a mother in those circumstances has been empowered to give a boy in adoption. Similarly, if a widow was there and there was a boy, that boy certainly could be given in adoption by the mother when the father was not living. There again, a disability has been introduced to the effect that if the widow ceased to be a Hindu, she would lose her right of giving the boy in adoption, which she would otherwise have.

Another change which has been made by the Select Committee is with regard to the different modes of taking a boy in adoption. Hitherto, as the House knows, there are various forms of adoption. The main form of adoption which is recognised by the Smritis is what is known as the Dattaka form of adoption. In addition to the Dattaka form of adoption, there have prevailed in the various parts of India, customary forms of adoption such as Godha Adoption, Kritrima Adoption, Dwyamushyayana Adoption. The Select Committee felt that as they were codifying the law, it is desirable not to allow any room for customs to grow, because the effect of customs being permitted would be to eat into the Code and make the Code after certain time null and void. Therefore, the Select Committee decided that if anybody wants to adopt under this Code, nobody can make any adoption except in accordance with the provisions of this Code, and Dattaka shall be the only form and no other.

Then, Sir, we come to the question of the right of the adopted boy to divest the persons in whom property has been invested before the adoption takes place. As every member of this House, who is aware of the provisions of the Hindu Law, will know, under the existing Hindu law, it is permissible to a boy who has been adopted, no matter at what stage he has been adopted—he may have been adopted forty years after the death of the father—time makes no change at all in his rights—to file a suit to set aside any alienation or transfer of property made by the widow who has adopted him. Any amount of litigation goes on on this particular point. In fact, if anyone were to examine the total amount of litigation among the Hindus on the various points of Hindu law, I am sure they will find that litigation on the question of divesting the property by the adopted boy would be the largest volume. It is therefore desirable that this matter should be settled once and for all. The Rau committee adopted the procedure of dividing adoption into two categories—adoption made three years before the death of the father and the coming into operation of the Code: and adoption made after the Code. They laid down that a boy, if he was adopted three years before the death of the adoptive father would be entitled to the original rights which an adopted son had under the Hindu Code. But if he were adopted three years after he would not be entitled to set aside alienation.

The second thing that happened as a result of adoption under the Hindu Law was that he completely divested the widowed mother who made the adoption, with the result that the entire corpus of the property passed into the hands of the adopted boy, who, in a certain sense was a stranger, and notwithstanding the notional change that he entered into the family of the adopted father, he practically continued his affiliations with the members of the natural family. The result was that after the adoption had taken place, instead of the adopting mother getting any kind of security for hereself as a result of adoption which a natural mother would get from a natural son, she found that this new adopted boy ran away with the property and left the mother with noting but the right of maintenance. We thought that that was not a desirable state of affairs from the point of view of giving security to women, and consequently certain changes were made. The original distinction that was adopted in the Rau Committee was deleted and a provision was made that the rights of the adopted son shall accrue to him not form the date of the death of his adopting father but shall accrue to him form the date of his adoption, so that any alienation that may have been made prior to his adoption were beyond his reach, were unchallengeable by him.

The second provision that we have made was that the adopted son shall not as a result of adoption deprive the adopting mother completely of her right of property. What the Bill says in its altered form is that only one half of the property of the widow will go to the adopted son. The other half, notwithstanding the fact that the widow has adopted will continue to be in the possession and enjoyment of the adopting mother. The result is that the Committee has permitted adoption which the Hindu community feels is a necessary thing for the purpose of perpetuating the family. But at the same time we have taken care to see that the adoption does not beggar the mother altogether.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is not that the result under the Deshmukh Act?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No. As I say, she gets only the maintenance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: She gets half the share of the property.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As soon as the adoption takes place all that passes to the son.

Shri Prabhu Dayal Himatsingka (West Bengal : General) : According to the 1937 Act she is a co-heir with the son.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General): The son comes later on.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That may be so. Now I am coming to minority and guardianship. Here there are only two changes made by the Select Committee in this part of the Bill. The first change is that the power of the Hindu father as a natural guardian of his minor son has been taken away if he renounces the world or ceases to be a Hindu. The original law was that the father was the natural guardian and no matter what change took place in his condition either by his religion or in any other way, he still continued to be the guardian of his minor son. The Committee felt that as this was a Code intended to consolidate the Hindu society and their laws, it was desirable to impose this condition, namely., that the father shall continue to be the natural guardian so long as he continues to be a Hindu. The Code in its altered form also has introduced another change, namely, that a Hindu widow has been given power to appoint a testmentary guardian if her husband has not appointed anyone. She had not any such power and this power has been given to her by the Select Committe.

Now, Sir, I come to the part of the Bill which deals with succession and I will first refer to changes made in the succession to males. Now so far as what are called the compact series of heirs under the Hindu Law, which are placed in category I by the Rau Committee is concerned, the Select Committee has made no alteration at all. The compact series remains as it is, both in the line of heirs as well as in the order of heirs. That matter has not been altered at all. But with regard to persons which are included in clauses I to 4 of the Rau Committee, certain changes have been made both in the matter of the line of succession and also in the matter of priority of succession. The Committee has followed both the principles, namely, propinquity as well as natural love and affection, and it is on that basis that the Select Committee has made certain alterations in the heirs set out in clauses I to 4 of the original Bill. The select Committee has also done one thing more : it has curtailed the number of degrees of agnates and cognates who can become heirs to the deceased, and also it has removed the other heirs, such as for instance, heirs which are not related, such as Sam Brahmchari Guru and so on. The reason why the Select Committee has curtailed the number of heirs as provided for in the original Bill is this. We are under this code giving the right to make a will to every Hindu. A line of criticism has been levelled in a very important journal, namely, the journal of Comparative Legislation, in which a very eminent lawyer has made the point that when you give the right to make a will, it is unnecessary to provide such a long list of heirs which extend to the fourteenth degree from the deceased. If the deceased is interested in a man which is related to him in the fourteenth degree and is alive at the time of his death, it is open to him to make a will and to give a part of his property to the particular person in whom he is interested.

If the deceased himself during his lifetime has not chosen to remember a relation who is related to him by the 14th degree there is no particular reason why because of mere intestacy he should be permitted to come in for a share. That is one of the reasons why the Select Committee adopted this provision.

I might also draw the attention of the House to the fact that with regard to widows a disqualification has been introduced by the Select Committee which says that a widow on remarriage shall lose her right of inheritance.

Then with regard to the daughter's share, which of course existed in the original Bill itself, the Select Committee has made a somewhat important alteration. The original Bill said that the daughter shall get a share equal to half the share of the son and in order to make equity equitable in devising the line of succession to the Stridhan property of the woman they had also provided that in that case the son will take one half of what the daughter takes, so that the daughter will take one half in the father's and the son will take one half in the mother's property. I cannot say that that was an inequitable proposition but somehow the Select Committee and I believe I can say against the best part of their judgement increased in their enthusiasm the share of the daughter in father's property from one half to one full share, equal to that of the son. (An honourable Member : " The son is also given. ") I am aware of that. With regard to succession to females there are only two changes which the Select Committee has made. Under the existing rule the husband of a woman in the case of succession to females comes much later under the Hindu law and that provision was included by the old Rau Committee. The Select Committee felt that that was rather unjust, because it may be (it is often possible) that much of the property which is called Stridhan property or property which comes into the hands of a woman may, and perhaps does, to a very large extent come from the husband and if the husband is the principal source of the property, that comes into the hands of the woman, it is not proper that it should be postponed to other heirs. Consequently the Select Committee altered the provision and brought the husband in line with the other Stridhan heirs, so that the husband now shares simultaneously with the heirs of a woman, who share in the Stridhan property. As I said that because that increased the share of the daughter in the father's, they also pari passu made the share of the son in the mother's Stridhan property equal to that of the daughter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They balanced the son and daughter.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No change has been made in the law relating to maintenance which is worthy of requiring any mention to this House.

Then I come to the question of the joint family. It has been said that the provisions contained in the Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee contained provisions relating to joint family which are absolutely new. I would like to take this occasion to repudiate that suggestion. No change has been done by the Select Committee. The provisions of the Mitakshara joint family were originally contained in the Bill as drafted by the Rau Committee and it was placed before this House on the 9th August, which the House accepted and sent to the Select Committee. (Honourable Members : 9th April.) Therefore my first submission is that no new change has been made by this Select Committee. All that the Select Committee has done is to add two new clauses—clause No. 88 and clause No. 89. Clause 88 deals with the doctrine of what is called pious obligations. Clause 89 deals with the liability of the joint family to pay joint family debts. It was unnecessary to include these clauses, because once you break up coparcenary property it is not necessary to make any express provision with regard to the doctrine of pious obligation, because the doctrine of pious obligation is necessary where there is survivorship property : because by survivorship where A takes the property of B and the property of B is encumbered with debts, no special doctrine is necessary to impose an obligation upon B; because in hereditament which a person gets, he takes both the profit and the burden of it. But in view of the theory of the Mitakshara that every coparcener gets the property by survivorship, which does not belong to the deceased, the Patna high Court, if I may say so, as well as the Bombay High Court Bar pressed upon us very strongly that it was very desirable that these two things which were implicit, so to say, in the Mitakshara doctrine of joint family, shall be stated expressly in the Code, so that when the question of judicial interpretation arises there may be no occasion for any kind of dispute, doubt or controversy. As one of the objects of the code was to make the law clear not merely to the lawyers but to the ordinary citizens and as it is a suggestion which came from such a weighty authority as the Patna High Court and the Bombay High Court Bar, we thought it desirable to introduce these two things, namely no obligation to pay debts on the original ground of pious obligation and the liability to pay primary debts which belong to the family. Besides that there has been no change at all. If my friends have some doubt still on the subject that we have made fundamental changes in regard to the joint family of the mitakshara, I would like to draw their attention to section 86 (Part v : Joint Family Property). Section 86 of the new Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee is the same word for word, except for ordinary verbal changes, as part III-A section 2, on page 12 of the original Bill as drafted by the Rau Committee. Similarly section 87 which also deals with joint property is word for word the same as part III-A, section 2, page 12. Anybody who compares the two I am sure will accept the proposition which I have enunciated in this House that this is not an innovation by the Select Committee at all but they form part and parcel of the original Bill as drafted by the Rau Committee.

I should like to dispel any further doubt that may exist on this point by referring to the Rau Committee's Report (page 13). This is what the Rau Committee says (paragraph 51):

" Turning now to the contents of the Draft Code the main proposals on which differences of opinion have manifested themselves in varying degree are the following:

(1) the abolition of the right by birth and the principle of survivorship and the substitution of the Dayabhaga for Mitakshra in the Mitakshra Provinces;

(2) giving of half a share to the daughter;

(3) the conversion of the Hindu woman's limited estate into an absolute estate;

(4) the introduction of monogamy as a rule of law;

(5) the introduction of certain provisions for divorce."

I think Hon. Members will see that the Rau Committee in setting about its work made it perfectly known to everybody in this country that the Code that they had framed and which subsequently was embodied by them did contain the specific provision. I have no doubt about it that anybody who has read the volumes of evidence which have been collected by them previsouly by the joint Select Committee appointed by this House, by the Rau Comittee and by this Government by an executive order—would find that there is no person either in this House or outside, who has paid any attention to this part of the Code, who will be under any wrong impression that the Rau Committee had decided or propsoed that this co-parcenary should not beabolished. It is therefore not a new innovation of the Select Committee at all.

The Select Committee has made some changes with regard to the application of the Hindu Code. The Rau Committee's Bill contained a provision that the Bill should not extend to areas to which the Marumakkattayam and Aliyasanthanam laws apply. Somehow the Select Committee in its enthusiasm transgressed, if I may say sq without any disrespect, the bounds of reasonabinness and came to the conclusion that there ought to be no area which ought to be exempt from the operation of this Code. Consequently they deleted the provision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the interests of uniformity.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not know whether it was done rightly or wrongly; that is a matter which the house will consider at a later stage.

Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava (Ajmer-Merwara): May I ask whether the honourable speaker was dissenting from that view ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I will dissent at a later stage perhaps. I have no empty mind but I have still an open mind.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. and Berar: General) : Not a vacant mind !

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: On every question I hope.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, in the ordinary course a speech of the sort which I have made is generally regarded not only appropriate but sufficient for the occasion. But it would be futile on my part to disguise the fact that there is a section—if not a large section, a section in the house—which feels a certain amount of compunction over certains parts of the Bill. Neither can I disguise from myself the fact that outside the House there are many people who are not only interested in the Bill but, if I may say so, very deeply concerned about it. I therefore think that it is only right, if you will permit me, to add a few general observations with regard to the points of controversy which I have noticed in several newspapers which I have been persuing ever since the Bill has been on the anvil. I will take this matter also part by part and section by section. I will deal only with what I regard have been considered as points of controversy. Let me take marriage and divorce. Here I find that there are three points of controversy.—The first point of controversy is abolition of castes as a necessary requirement for a valid marriage; the second point of controversy is the prescription of monogamy; and the third point of controversy is permission for divorce.

I will take the first point of controversy, namely—abolition of caste restrictions. So far as this Bill is concerned, what it does is to arrive at a sort of compromise betweeen the new and the old. The Bill says that if member of a Hindu community wants to follow the orthodox system which requires that a marriage shall not bevalid unless the bride and bridegroom belong to the same varna, the same caste or the same sub-caste, there is nothing in this Code which can prevent him from giving effect to his wishes or giving effect to what he regards as his dharma. In the same way if one Hindu who is a reformist and who does not believe in vama, caste or sub-caste, chooses to marry a girl outside his vama, outside his caste, outside his subcaste, the law regards his marriage also as valid. So far as the marriage law is concerned there is therefore no kind of imposition at all. The vydhikas, the orthodox, are left free to do what they think is right according to their dharma. The reformers who do not follow dharma but who follow reason, who follow conscience, have also been left to follow their reason and their conscience.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (U. P. : General) : Are they permitted to marry outside their religion also if their conscience directs them in that manner ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Well, we will have another Bill for that. I do not know whether my honourable friend Mr. Tyagi is unmarried. If he is I will hurry it up.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: I want to make way for others.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Consequently, what will happen in Hindu society so far as marriage law is concerned if there will be a competition between the old and the new. And we hope that those who are following the new path will win subsequently. But, as I say, if they do not, we are quite content to allow two parallel systems of marriage to be operative in this country and anyone may make his choice. There is no violation of a shastra, no violation of a smriti at all.

With regard to monogamy it may be that it is a new innovation. But I must point out that I do think that any Member in this house will be able to point out having regard to customary law or having regard to our shastras that a Hindu husband had at all times an unfettered, unqualified right to polygamy. That was never the case. Even today, in certain parts of South India there are people who follow this, a section of the Nattukottai Chettiyars—the case has been reported in the Reports of the Privy Council itself, I am not depending on mere heresay evidence—but among the Nattukottai Chettiyars there is a custom that a husband cannot marry a second wife unless he obtains the consent of his wife. Secondly, when a consent is obtained, he must allot to her certain property which I think in the Tamil language is called moppu. That property becomes her absolute property so that if after her consent the husband marries and ill-treats her, she has a certain amount of economic competence in her own hands to lead an independent life. I cite that as an illustration to show that there has not been an unqualified right for polygamy.

A second illustration which I would like to give would be from the Arthashastra of Kautilya. I do not know how many Members of the House have perused that book, I suppose many of them have. If they have, they will realise that the right to marry a second wife has been considerably limited by Kautilya. In the first place, no man can marry for the first ten or twelve years because he must be satisfied that the woman is not capable of producing children. That was one limitation. The second limitation imposed by Kautilya on the right of second marriage was that the husband was to return to the woman all the stridhan that she had acquired at the time of marriage. It is only under these two conditions that Kautilya's Arthashastra permitted a Hindu husband to marry a second time.

Thirdly, in our own country, in the ligislation that has been passed in various Provinces, monogamy has been prescribed. For instance in the marumakkathayam and the aliyasanthanum law both of them prescribe monogamy as a rule of marital life. Similarly, with regard to the recent legislation that has been passed in Bombay or in Madras, similarly in Baroda, the law is the law of monogamy.

I hope the House will see from the instances I have given that we are not making any very radical or revolutionary change. We have precedent for what we are doing, both in the laws that have been passed by various States in India, also in the ancient shastras such as Kautilya's Arthashastra. If I may go further, we have got the precedent of the whole world which recognises monogamy as the most salutary principle so far as marital relations are concerned.

Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (Delhi) : What about the Mohammadan Law?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: We shall come to Mohammadan law when we discuss the Mohammadan law.

Coming to the question of divorce, there again I should like to submit to the House that this is in no way an innovation. Everybody in this House knows that communities which are called shudra have customary divorce and what is the total of what we call shudra ? Nobody has ever probably made any calculation as to the total number of shudras who go to compose the Hindu society, but I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the shudras form practically 90 per cent of the total population of the Hindus. What are called the ' Regenerated ' classes probably do not fill more than ten per cent of the total population of this country, and the question that I want to ask of honourable Members is this : are you going to have the law of the 90 per cent of the people as the general law of this country, or are you going to have the law of the 10 per cent of the people being imposed upon the 90 per cent ? That is a simple question which every Member must answer and can answer.

So far as the ' regenerated ' classes are concerned there was a time, if one refers for instance to the time when the Narada smriti or the Parashara smriti were written, when the smritis recognised that a woman can divorce her husband when he has abandoned her, when he died, when he has taken parivriju, and she was entitled to have a second husband. Consequently, it may be that at a later stage I shall read to you some extracts from your shastras to show. (An honourable member : " Your shastras "). Yes, because I belong to the other caste.

I shall read the extracts to show that what has happened in this country is that somehow, unfortunately, unnoticed, unconsciously, custom has been Allowed to trample upon the text of the shastras which were all in favour of the right sort of marital relations. My submission, therefore, to the house is that so far as any new principles have been introduced in the law of marriage or divorce, whatever has been done is both just and reasonable and supported by precedent not only of our shastras but the experience of the world as a whole.

With regard to adoption, there are again three points of controversy. One point of controversy with regard to adoption is this, that like the old Hindu law we do not make similarity or identity of caste a requisite for a valid adoption. We follow the same rule that we have followed with regard to marriage. Here again, I may say that if a Brahmin wants to adopt a Brahmin boy, he is free to do so. If a Kayasth wants to adopt a Kayasth boy, he is free to do so. If a Shudra wants to adopt a boy of his own community he is free to do so. If a Brahmin is so enlightened as not to adopt a boy belonging to his own community but adopts a Shudra, he is also permitted to do so. There is therefore no kind of imposition.

Seth Govind Das (C. P. and Berar: General): Why do you consider such a Brahmin enlightened ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Well, I do not know. From my point of view certainly he is enlightened; from your point of view he may be a very dark man, but that is a difference of opinion.

With regard to the question of the limitation on the right of an adopted son to challenge all alienations made by the widow before adoption, I do not think that there can be any controversy at all. There is no reason why we should continue the notion that a boy when adopted becomes the son of the adopted father right from the time when the adopted father died. This is a pure fiction. It has no value at all. It is not merely a fiction; it is a fiction which gives rise to tremendous litigation and tremendous difficulties. It is therefore right that the adoption should be simultaneous with the vesting of the property. I do not think any member of the House will think that this is a proposition which we ought not to accept at this stage. (Shri B. Das: "We all accept".)

Similarly, as I have stated, the limitation upon the right of a boy who is adopted to divest the mother completely and to make her nothing more than a dependant waiting for such maintenance as the adopted boy may give, I do not think that there is any member of the House who will think that such a situation can be justified on any ground whatsoever. I think it is right that we preserve the right of adoption which the orthodox community cherishes so much, but. Sir, I do not understand why there should be adoption. Most of us who make adoptions have no name to be recorded in history. Personally, I myself certainly would not like my name to go down in history, because my record is probably very poor. I am an unusual member of the Hindu community. But there are many who have no records to go down and I do not understand why they should indulge in adopting a son—-a stupid boy, uneducated, without any character—not knowing his possibilities and fastening him and fathering him upon a. poor woman, whom he can deprive of every property that she possessed. Therefore, my submission is this, that if you do want to cherish your old notions with regard to adoption at any rate make this provision that the adopted boy does not altogether deprive the mother of the property which is her mainstay. I do not think that that limitation can be at all a point of controversy.

With regard to the question of the abolition of customary adoption, I would like to say two things. There is a general argument which the House will be able to appreciate. It is this. A Code is inconsistent with customary law. That is a fundamental proposition. If you allow a Code to remain and at the same time permit custom to grow and custom to plead against the Code, there is no purpose in having a Code at all, because a custom can always eat into the Code and make the Code null and void. With regard to this particular matter of customary adoption such as Krithrim adoption, Godha adoption and Dwaimushayan adoption, my submission is this, that these are really not adoption at all. As the Privy Council in one of its rulings has definitely stated, adoption is purely a religious affair. The getting of property by the adopted son is a secondary matter. He may get property, he may not get property, and even though he may not get property his adoption from a religious point of view may be valid. Therefore, my submission is this, that all these customary adoptions are nothing else but devices to keep property within the two families which enter into this bargain, and in my judgement, since we have passed the Constitution and included in the Directive Principles one article saying that the State should take steps not to allow property being concentrated in the hands of one or a few, such devices like the Dwaimushayan where two parties merely agree to share the property and keep it with them ought not to be tolerated. Besides, there is no reason why parties who want to make a genuine adoption should not conform to the rules and regulations regarding the Dattaka adoption which is permitted by the law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is now one o'clock. The honourable Minister may continue after Lunch.

The Assembly then adjourned for Lunch till half Past Two of the Clock.

___________________

The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Half Past Two of the Clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar) in the Chair.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I want not to take up the points of controversy relating to the topic of co-parcenary law. The question is raised: Why does the Bill wish to seek to abolish the co-parcenary which is prescribed by what is called the Mitakshara law ? Now, Sir, having applied my mind in the best way I can for the proper exposition of this subjects, I think this is a question which required to be considered from three different points of view. One is how large a volume of property is included within the ambit of what is called co-parcenary property. If the volume that is comprised within what is called co-parcenary property is a very large part of the property which a man in these days holds, then no doubt some serious attention will have to be paid to this question. Therefore, that is the first aspect of the question that one has to examine.

The second aspect that we have to consider with regard to the retention of what is called co-parcenary property is whether any coparcener had individually the right to alienate property. Thirdly, whether any cop-parcener has a right in himself to break up the coparcenary. Obviously, if the property included within the class of property called co-parcenary property is a small part of the property, different questions will arise. Similarly, if any co-parcener, under the present existing Hindu law, has already got the right to alienate his share in the property, then obviously, the question whether this law or this Bill is abrogating co-parcenary property would stand on a different footing. Similarly, if under the existing Hindu law a coparcener has an inherent right to break up a co-parcenary, then my submission is that the question that this Bill breaks up the co-parcenary becomes very much less momentous than is thought of by most members of the House as well as people outside.

Let me therefore take the first question : What is the extent of the non-co-parcenary property which a co-parcener may hold, notwithstanding the fact that he is a member of the co-parcenary ? Now, my friends, who have paid attention to this subject and know what the position is under the Hindu law, will know that there is no disqualification upon a co-parcener to hold separate property while he continues to be a co-parcener. A co-parcener may have capacity to hold two different sorts of property—property which belongs to the co-parcenary and property which does not belong to the coparcenary, but belongs to himself and does not go, by what is called survivorship.

Let me give the House some idea of the extent and nature of the property which a co-parcener can hold, although he is a co-parcener. I have taken from the existing text books on the Hindu law, the following categories of property which a co-parcener can hold, notwithstanding the fact that he is a co-parcener. Firstly, property inherited by a hindu from a person other than his father, grand-father and great grand-father. If a Hindu gets property from a person who is not his father, grand-father or great grand-father, that property is in his hand and is separate property and does not belong to the coparcenary. Secondly, property inherited by him from his maternal grand father, thirdly gift of ancestral moveables made to him by his father and fourthly property granted by government to an individual who is a member of the co-parcenary becomes his personal property and not the property of the co-parcenary. Then fifthly we have ancestral property lost to the family and recovered without the aid of the family property. That also, although originally co-parcenary property, becomes his private property. Then sixthly, there is the income from separate property and purchases made from the income of such property. They are also private property. 7, share of a co-parcener by partition if he has not male issue. 8, property held by a sole surviving co-parcener when there is no widow with the power to adopt. 9, separate earning of a member of a joint family co-parcenary and 10, gains of learning. Such vast amount of property included in these 10 categories is today under the Mithakshara law the private property of a co-parcener. It does not become the property of the co-parcenary.

Let me illustrate this by one plain illustration. There are hundreds and hundreds of clerks in our Secretariat, some drawing small salaries, some drawing huge salaries more than the salaries of the Members of the Cabinet—Rs. 4,000 (Honourable Members : " Clerks ? Are they clerks ? ") I mean officers. In a certain sense they are glorified clerks.

The point I want to put to the house is this : that such large income as gains of learning, which come up in individual cases to Rs. 4,000, if there was a joint family in the true sense of the word, ought to go to the joint family for the joint maintenance of that family. What happens ? Under the Gains of Learning Act passed only a few years ago, this very Assembly, not I mean the Members, passed a law that such gains of learning, which form, as I say, the principal part of the income of a joint family and which a member is enabled to earn by reason of the education that was given to him out of the family income, have now been made his personal and private income. My submission to the House is this : when so large a property, as I have mentioned, included in these ten different categories have already been made in modification of the original laws of Mitakshara private property, what is the balance of property that is left which can be said to comprise the co-parcenary property ? My submission is that really very, very small volume of property is left to comprise within what is called the co-parcenary. Let me take the other question. It is said that the co-parcenary—1 hope Members understand that coparcenary is something very narrow and very limited and it is not the same thing as a joint family, which is quite a different matter— system enables the Hindus to preserve the property, to retain it, that there can be no break-up, there can be no squandering of money so to say on the part of any member of the family. A question that I want to put to the House is this : Is it true under the existing law of the Mitakshara that this property cannot be alienated , cannot be squandered ? The answer is completely in the negative. Let me give you one or two illustrations. I am taking the case of the father. The father can alienate joint property for antecedent debt. All that the father has to do is to first of all create a debt, say one thousand or two thousand rupees on a personal promissory note. Subsequently, after six months he becomes entitled to sell the whole of the co-parcenary property, if that becomes necessary for the purpose of meeting that antecedent debt. Now, a submission that I want to make to the House is this : Does the lodgment of such enormous power in the hands of a father to sell the property for purely antecedent and personal debts ? I want the house to bear in mind that the Mitakshara law makes a distinction between the father and the manager so far as the alienation of property is concerned. True a manager cannot alienate a property belonging to the co-parcenary unless and until it is proved that there is a family necessity for which alienation is necessary. But with regard to the father, there is no such obligation at all. A father can create a debt personally for himself and he becomes entitled to alienate that property for a purely personal debt which has not been incurred for the pruposes of the family. The only limitation that is imposed upon the right of the alienation of the father under the Mitakshara law is that the debt must not be impious, must not be for an immoral purpose and if it is not immoral, then the father can alienate the whole of the property of the co-parcenary. There is no limit at all.

Similarly, take the case of the son. It is also under the Mitakshara law within the competence of a son to demand the partition of the family property at any time he likes. I could have well understood the argument for the conservation of the co-parcenary property if the rule of Hindu Law was that no co-parcener was entitled to alienate the property, that the property must remain the property of the coparcenary, but that is not the case. The root of dissolution, the root of destruction of the co-parcenary property is in the co-parcenary itself, because it is the co-parcenary law that gives a vested right, a right from the very birth to demand partition of the property and disrupt the whole of the society.

Thirdly, even if a son does not alienate his property, he can create a debt on the property for his own personal pruposes and the creditor who has advanced that money under Mitakshara law has a perfect right to sue for the partition of the co-parcenary in order to recover his debt. A stranger, therefore, under the Mitakshara law has a right to break up the co-parcener. I would like to ask my honourable friends, who are worried about this matter, where a large part of the estate, of the assets lies outside the co-parcenary property and so far as the co-parcenary property is concerned, the father has a right to alienate without any kind of limitation except the immorality of the debt, the son has a right to break up the property at any time he likes and the son has a right to create a charge on the property enabling the creditor to sue for partition, is it something which might be called a solid system, which is fool-proof and knave-proof ? My submission is this, that the co-parcenary property law as it stands, contains within itself the elements of disruption. Therefore, the Bill is doing nothing very radical in saying that the share shall be held separately. As we all know to-day the condition is such that everybody wants to live separately. The moment a father dies, the sons claim that there shall be a legal recognition to facts, as they exist to-day. There is nothing that is radical at all in this part of the Bill.

Of course, I should say one thing which I think is generally not realized. I started by saying that a distinction has to be made between co-parcenary and joint family. This Bill while it does away with coparcenary, maintains the joint family. It does not come in the way of the joint family being maintained. The only thing is that the joint family in the Mitakshara law will be on the same footing and of the same character as the joint family under the Dayabhaga law. It must not be supposed that because the mitakshara law does not prevail in Bengal that there is no joint family. There is a joint family. The only distinction will be that the members of the joints family instead of holding their rights as joint tenants, will hold them as tenants in common. That will be the only distinction that will be between the existing law in the Mitakshara and the 'future law in the Mitakshara.

Now, I come to woman's property. I do not know how many members of this house are familiar with the intricacies of this subject.

So far as I have beenable to study this subject, I do not think that there is any subject in the Hindu Law which is so complicated, so intricate as the women's property (An honourable Member : " As the woman herself ") : As the woman herself. If you ask the question, what is stridhan, before answering that question, you have to ask another question and find an answer for it. You must first of all ask, ' is she a maiden ' or ' is she a married woman '. Because what property is stridhan and what property is not stridhan' depends upon the status of the woman. Certain property is stridhanam if she has obtained it while she is a maiden; certain property is not stridhan if she has obtained it after marriage. Consequently, if you ask the question what is the line of inheritance to the stridhan, you have again to ask the question whether the stridhan belongs to a maiden or the stridhan belongs to a married woman. Because, the line of succession to the stridhan of a maiden is quite different from the line of succession to the stridhan belonging to a married woman. When you come to the question of succession to married woman's property, you have again to ask the question, does she belong to the Bengal School or does she belong to the Mitakshara School. If you ask the question whether she belongs to the Mitakshara school, you will never be able to find a definite answer unless you probe further and ask whether she belongs to the Mithila School or the Benares School or some other School. This is a most complicated subject. At the same time, I should like honourable members to bear two things in mind. One is this : so far as women's property is concerned., generally speaking, it falls into two categories. One category is called her stridhan and the other is called widow's property. The latter property is property which she inherits from a male member of her family, and according to the existing law property which she owns only during her life time and subsequently that property passes to the reversioners of the male heir. That is the position.

Therefore, so far as women's property is concerned, we have two different sorts of inheritance and two different sets of property, stridhan property and widow's property. The heirs to stridhan property are quite different and distinct from the heirs to the property she inherits from a male member. The question, therefore, we have to consider in codifying this particular branch of the Hindu Law is this. Are you going to maintain the two principal divisions which exist at present, namely., stridhan property and widow's property ? Secondly, are you going to maintain the double line of succession ; one line of succession for the stridhan property and another line of succession for widow's property ? These are the two principal questions which arise when one begin to codify this law. The Committee came to the conclusion that so far as codification was concerned, its purpose would be defeated if we allow the present chaos to continue. We must either decide that a woman will not be entitled to have absolute property or we must decide that a woman should have absolute property. We must also decide what should be the line of heirs for a woman: whether they should be uniform or they should be different. The Committee came to the conclusion that so far as right to property is concerned, there should be uniformity and uniformity should recognise that the woman has absolute property.

I know a great deal of the argument that is always urged against women getting absolute property. It is said that women are imbecile; it is said that they are always subject to the influence of all sorts of people and consequently, it would be very dangerous to leave women in the world subject to the influences of all sorts of wily men who may influence them in one way or another to dispose of property both to the detriment of themselves as well as to the detriment of the family from which they have inherited the family property. The view that, the Committee has taken is a very simple one. In certain matters or certain kinds of property which is called stridhan property the Smritis are prepared to invest woman with absolute right. There can be no question at all that a woman has an absolute right over her stridhan property. She can dispose it of in any way she likes. My submission to the House is this. If the woman can be trusted to dispose of her stridhanam property in the best way she likes, and nobody has ever raised an argument for the obliteration of that rule of Mitakshara, the burden of proof lies upon the opponents who say   that the other part of the property, namely, widow's estate, which the woman has inherited, should not become her absolute property. It is they who must prove that while the women are competent to dispose of a certain part of the property which they possess, they are not competent to dispose of a certain other part. The Committee, on a very careful examination, failed to find a satisfactory solution of this dilemma. The Committee, in my judgement, very rightly, came to the conclusion that if in certain cases women were competent and intelligent to sell and dispose of their property, they must be held to be competent in respect of the disposal of the other property also. That is the reason why the Committee have made this rule that women should now possess absolute property.

The other question that arises on this issue, namely women's property is the share of the daughter. I know it would be a very great under-statement to say that this is a ticklish question; it is a very anxious question. There are many people in this world, in India today, both orthodox and unorthodox who cannot help producing daughters; they do. I do not know what would happen to this world if daughters were not born. At the same time, they do not want to extend to the daughter the same love and affection which a parent is bound to extend both to the male and female issue. But, I am not going to use any such high level of argument in favour of the proposition which has been enunciated by the Select Committee; I am going to speak on a much lower tone. The first thing that I would like to address myself to this house is this. The inclusion of the daughter among the heirs is not an innovation which is made by this Committee. Honourable members who are familiar with the law of inheritance as it prevails both under the Mitakshara and Dayabagha, I am sure, will admit that the daughter is included by both of them under what is called the compact series. As members will know, Hindu heirs are divided into several categories. The first category, is called, compact series. After that, there is a series of heirs spoken of as Sapindas, then comes samanoduks. After that comes the bandhus. Bandhus are divided into three categories: Atma bandhus, Pitru bandhus and Matru bandhus. The compact series is really a special class of heirs which does not conform strictly to the basic principles of heirship surrounded round gotraja, samanodaka and bandhus, because it is a mixed category. It is a category which is based on double foundation. It is based on propinquity; it is also based on religious efficacy. They do not conform to any of the criteria which have been laid down for determining the categories of sapindas, samanotlakas and bandhus.

3 P.M.

If you take both the laws, the Mitakshara as well as the Dayabhaga, you will see that the daughter is included within the category known as compact series. The only distinction between the Mitakshra and the Dayabhaga is this. According to the Dayabhaga the necessary element in heirship is the capacity to offer oblation. Consequently the Dayabhaga makes a rule between a daughter who is unmarried, a daughter who is married, a daughter who is married but has a son, and a daughter who is a widow. They give preference to a daughter who is married and has a son. Next to that they give preference to a daughter who is married. The unmarried daughter comes third. But it is within that category, the reason being that a daughter who is married and has a son, is ready there to offer oblation, because her son can offer oblation. A daughter who is unmarried, has no son, and therefore his possibility of offering an oblation does not exist. That is why she has been kept down. But the point I want to emphasize, and which I want the House to bear in mind is that there is no innovation as such in the inclusion of the daughter in the category of compact series. She has always been there both according to the Mitakshara and according to the Dayabhaga. The only innovation which the Bill seeks to make is to raise the status of the daughter. Under the Bill she becomes simultaneous heir, along with the son the widow, the widow of the predeceased son, son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son, widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son.

The point is this that originally, and particularly according to the Mitakshara Law, no female was entitled to any kind of share at all. This law was changed in the year 1937 whereby the widow of the deceased, the widow of the predeceased son and of his grandson and great-grandson—they were all made simultaneous heirs along with the son. The only omission that was made was in respect of the daughter. The government at that time was not prepared to lend its support to put the daughter on the same level as the widow and the widows of the predeceased son and the predeceased son's son. This is therefore the only innovation that the Bill makes. It merely raises it up in the order of heirs. It is not that for the first time she has been made an heir.

Now I come to the question of her share. As the Rau Committee has pointed out, and as many of the witnesses who know the Shastras have pointed out, that it is impossible to deny the fact that the daughter according to the Smritis was a simultaneous heir along with the son and that she was entitled to one-fourth share of her father's property. That has been accepted as a text from the Yagnavalkya and also from Manu. I once counted 137 Smritis and I do not know why our ancient Brahmins were so occupied in writing Smritis and why they did not spend their time doing something else it is impossible to say, assuming that that occupation was a paramount occupation of the day. There is no doubt that the two Smritikars whom I have mentioned— Yagnavalkya and Manu, rank the highest among the 137 who had tried their hands in framing Sniritis. Both of them have stated that the daughter is entitled to one-fourth share. It is a pity that somehow for some reason custom has destroyed the efficacy of that text : otherwise, the daughter would have been, on the basis of our own Smritis, entitled to get one-fourth share. I am very sorry for the ruling which the Privy Council gave. It blocked the way for the improvement of our law. The Privy Council in an earlier case said that custom will override law, with the result that it became quite impossible to our Judiciary to examine our ancient codes and to find out what laws were laid down by our Rishis and by our Smritikars. I have not the least doubt about it that if the Privy Council had not given that decision, that custom will override text, some lawyer, some Judge would have found it quite possible to unearth this text of Yagnavalkya and Munusmriti, and women today would have been enjoying, if not more, at least one-fourth of the share of their property.

The original Bill had raised the share of the daughter to one-half. My Select Committee went a step further and made her share full and equal to that of the son.

I am not entitled to disclose what happened at the Select Committee and how this provision came to be made. I am perfectly.........

Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal : General) : Unanimously !

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was it a compromise between twice the share of a son claimed and half the share provided in the Bill ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It was not a compromise. My enemies combined with my enthusiastic supporters and my enemies thought that they might damn the Bill by making it appear worse than it was.

Shri. H. V. Kamath: Have you any enemies.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: However, this is the position, namely, so far as the daughter's share is concerned, the only innovation that we are making is that her share is increased and that we bring her in the line with the son or the widow. That also, as I say, would not be an innovation if you accept my view that in doing this we are merely going back to the text of the Smritis which you all respect.

I might also say that in discussing this question about the share of the daughter, myself, and the members of the Law Department examined every system of inheritance. We examined the Muslim system of inheritance : We examined the Parsi system of inheritance : We examined also the Indian Succession Act and the line of succession that had been laid down and we also examined the British system of inheritance, and nowhere could we find any case where a daughter was excluded from a share. There is no system anywhere in the world where a daughter has been excluded.

Now, Sir one question has been brought forth constantly—that the giving of the share to the daughter means disruption of the family. I must frankly confess that I cannot appreciate the force of that argument. If a man has twelve sons and one daughter, and if the twelve sons on the day of the death of the father immediately decide on partition and obtain a twelfth of the total property of the father, is the partition going to be much more worse, if there was a daughter, the thirteenth, who also demanded a share ?

Twelve share or 12 fragments is not a better situation than 13 fragments. If you want to prevent fragmentation we shall have to do something else, not by the law of inheritance but by some other law, whereby property shall not be fragmented so as to become less useful from a national point of view for purposes of national production.

Shri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar (madras : General) : Is the Hindu Code applied to agricultural land ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is not. I am saying generally.

I think I have, so far as I know, exhausted what I have to say on the various points of controversy which I had seen raised both by members of this House as well as by the members of the public. I hope that the clarification which I have given on the various points will allay the fears of members who are not well disposed towards this measure. They will realise that this is in no sense a revolutionary measure. I say that this is not even a radical measure and I should like to draw the attention of the members of this House to one important fact, namely the consitution and composition of the Rau Committee. There were four members of that committee but I should like to point out that two of them who have signed the report are far from radical members of the Hindu community. My friend Mr. Gharpure, whom I have known for a long number of years, is one of the most conservative members I know .....

Shri H. V. Kamath: Politically or Socially ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Politically and socially also. In fact I have no hesitation in saying that he may on certain occasions find it very difficult to touch me even with a barge pole. He is so conservative. My friend Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastri is no doubt a liberal but he is certainly not a radical so far as I know. If these people conservative in their attitude have signed the report I think we can take it for granted that the measure to which they have put their signature could not be revolutionary and certainly could not be destructive of the foundations of the Hindu Society. So far as I am concerned I am a very conservative person : Although some people may not accept that fact. I am indeed very conservative. All I say is that I am a progressive conservative and I should like to tell the House one important fact which I think every one of us must bear in mind, particularly the conservative members of this House. The great political philosopher Edmund Burke who wrote a big book against the French revolution because of its radicalism and revolutionism did not forget to tell his own countrymen who were very conservative, one very important truth. He said that those who want to conserve must be ready to repair and all I am asking of this house is this : that if you want to maintain the Hindu system, the Hindu culture, the Hindu society, do not hesitate to repair where repair is necessary. This Bill asks for nothing more than repairing those parts of the Hindu system which are almost become dilapidated.

Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, on a point of reminder, the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar promised some citations from the Smrities. Will he keep promise?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I shall do so at the end. Fortunately for me I have secured a copy of Mr. Dwarkanath Mitter's own book "Rights of Hindu Women". I was going to cite certain text, which show that the rights which the Vedas had given to women were taken by the Smrities in the meantime and some other smrities tried to restore those rights. I shall cite them in the course of my speech.

Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: Could the Honourable Minister enlighten the House as to the evidence which was produced before the Select Committee?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As Honourable Members know two bodies came to us and asked for evidence to be taken. The Committee decided that their evidence be taken. One body came and one body sent in a written reply. That body was the Dharma Nirnaya Mandal. In general they are absolutely in agreement with the provisions contained in the Bill. The other gentleman who came obviously was not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Motion moved :

" That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration ".

Two amendments were not pressed. What about the next amendment ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Sir, I am not in a position to move any of my amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : As I have already stated in answer to the suggestion made by the Honourable the Mover of the Bill I shall allow those motions to be made without any speeches at the time of moving the motion. After all the amendments are moved whichever are relevant and are admitted, there will be discussion on them as also on the original motion.

Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: On a point of order. Sir, is it open to an honourable Member to say that he is not in a position to move his amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I am directed . .. ..

An Honourable Member: By whom ?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am directed to move my amendment without a speech at the first instance. (An honourable Member: " Who has directed you ?") I am directed by the Honourable Deputy Speaker. I find that honourable members are extremely impatient.

Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. and Berar: General) : No, we are not. Proceed.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have been directed, I repeat, to move my amendment without a speech. On account of the eloquence of my honourable friend the Law Minister I was already speechless .........

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: You are already disobeying your mandate.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: There are the bright ladies who have also created a profound impression upon me and just before I stood up Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, a very powerful member, said that he was not in a position to move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is this preamble necessary for moving his amendment?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I was already rendered speechless and that is why I was expressing my gratitude for suggesting that I should not make any speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member will speak later. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move with considerable amount of nervousness:

" That the Bill be circulated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon by the end of 1949. "

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment moved:

" That the Bill be circulated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon by the end of 1949."

Shri B. Das: Sir, as this is a dilatory motion I suggest it may be ruled out of order.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : On a point of order; in the morning also there was some ruling about dilatory motions. I submit. Sir, that they are the privilege of a Member. Although I stand by Dr. Ambedkar in many respects with regard to this Bill, I submit that dilatory motions are the privilege of those Members who are not in power—of individual Members as well as parties. Let it not be tabooed. It is a democratic right of Members to delay business if they choose to do so. Therefore a motion should not be disallowed because it is considered to be diatory. Dilatory motions are the privilege of a House of democracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see any point of order in what Mr. Tyagi has said. He wants full discussion to be allowed on this. As regards the point raised by Mr.B. Das I am not able to understand it. Does he mean to say that under any of the Rules such a motion is not allowable ? If so when Report is presented, the procedure is this. (An honourable Member: " What Rules are they ?") The rules that we adopted last session.

The Rule says:

" If the member in-charge moves that the Bill be taken into consideration, any member may move as an amendment that the Bill be re-committed or be circulated or re-circulated for the purpose of obtaining opinion or further opinion thereon. " Therefore under the Rules this kind of motion is allowed. I want to know how I am expected to disallow this motion.

Shri B. Das : I am aware of that Rule. But I was guided by the ruling of this morning that no dilatory motions would be allowed. I therefore raised the point of order.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I be permitted to say something? I think the point raised by my friend Mr. B. Das is a perfectly correct point of order, because of this ......

Honourable Members: No.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: When the Deputy Speaker has given a ruling it cannot be questioned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Members will not speak all together. They will rise in their seats and speak one at a time. Let me hear the Honourable the Law Member. I will allow an opportunity to every Member to speak on this point provided he is able to make a proper contribtion to the debate. Nobody need be impatient.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, as you will recall the motions which are permissible under the Rules of Business fall into two categories: One set of motions are such that the Speaker must put them to the House; the other set of motions are such that the Speaker must first be satisfied that they are proper motions before he can put them to the House. Let me illustrate this by reference to a motion for adjournment. Under the Rules every honourable Member is permitted to move an adjournment motion. But merely because a certain member has tabled an adjournment motion that in itself does not authorise, enable or empower the Speaker to put it to the House, because it is laid down that unless the motion is held to be admissible by the Speaker the motion shall not be put. I can give various other illustrations. With regard to a motion like this, namely, the adjournment of the consideration of the Bill and circulations for further opinion, my submission is that such a motion falls within that category of motions where the Speaker is required to be satisfied before he can put the motion to the House. It has been the universal practice in this House that any such motion for the postponement of the consideration of the Bill or for circulation, made after the Select Committee has made its Report, is prima fade dilatory. Unless the member who makes the motion advances substantial reasons for such a motion and the Speaker is satisfied that the reasons advanced are substantial such a motion will not be admissible. There are many rulings in these books but I should like to draw attention to ruling No. I in book No. 1. In regard to this motion no substantial reasons have been given.

An Honourable Member: But he has not spoken at all. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let the honourable the Law Member conclude.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I was only drawing your attention to a ruling (No. 1) in this book. There are various others also. It says:

" During the discussion on the Cotton Excise Duty Abolition Resolution a motion was moved to adjourn the debates on the Resolution. (Which practically means sending it away for circulation or to leave it up.)

"The President while accepting the motion on this particular occasion without creating a Precedent remarked :

" The Chair cannot allow a motion to adjourn consideration of a proposition to be moved merely in order to enable another item of business to come forward. It must be supported on substantial grounds. "

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The ruling says it is not a precedent but you want to make a precedent of it.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The President says ' I am ruling but I am not creating a precedent.'

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : In this matter I would call your attention to page 81 of ' Decisions of the Chair ' which says that there are certain motions which can be stated to be of a dilatory nature. The question of circulation is not certainly one of such nature. But there are motions of a dilatory nature and it is in the discretion and power of the Chair to allow them or not to allow them. One page 81 of this book in regard to re-committal of motions it has been held that though to start with, it may be regarded as a dilatory motion, if something happened in the Select Committee or some events have transpired since, the Chair is perfectly authorised to say that it is not a dilatory motion. Now the honourable Member has not been asked what the reasons are and before that my honourable friend gets up and says that it is a dilatory motion. It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest at the very outset that it is a dilatory motion. A circulation motion is not a dilatory motion. Unless the Speaker comes to the conclusion that nothing has transpired in the Select Committee or no further events have taken place which justify him to retard that motion I think the Speaker is not entitled to say that any of the motions are also dilatory. Ordinary motions countenanced by the rules cannot be regarded as dilatory motions.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I think matters can be cut short in a minute. The precedent relied upon by the Honourable the Minister of Law does not apply to this situation at all. The heading is, " Adjournment of Debate ",....

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This is an adjournment of debate, if the motion is carried.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: No, it is entirely different as I shall show. The sub-heading is " Adjournment of Debate: Motion when allowed to be moved: ' '. I do not move for an adjournment of this debate, which certainly could be done under amendment No. 2,

that is:

" That the consideration of the Bill, as reported by the Select Committee be postponed. "

My object is continuance of the debate, consideration of the motion, and I want the consideration to be taken along with my motion. A further reading of the ruling relied upon by Dr. Ambedkar will make it absolutely clear:

" During the discussion on the Cotton excise Duty Abolition Resolution a motion was moved to adjourn the debate on the Resolution.

" The President while accepting the motion on this particular occasion without creating a precedent, remarked: The Chair cannot allow a motion to adjourn consideration of a proposition to be moved merely in order to enable another item of business to come forward. It must be supported on substantive grounds. "

As I understand it, there was at the time one motion before the House and there was another perhaps more interesting or more important in advance. A Member proposed the adjournment of the discussion of a resolution which was under consideration so that another more interesting Motion may be taken up. It was the attempt to adjourn the first Motion that was said to be unacceptable. Here I do not propose adjournment of the debate.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It all comes to that.

Mr. Naziriruddin Ahmad: Here we are concerned with the interpretation of Rule 52. The plain reading of this rule would show that the motion is in order. Without abrogating the rule it cannot be held that it is out of order.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (U. P. : General): This Bill admittedly has created a great deal of feeling and it would be most undesirable to add to it by restraining the discussion in any way. I think the only way of making every section of the House feel that full opportunity was being given to it to express its opinion on this and to allow the discussion. Whatever our individual views regarding the merits of the Bill before us may be, that should be no ground for opposing the Motion of my honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Dr. Ambedkar quoted a ruling of the Chair in regard to a matter that is not on all fours with that under consideration now. In the first place the ruling was given in regard to a Resolution and not in regard to a Bill. In the second place, the rules lay down clearly that so far as a Bill is concerned a Motion may be made not merely that the Bill be circulated but that it may be recirculated, not merely that it should be referred to a Select Committee but that it should be recommitted to it. The language is therefore absolutely clear. If, whenever a Motion is made for the re-committal or re-circulation of a Bill, it is opposed on the ground that it is a dilatory Motion, the clear rights, the rights most unequivocally given to Members by the Rules will be completely null and void. We may feel impatient that a Motion like that of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad may be ruled out. We may be ready to turn it down, but that is no reason for not allowing it to be moved. In my humble opinion, it is most assuredly in order and we shall be doing a great injustice if in order to pass a law in which we are keenly interested we whittle down the rights of Members and try to interpret the Rules in a manner convenient to whatever may happen to be the majority at any particular time.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, the only point is that under Rule 52(2) no doubt every Member has a right, but the important point is that it is subject to admissibility which is at the disretion of the Speaker. All that Dr. Ambedkar said was, that we have no doubt the right to ask interpellations, but that certainly does not mean that all interpellations should be put on the Agenda Paper; it is subject to admissibility. There being the discretion, all that you have got to decide now is, whether it is in the nature of a dilatory Motion. You may ask Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to give his reasons. If you are satisfied that he has a good ground to move his Motion, then you have got the discretion to allow him to move it. Therefore, it is now for you, Sir, to ask him and be satisfied; and if you are satisfied that he has valid grounds, certainly he can move the motion. That is a point which Dr. Ambedkar raised. Every Member is entitled to speak and take his chance. All that you are concerned with, is a matter of procedure; the procedure being that a Motion is subject to admissibility, which is within your discretion. I may suggest that you may ask Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to give his grounds and it is ultimately for you to decide whether it is in the nature of a dilatory motion, in which case you have to rule it out of order; but if you are satisfied about the grounds then, you may allow the motion to be moved.

Mr. Tajamul Hussain rose—

Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Sir, I have something important to say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the point of order ?

Babu Ramnarayan Singh: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All right.

Mr. Tajamul Husain (Bihar : Muslim) : Sir, I caught your eye first. I have also got a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : After this point of order is disposed of Mr. Tajamul Husain's point of order will be considered.

Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Sir, you have already quoted the rule. I am sure no ruling can be given by any President against a Rule. The thing is this : there may be a subject under discussion in the House on which opinions may be divided—it is quite natural. One section of the people may look upon the subject as a boon, and the other section may look upon the subject as a danger, as a plague, as a curse. That section of the people who look upon the subject as a curse has the right not only to delay the Motion, but even to kill it. Here also, I think this section has the right to move the Motion and I think justice demands that they may have all the privileges and all the rights.

Mr. Tajamul Husain rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is another point of order which the honourable Member is raising, I will come to it next.

I am afraid the honourable Member Mr. Naziruddin has himself invited all these points of order because he started one this morning. Apart from any technicalities we may ask Mr. Naziruddin what his purpose is and what important points he has in view in making his motion for circulation.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I think this question .........

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: May I ask you, before Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad replies, whether you have come to the conclusion that the right of the member to move the re-circulation of the Bill is subject to the discretionary power of the Chair ?

Honourable Member rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Members must respect the Chair. When I stand up, they will kindly sit down. I think I have heard sufficiently. Is it not open to the Chair to ask for reasons ? It does not mean that I have come to a conclusion one way or the other. I am trying to make up my mind. I have heard Mr. Bharathi's point. Apart from the question as to whether the Chair, under the rules, has got the right to allow or disallow, I want to know on what grounds—if there are any—this motion should be accepted. After hearing that, I shall give my ruling.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: My reply to that is two-fold. The first is the admissiblity of the motion as a matter of law, and secondly as to the reasons for the motion, they are matters of merit. At present, I have been asked by the Chair not to make a speech and I have been entirely prevented from giving the arguments on the merits as to why this motion should be accepted. I submit a distinction should be made between the legality and admissibility of the motion and the grounds on which it is based for the acceptance of the same by the house. I submit that at this stage, in order to admit the motion which I have made, I think. Sir, I may not say anything at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard sufficiently on this matter. So far as Mr. Das, point that this motion is one of a dilatory nature, I consider that this motion differs materially from the one referred to by the Honourable the Minister for Law. He quoted the rulings of the Chair and gave the instance of ruling No. I on the postponement or adjournment of the debate. When motions for postponement for which there are no particular rules of procedure are made, it is open to the Chair to treat them as dilatory motions and require to be satisfied on what substantial grounds an adjournment of the debate is necessary. So far as the present motion for circulation is concerned, it is one for which provision is made in Rule 52(2). The honourable the Minister for Law referred to the analogy of adjournment motions, but regarding adjournment motions there are specific rules laid down here, giving power to the Speaker to come to a conclusion as to whether prima fade a motion is in order or not. I am referring to rule 36. The right to make adjournment motions depends upon certain conditions as in the case of questions. Unless a question comes under one or other categories provided for under the rules it is open to the Speaker to disallow it; similarly, with respect to adjournment motions also, there are six conditions which must be satisfied. There is provision also for asking for leave. First of all, it is open to the Chair, if it so chooses, to say that a motion is not in the public interest, it is old and so on. Secondly, even if he chooses to admit it, he must ask if the motion has the support of at least twenty five members of the House; then leave is granted. In such cases special provisions have been made. This present motion for circulation does not fall in the same category as the others.

As regards ruling 120 on page 81, it refers to Select Committee motions. I do not find any ruling of the Chair till now, in either of these two books " Decisions of the Chair " in point staling that a motion for re-circulation is a dilatory motion. In these circumstances, I do not want to curtail the powers of the house. It does not mean, if I allow the motion, the House is obliged to accept it. Even if it is moved, the House may reject it after debate if it is not satisfied. Under these circumstances, inasmuch as the rulings are not clear on this point, I do not want to throttle this motion. The honourable Member may proceed. I have already said that honourable Members will first move the motions standing in their names and then there would be a debate on all the motions together. The next amendment stands in the name of Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava and Shri junjhunwala.

Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava : The motion moved by my honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is substantially the same. Therefore, I would like to support his motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: He need not give his reasons for not presenting. What about Mr. Jhunjhunwala ?

Shri B. P. Jhunjhunwala (Bihar : General) : I join my friend Mr. Bhargava.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : So he does not press. Nos. 7 and 8, I have already said are out of order. The scope of the Bill is confined to the provinces and not to any acceding State.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In regard to States which have entirely united themselves within the Indian Dominion, they stand on a different footing. The Eastern States have combined with the province of Orissa. They are now part of India. The bill will apply to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I can understand it only this way,—Whether they have become part of a province or not if they are parts of a province, the Bill will apply. It is not necessary that a copy of the Gazette should be sent to every village and every corner of the country. If the State has become a part of province, it takes all the rights and liabilities of the province. I do not see any reason why the Bill should be once again circulated. Therefore I rule admenment No. 7 is out of order. No. 8 is also out of order. No. 9, does Mr. Bhargava move ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I have already said that I do not propose to move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Then the next amendment. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I beg to move as an alternative to the one which I have already moved:

"That the Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee, to which it was sent, for a further report thereon with reference to the original Bill which was referred to it on the 9th April, 1948. "

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment moved:

"That the Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee to which it was sent for a further report thereon which reference to the original Bill which was referred to it on the 9th April 1948. "

Shrimati Renuka Ray : In view of the Speaker's ruling, it is out of order. It goes against the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The re-circulation motion is before the House. Why should the House not consider this motion also after all ?

Shrimati Renuka Ray: It goes against the Speaker's ruling of the other day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : May I ask the Lady Member how it goes against the Speaker's rulling ?

Shrimati Renuka Ray : The Speaker ruled that the Bill is the same as committed to the Select Committee and therefore there cannot be a motion for recommittal to the Select Committee. There has been no substantial change in the Bill.

Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad : There are many substantial changes as I shall show.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : No speeches across the benches please. So far as the arguments advanced by the Lady Member are concerned, what I feel is this. The Speaker certainly said that the Bill considered by the Select Committee is not different from the one committed to it. But recommittal may be on various other grounds. Therefore, unless any objection is taken on other grounds ............

Shrimati Renuka Ray: The words " original Bill " are there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Original Bill is the same as the other Bill. Therefore, he has said " original Bill ". We will drop the word " original ".

Shrimati Renuka Ray: I would humbly submit that the word " original " is there. Therefore, we cannot drop it now from the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Speaker ruled that the Bill that came out of the Select Committee was the original Bill and therefore there is no harm in using the word " original ". The objection taken was that the original Bill was not considered by the Select Committee. Hon'ble the Speaker ruled that it was the original Bill itself that was considered by the select Committee. Therefore, the honourable Member has stated in his amendment that the original Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee. The argument advanced by the Lady Member is against her own objection. I find there is nothing wrong in this motion.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: The Mover's intention is quite different. He   does not consider this Bill as the original Bill and therefore he wants this to be sent to the same Select Committee.

Shri H. V. Kamath : Though the intention of the Mover is clear, I think my honourable friend Pandit Naziruddin Ahmad, in drafting the amendment has slightly over-reached himself. I would suggest to him that he may reconsider the whole matter and bring it up again sometime later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not consider that the use of the word ' original ' affects the position at all. On the other hand, the Speaker's ruling was that it was the original Bill that was referred to the Select Committee and that it was that Bill that came back in a modified form. I cannot accept that as an objection. There is no good, spending more time over this matter. Amendment No. 13 may be moved.

Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava : My amendment is substantially the same as the one moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. I will speak in support of it and not move mine.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member will then have to take his turn after that of the Movers of the other amendments. Amendment No. 14 is not moved.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I intend moving my next amendment if my amendment No. 10 is passed.

Shrimati Renuka Ray: I rise to apoint of order. Amendment No. 15 goes against the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Speaker's ruling does not cover this point. This House may not be satisfied with the re-arrangement made by the Select Committee. Therefore the original motion that it be referred to the Select Committee can stand. There is no point of order so far as this matter is concerned. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Then, Sir I move:

'' That the Bill be re-committed to the Select Committee with instructions for report on the original Bill as presented to the House restoring the original arrangement of self-contained separate Parts and Chapters for enactment separately".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid, I must disallow this amendment. As there can be no objection to the re-arrangement of Parts and Chapters, I rule this amendment out of order.

Shri B. Das: Sir, before the next amendment is moved, I want your ruling as to whether one member can move five amendments ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Alternative amendments can be given notice of. The honourable Member has been sufficiently long in this house to know this.

In the next amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, the only adddition is of the words "31st December 1949 ". I do not think he need move amendment No. 16.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Select Committee referred to there is a separate select committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not think I can allow this amendment to be moved. The honourable Member must have given the names of the Members for the Select Committee at the time of giving notice of the motion.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I have divided it into two parts. First of all there is the idea of the Select Committee. If it is acceptable .....

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The house cannot be asked to give its opinion first in a matter of this kind. As the honourable member has not given the names of the Members for the select committee to the Chair earlier, his amendment is ruled out of order.

Discussion on the general motion may now be resumed. I call upon Seth Govind Das to speak now. Seth Govind Das: Sabhapalhiji .....

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : During general discussion the honourable Member who has moved an amendment has the first right to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member will leave it to the Chair. The Chair knows the procedure.

Mr. Tajarnul Husain : I have been trying to raise a point of order for a long time. Sir, I shall be very brief. The honourable member Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad who is very keen on punctuation, on commas and lull stops etc. has given notice of this amendment that this Bill be circulated. This is absolutely out of order. The honourable member should have worded his amendment thus. This Bill be re-circulated. That is my point of order. This is what the relevant rule says : ' any member may move as an amendment that the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be re-committed or re-circulated as the case may be for the purpose of obtaining opinion or further opinion thereon '. Therefore, the honourable member who is very keen on commas and full stops etc. should have put the words " re-circulated for further opinion ". My point of order, therefore, is that as the wording of this amendment is not according to the rules, it may be ruled out of order.

4 P.M.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is true that the honourable member who has tabled this motion, who is ordinarily careful with reference to punctuations has committed there error of not putting the word ' re ' I ought not to decide it is a matter of form, but as one of substance and this motion for circulation comes after the report of the Select Committee has been received. Therefore, it means under

the circumstances only ' re-circulation '. I have already given the ruling. The ruling will stand. The debate will be continued by Seth Govind Das.

Shri V. S. Sarwate: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to bring to your notice that I have already given a motion for re-circulation and it is based on those two motions. I do not know, why it was omitted in the consolidated list. These two motions are dated the 21st August 1948. I do not wish to take further time of the house. I will read the motion so that it can be taken up for further discussion. The motion stands thus:

"That the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be re-ciurculated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon "                  

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Have honourable members got copies of this notice ? (An honourable Member: " Yes, Sir ") I will ask the honourable member to read it out.

Shri V. S. Sarwate: The motion runs as follows:

" That the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be re-ciurculated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon "

Mr. Deputy Speaker : When was this notice of amendment given ?

Shri V. S. Sarwate : Notice was given on 1st August 1948. The amendment forms part of Supplementary list No. 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The motion was made on the 1st August and the 12th of August is the date of the Select Committee's report and possibly a week later it was presented to the House.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : The motion was made on 31st of August.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion need not be made. It is after the presentation of the report. But all notices lapse after the session is over. A fresh notice should have been given. I do not know if honourable Members have got copies of this.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: I have got a copy of this. It is a consolidated list ; Notice of Amendments............ This was sent from the office on the 28th August 1948. There are twenty-four amendments mentioned in this list and Mr. Sarwate's amendment stands as the fourth on this list.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : These notices were all for the last session. These notices have all lapsed at the end of that session. Only those amendments, copies of which have been placed on the table before each honourable Member now, these only will have to be taken for consideration. The other notices have lapsed. Therefore further debate will be continued by Seth Govind Das.

^[f5] Seth Govind Das: (English translation of the Hindi speech) Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find that the supporters and opponents of this Bill can be divided into four groups. One of the opponent groups consists of those persons who oppose this measure with the same viewpoint as was exhibited by certain antagonists at the time of enactment of law for the abolition of Sati, the law which was got passed by the late Shri Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar for widow-remarriage and the measure put forth by Mr. Sharda for the prevention of child marriages being brought on the Statute Book. At the time of Sharda Bill, I was a member of the Council of State and I personally know the opposition that was then meted out to this Bill. This group is of the opinion that no change can be made in that what has been prescribed in the text of our Vedas, Shastras and Smritis. I do not belong to that group. It would be noticed even from reference to our Dharmashastras that if one Rishi (Sage) said something from time to time, the other said something else. Had this not been the case, our Rishi would not have written. Smritis numbering more than one hundred. If you go through these Smritis, you will find that the tenets laid down in one Smriti differ those contained in the other. Each of these Smritis enunciates a different principle. Then just as I have stated, I am not one of those groups who have opposed almost all the reforms that have been introduced hithertofore.

The second opposing group is that which on the one hand believe that there is obviously a necessity for making reforms in these affairs, but on the other hand, it holds that this is not the proper time for the enactment of such a legislation. This should be brought forth only after the new elections have taken place, and when our new representatives have been elected. I would like to say that there will not be any harm if instead of making any change in the Hindu Law at present, we do this even three years hence. This is a subject over which the whole country has got to think; all of us have to think, all of those who are sitting here have to think and those who are likely to occupy these seats in this House in the future shall have to think. Therefore. I feel that there is a good deal of force in the arguments advanced by the second group that it is neihter the proper time nor the place to bring forth such a measure, and for this reason, I would urge that we should consider this aspect.

Just as I have stated, even the supporters of this Bill can be divided into two groups, one which docs not at all like to see any of our old traditions, and does not want to recognise the fact that this country is one of the ancient countries having a brilliant past, glorious history, high culture and great traditions. Such type of reformers do not at all care as to what our past heritage is and how are we to reconstruct our country today ? These reformers have been considerably influenced by the Western education, and have scant regard for the ancient history, culture and even the old traditions in the sphere of social reforms. I would like to say that if such sort of reforms are introduced in this ancient country, (his Bharatvarslul (India) will not longer remain as Bharalvurshu—but it would become something else. The other group of reformers is that which believe in the necessity of reforms being introduced but after having due regard to our ancient history, culture and traditions. I do not belong to the first group hut to the second. I admit that it has become absolutely necessary to introduce reforms, but in spite of all this, we should carry out (he reforms after keeping in view our old traditions, ancient culture and civilisation.

At this time when we are framing our Constitution, when we have already passed the clauses relating to the fundamental and justiciable rights and when it is hoped that our Constitution will be finally adopted sometime during the period intervening between the 16th of May and 15th of August next, it would have been quite in order had this measure been brought forth in consonance with the provisions of the new Constitution. Today when we call our country a ' Secular State ', when we admit that all the persons in this country—whatever religion they believe in, to whatever community they may belong, may be Hindu, Muslim. Sikh, Parsi—whoever he may be—he should be given equal rights of citizenship. Therefore, I would say that the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar should have presented to this House such a Bill which would have concerned not the Hindu's alone, but would have been made applicable to all the citizens of this country. While admitting this country as a ' Secular State ', the idea of introducing a Hindu Code Bill seems to me quite inappropriate. Then again if we now see this Bill, we shall have to admit this that it............

Shri R. K. Sidhva: The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar referred to the ancient Shastras. You may also point out which of the Shastras go against the provisions of Hindu Code ?

Seth Govind Das : Now if we see this Bill, we find that it contains many such Clauses to the acceptance of which there should not be any objection. And if at all this Bill is not postponed but is passed into Law, I am sure we shall accept these Clauses without indulging into any sort of controversy. But along with this, we also feel that it contains many such Clauses the acceptance of which is succeptible of being considerably harmful. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has himself admitted today that many of the Clauses are of controversial nature and he has also thrown sufficient light on these controversial issues. The first controversial issue is ' marriage ' and ' divorce '. If we take up the ' marriage ' and ' divorce ', I would be prepared to accept one thing at least that we should make some such change in our legislation which would do away with the Caste System. And if any Brahmana wants to marry a Sudra or a Sudra a Brahmana; or setting aside the case of Brahmana and a Sudra, if any Hindu wants to marry a Muslim or any Muslim a Hindu, or if the members of any community wants to have inter-communal marriages, there should not be any bar to such marriages being solemnised. This Caste System has ruined our country. It has resulted in the remification of our country and society into small parts—may even the smallest sections. All of us are very well aware of the disabilities that exist in the marginal sphere today and which are the outcome of this dismemberment. The old people also know this and even today—they look upon the solemnization of such marriages with abhorence. They say that they have to marry their sons as well as daughters against their wishes. But I fully support such a freedom being given. I am even a supporter of ' divorce '. I would submit that notwithstanding the fact that no ' Marriage Code ' has so far been invented in the world which may be regarded as the panacea for the removal of all ills, still we have got to see that if the husband and wife cannot live a harmonious life, they should be given the right of divorce. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has stated that the system of divorce already prevails among 90 per cent. of the people in this country. These 90 per cent. are called Sudras. I, on my part, do not find any difference between the Brahmana and Sudra, and feel that it would be the greatest crime to call them Sudras even....

The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram (Minister of Labour) : Does it not cut at the root of Hindu religon ?

Seth Govind Das: Divorce exists amongst the 90 per cent,, of the Sudras. In this case too, it so looks to me that if we pass this legislation in utter disregard of their customs and usages, then 90 per cent. of the people .. ..

Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya) : Sir, may I request the honourable member to use any Hindi equivalent for the word " Talaq " (divorce) ?

Seth Govind Das: I feel that the honourable member does not understand the implications of the Hindi language. All those words which have been included in Hindi belong to Hindi alone—may it be ' talaq ' or anything else. If he still wants to know the Hindi equivalent of ' talaq ' ,1 would tell him that this can be substituted by the word " Vivah Vichhhed " (dissolution of the conjugal rights).

I was just telling you that if this legislation is passed after brushing aside the customs and usages prevalent amongst those 90 per cent. of the people, then it would mean that they would not be able to divorce in their traditional manner and they would thus be confronted with many difficulties. Therefore, it is bound to give rise to a very great difficulty inasmuch as it runs counter to the wishes expressed by the honourable Dr. Ambedkar that everybody should be given the lull liberty to marry and divorce. I am in favour of such sort of liberty being completely given to all the men and women.

The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar also pointed out that 10 per cent. of the people amongst us who are called Caste Hindus Viz., Brahmana, Kshatriyas, or Vaishyas want to thrust some thing upon those who form the 90 per cent. It so looks to me that those of us—who are ten per cent. in number—who form the intelligentsia want to load a few things on those comprising of 90 per cent. It is not the Brahmana, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas who put the burden, but this is done by those people who have managed to come to this Assembly in some way or the other. I would also tell my sisters that I am not prepared to accept this view that my sister members, Shrimatis G. Durgabai and Renuka Ray and other lady members who are sitting in this House represent the women; or those sisters who sit in the visitor's galleries represent them. I admit that those who are not present here, those who do not come in the visitor's galleries can represent this country better than those who are sitting here. We shall have to admit that the allegation which is being made today that some high-caste people want to thrust their opinion upon the low-castes is not correct. But in reality the position is that the ten per cent. educated people want to thrust their opinion upon the remaining 90 per cent. Without knowing anything as to what is the will of the people in this country, they should not thrust their opinion upon them. I do not want that any legislation should be passed in this House which is against the wishes of the people.

Shrimati Renuka Ray : Do 90 per cent. of the people know that you are drawing up a constitution ?

Seth Govind Das : We know that the people are with us. To talk as if this is your own concern is not correct. We have come with a mandate from the people in that respect.

The other thing which has been mentioned here is in regard to ' Succession '. It has been stated that we are required to carry out drastic reforms in the law relating to Succession. I agree that there is a great scope of reforms being made in the Succession System. And I also admit that it would amount to the greatest possible injustice being done to the females if they are not conferred upon the right of succession and thus precluded from inheriting the peoperty. The women should be given the right of succession. Now the question arises as to what extent should such right of succession be vested in the females. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has in support of this quoted from the Smrilis of Manu and Yagnavalkya and pointed out that these Smritis also confer upon the females the right to inherit property to the extent of one fourth. I would like to say that in my opinion some improvement should necessarily be made in the domain of succession even if these are the views held by Manu and Yagnavalkya. There was a time when the matriarchal system existed in this country or even in the world. But in the present day society, the matriarchal system has been replaced by the partriarchal. So long as the matriarchal system existed in this country as well as in the world and the husband used to come and stay at the bride's house after marriage, it was quite appropriate that the daughter should have a share in her father's property. But according to my viewpoint now when the patriarchal system is in vogue and the girl leaves her father's house for that of her father-in-law; it would not be proper to give her any share out of the father's property. In' my opinion the daughter-in-law should be given the right to share her father-in-law's property. As soon as the marriage is consummated, the daughter-in-law should be given the share equal to that of the son. Today the son enjoys the full right, and if any woman becomes widow, she is entitled to the right of maintenance only viz., food and clothing. I am totally against it. Therefore, I would urge that the women should undoubtedly be given the right to share in the property, but that should be restricted to her father-in-law's property only and not that belonging to her father.

Shri Muhan Lal Gautam (U. P. : General) : If there is no father-in-law ?

Seth Govind Das: Then in the husband's house.

Shri Mohan Lal Gautam: If there is no husband.

Seth Govind Das: Then in the son's house.

Shri Mohan Lal Gautam : And if there is no son ?

Mr. Tajamul Husain : And if she is not married then what would she do ?

Seth Govind Das : That is a separate thing. They do get from some source or the other. In the example which has been cited here that when there are twelve sons and thirteenth a daughter, and the twelve sons have got the right to distribute their father's properly, then why should not the thirteenth daughter be given the same right ? I would say that all the twelve sons live in their father's house. The distribution which the twelve sons make is made at the same place.

Shri Krishna ChandraSharma (U. P.: General): If the daughter also wants to live in the father's house ?

Seth Govind Das: Since the daughter has got to adopt another house, this cannot be made applicable in her case. Another thing that has been added in respect of succession to properly is that the right of succession will not be governed in accordance with the contents of the will. In cases, where the wills are not executed, disputes will arise. Not only this, disputes will arise even otherwise. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar who is a renowned lawyer is aware of the fact as to what percentage of the will executed hithertofore were brought up before the Courts and on how many wills were the suits instituted ?

I am afraid that as soon as the will comes in, neither the sons nor the daughters would be able to share the property under the provision of this law which seeks to confer upon them the right of succession. All that property will be grabbed by the lawyers.

Then again another thing will happen. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar wants that the daughters should also be given the right of succession to the property. Then I would submit that in our society which is undivided at present, when the fathers execute the will, they will not bequeath anything to their daughters, but would give to the sons alone, and thus this would defeat the very object with which you want to confer the right of succession on the women. In regard to succession, I would like to say that just as Dr. Ambedkar has himself admitted, it is a very intricate subject. It so looks to us—we might or might not be Socialists or Communists—that on the one hand the industrialists have raised the voice that the industries are not being developed in this country and on the other hand the question of succession has been mooted out. Therefore, the best thing would be that you should abolish the system of private property. If after the liquidation of this private ownership, a new society is evolved—1 do not say that the structure of that society should be based on the principles of Socialism and Communism—but I have since formed this opinion that a new class of society should be built after the liquidation of the individual holdings. If our capitalists see to this they will no doubt find that this wealth is no longer a source of solace to them. I belong to that very class which can be termed as capitalist. But we see who is deriving the real pleasure out of this hoarded wealth ? I have not come across any such capitalist who can fill his belly by eating and digesting 10 or 20 seers, while a poor man can be satiated by taking half a seer or three quarter of a seer. I have also not seen any such capitalist who puts on about 100, 200 or 400 yards of cloth at a time, while a poor man can cover his body with only five or six yards.

The Honourable Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad (Minister of Education) : Some people do war !

Seth Govind Das : I am accustomed to live in palaces, and I would like to say that if any capitalist is made to sleep in one of the large halls of his palace, he cannot enjoy the sleep. For sleeping purpose, only one room measuring about 12 or 14 feet is required. Now-adays wealth has become an affliction—for the wealthy too. Those people who do not get this, they desire to acquire it and those who have got it suffer great hardships and on account of that they cannot live peacefully.

The Honourabel Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad : And they do not want us to give up also!

Seth Govind Das : They do not want to give up because the man who discards that wealth is looked upon with great esteem in the society.,

Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo (Madhya Bharat): The man who renounces this or gives it in charity is also equally respected.

Seth Govind Das : It is alleged by our Socialists and Communists that all the capitalists are robbers, dacoits and wayfarers. Some of the Socialists, Communists might differ from this. I cannot ascribe this to all of them. But many of them would renounce their Socialistic and Communistic creed if they can acquire this wealth. The hoarders of wealth are even today held in esteem by the society. We should try to overhaul the conceptions and values of the society in such a manner so that the capitalists may in reality be treated as dacoits and robbers; and then only I would say that no capitalist would like to wear this collar around his neck. Therefore, with a view to tackle this knotty problem of succession, I would urge that our Honourable Law Minister Dr. Ambedkar may bring forth such a measure which should seek to abolish the system of private ownership and thus ameliorate the condition of those people who have fallen a victim to this.

Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General) : Will you not oppose that?

Seth Govind Das: In my opinion these are the only two points in this Bill which are subject to good deal of controversy. I am also of the opinion that keeping in view the trend of the time and without indulging into any sort of controversy, we postpone the enactment of this Bill till the formation of the new Assembly and in the meantime invite the opinion of the people in this connection; and after ascertaining the wishes of the people, we should bring forth this measure as soon as the fresh elections are held. We should not present this measure in the form of a Hindu Code but the proper course would be to pass it in the same manner in which we have passed our constitution which provides for the rights of every citizen in the country.

Dr. Mono Mohan Das (West Bengal ; General): On a point of order. Sir, is there no time limit for allowing this kind of discussion ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no time limit.

Seth Govind Das: With these words I would conclude, and say that I feel it absolutely necessary that reforms should be made in our social laws. I also admit this that those people who oppose this Bill in the same manner in which they behaved at the time of the enactment of laws relating to the abolition of Sati, widow-marriage and prevention of child marriges are not following the right course of action. But along with this I also admit that this Bill has not been moved at the opportune time and we should postpone its consideration at the moment. We should present it only after ascertaining the public opinion. With these words, neither I support this, nor oppose this.

^[f6] Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani (U. P. : General) : Sir, ever since we had a sovereign legislature, no piece of legislation has given rise to greater excitement and controversy than this Hindu Code Bill. If all this controversy had been based on reason and on the merits of the changes proposed in Hindu Law it would have been to the good but much of the controversy is clouded by irrelevent issues. The argument of Religion in Danger has inspired much of the propaganda against the Code. It is urged that it will shake the foundation of the Hindu religion. Those who put forward such argument do a great injustice to their own religion.

Hindu religion is primarily concerned with the spiritual emancipation of the individual, his progress towards self-realisation. The self-fulfilment of an individual stands in need of certain moral and spiritual principles as truth, justice, non-violence, etc. These are embodied in our scriptures. These are unchangeable and fundamental. The social arrangements, institutions, conversations and customs that have evolved through the ages are not religion. The Hindu Code does not seek to disturb the Hindu religion but to amend and modify the Hindu civil law. The law has changed from time to time. It is different from religion and has never been unchangeable and static. The authors of the Dharma Shastras changed the law from time to time according to the consciousness of the community at the time. The right to make changes was well recognised by the Dharma Shastra. The Hindu law became rigid and static only after the advent of the British.

It has been the boast of Hinduism that while the fundamentals have remained unchanged, the Hindu social institutions have changed to suit changing circumstances. Continuous adaptability has been the strength and essence of Hinduism. Unless Hindu society is to remain static and dead the law must change to fit with the changing circumstances. We also know that the Smrities have not remained unchanged. The smrities did include other branches of law besides those of succession and marriage. These have been dealt with by the Indian legislature and some of them have been superseded. Hindu religion did not flounder. Hindu religion has survived that shock. If Hindu religion could survive the shock of these changes I am sure Hindu society and religion can survive the shock of a little more change.

We have also brought in social legislation of great importance. We have abolished the Sati: we have abolished child marriage : we have also abolished to a great extent untouchability. Hindu religion is a very catholic and liberal religion. So the argument of religion in danger does not behove us. Within the fold of this liberal and catholic religion people of various views, costoms and manners have found shelter and lived. Today what has happened ? Why have we lost our faith in our own religion that we are raising the cry of religion in danger ? It does not mean that I want to say that all those who oppose us are orthodox and are reactionaries. I only want to point out that in forcing your point of view, you are only doing injustice to your religion when you put forward this argument.

Another argument is this that this Bill should not have been taken up for consideration now and that we have not given the country sufficient opportunity to get acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. As far as I know this Bill has been before the House and before the country for about the last ten years. Some of the measures embodied in the Bill as Succession Bill and Marriage Bill, I think, were introduced in the House in 1943. The Hindu Law Committee was appointed in 1944. Its Report was published, I think, in 1945 or 1946 and the draft Bill has been translated into thirteen Indian languages. Thousands of copies of this draft Bill have been circulated. Even after this if we do not know the provisions of the Hindu Code Bill, then, it is our fault and not the fault of the Government. Besides that the Bill won't be passed in a day here. We will take a lot of time to consider it. It will take a good deal of time when we consider it in detail. At that time we will have enough opportunity to go to the public, to acquaint them with the provisions of the" Bill and also to ascertain their opinion. There is a whispering propoganda, a very strange propoganda, that this Bill should be postponed till after the next general election. Why should it be postponed ? Because this may adversely affect our party's popularity ? Is it befitting or worthy of the Congress to put forward such arguments ? Have we ever considered our popularity before our duly ? If we think that a Bill is just, if we consider that a Bill is for the good of the people then it is our duty to go ahead with it. To shelve a Bill just in order to catch votes for the next election is not right. I think it is not even honest. For us the good of the people has always been the supreme consideration. If we don't take this point of view, if we don't keep this attitude before us, we will never be able to sponsor any radical change. Whatever be the field of our life when a radical change is sought to be made, we are bound to come against some vested interests and some established custom. There is always bound to be a cry against such changes. If we give up reform on that score then we shall never change anything.

I would like to say this. Much has been said about the volume of opinion against the Hindu Code Bill. I would like to say with all humility that there is also a very good group—an intelligent, thoughtful group—supporting the measure too. And that intelligent, thoughtful group does not consist of women alone. We have a lot of brothers with us in this measure. We have also seen in history in other countries whenever a radical change was introduced, whenever any reform was sought to be brought into being, it was a small conscious minority that forms up the cause, that educated the public, that did propioganda and after some time public opinion veered round it. So I am sure though it may be that there is a volume of opinion against the Hindu Code, if what we are trying to do is just and right, I am more than sure that public opinion will come with us. Not only will it come with us but it will bless us after a time for the good (An Honourable Member : " It is alreadyt with us ") measure that we have passed. They say, they have got the majority with them. So this is my answer.

In the heat and controversy many limes we forget that the Bill does not consist of merely the Succession and the Marriage provisions. We have tried to make a uniform and entire system of law. In this entire system of law or Code we have tried to put right a lot of discrepancies, inequities, and injustices. For instance this morning Dr. Ambedkar in his learned speech told us how the provisions regarding guardianship, maintenance, adoption etc. are going to be beneficial to the society. Those who are totally opposed to the Bill have been forgetting the good side of the Bill, the non-controversial side, and have concentrated all their attack on such the entire Bill.

Let us come to the question of Succession itself which is greatly opposed by large sections of the people.

Mr. Tajamul Hussain: It is opposed by vested interests only.

Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : It is opposed by large sections. They had levelled two points—against the breakage of the joint family and the grant of absolute rights to women. I will take the second point first. We are seeking to have a society where men and women should be equal, where people of all castes will be equal. We are trying to bring about a perfect democracy of which we have dreamed all these years. We are pledged to give women equal status in society. We are pledged to do away with all sex discrimination and this peidge does not start from the time when we bring into effect the New Constitution. I would like to remind you that in the Karachi resolution these peidges are embodied. After that when we accepted office, then also we again reiterated that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex. If men and women are to work equally, if they are to function as equal citizens of the state, if they are to fulfil their obligations towards the state, how can we have such discriminatory rules in the matter of property rights of women ? Unless woman gets her full share of property you cannot expect her to fulfil her obligations to the state. Of course whenever we make any changes, established custom and established rules are disturbed. It causes a certain amount of dislocation and inconvenience, but we have to tolerate them and take them as inevitable. We must not try to enlarge the importance of the inconvenience that is caused to us. Dr. Ambedkar and others have told us that the Smritis recognise the right of property of women. What law gave us practice denied us. In practice the right was abrogated. What we are trying to do today is only this.—We are not going against the fundamentals of Hindu religion or Hindu custom or Hindu law; what was granted to us by Hindu law but which was arbitrarily denied to us, we are now trying to take back—or rather you are giving it to us, this which has been denied to us by society all these years. It is merely justice done—long deferred justice.

If you come to modern times, by the Act of 1937 you have given property right to the wife, to the daughter-in-law, to the grandson's wife and so on and so forth. The only person who is left out is the poor daughter. It is but in the fitness of things that now it should be included here. Therefore I do not see what is there to argue much about it. If we have given to other women this right, if women can inherit from the husband's side let her inherit from the father's side which is very natural and right.

The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram : They want her to develop to the other stages.

Shrimati Sucheta Kripalini : In regard to joint family there is a very great feeling about it. I do not know why there is such a feeling. Most of the people I come across are anxious to get out of the joint family. The sons do not like to stay with the father. I see most of the families distributed all over the country. So joint family is a very rapidly crumbling institution according to me. Even the legal position of the joint family is very faulty as Dr. Ambedkar has pointed out to us in the monring. Even under Mitakshara system a member of the joint family merely by expression of his will can bring about a partition.

I would therefore like to ask you where is the joint family about which you are crying so loudly ?

Much was said about the protection that is given to the unportected women in the joint family. I know in the past in the joint family unprotected women did get protection. Even now some of them do get protection but at the same time we know hundreds of women who, failing to get any shelter in the joint family, having no economic resources of their own, are bounded to a life of degradation and shame. Many of us women, who are doing social work, come across innumerable such cases. Therefore, not only is it right, not only is it just to give woman her portion but it is absolutely essential to give her the share if you want to safeguard the Hindu society about which you speak so loudly.

The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram: And something more.

Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : So much the better. Give us a little more. You have denied us in the past, make it up now.

As regards marriage, the Bill merely seeks to introduce uniformity of practice to avoid confusion and uncertainty. This may entail a little difficulty to those classes which are governed by the customary law but the proposed sacramental and civil marriages are such that it can be put into practice by the poorest and the most backward classes. So I do not think it will create any great difficulty. There is some objection to the registration of sacramental marriages. I think it is purely sentimental because registration is only permissive. If you do not want to avail of the registration you are free not to avail of it.

An Honourable Member: It is compulsory.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No compulsion.

Mr. Tajamul Hussain: No compulsion, either would do.

Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : If I am wrong. Dr. Ambedkar will correct me. It has been put there as a safeguard; that is all.

We come to the question of inter-caste and sagothra marriages. I was hearing my friend who preceded me. I do not know how we can wax eloquent over the objection to sagothru and inter-caste marriages because I find a very large number of such marriages taking place in the society. If we did not have such marriages it was all right, but when a very large number of such marriages are taking place, either we compel them to have irregular marriage or we drive them out of the Hindu fold or we make them go somewhere or they have to go to the civil registration office and get it done. When it is there, why not accept the fact ? When it is a practice why not recognise it and give it legality ? Therefore, it is but right at this stage, when Indian society has changed so considerably to allow inter-caste and sagothra marriages within the Hindu fold.

About monogamy, here also I feel that the society has on the whole accepted monogamy. Polygamy is looked down upon; polygamy Finds no favour in our society, though cases do occur. Again, we recognise the current practice amongst an overwhelming majority of Hindus and we legalize it. Moreover as we are trying to bring about a society where men and women are equal, we cannot afford to have a double set of morality for men and women and I should think the men should be happy to have this introduced because by the provision of monogamy we are levelling up the standard of men's morality to that of women. I should think that the men should be thankful to us.

An Honourable Member: Very thankful. We can get easy divorces and marry again.

Shrimati Sucheta Kriplani: As for divorce, though we do not deny the sentiments of the orthodox, men and women, analysing it, we find, that divorce did exist in our ancient scriptures. The grounds of divorce that we have allowed are extremely reasonable and just. We have not allowed any divorce on frivolous grounds as it has been in some parts of the Western world. Care has also been taken to formulate such a procedure that divorce would be resorted to only under very grave circumstances. If we see the records of Baroda, Travancore, Cochin and Malabar where divorce is allowed, very few people have availed themselves of the law. Only under exceptional circumstances it comes to help the people to get of a very difficult situation. Hindu social tradition is such that we will not on flimsy grounds rush to the court and break up a marriage. The people who fear that the grant of the right of divorce may amount to disruption of the family life of the Hindus are absolutely injustified.

Then I take Dr. Ambedkar's argument of the morning that divorce prevails among 90 per cent. of the Hindus, so why not extend it to the other 10 per cent. It will be very right and just when we see that these 10 per cent. divorce cases are occurring. If there had been no divorce cases then I would have understood it, but we see that whenever our men and women want a divorce, they leave the Hindu fold and become Muslims or Christians and by doing so they insult those religions of which they make a mere utility. Therefore, we should recognise the existing circumstances and allow divorces.

Sir, I have nothing more to say except that I want to tell my brothers here that we women even when we pressed for our rights have never forgotten the greater good, the larger good. We have been very conservative in this matter. You know even for our political rights we have never encouraged things which we have considered wrong. Even when the British were there, we have always stood for joint electorates. Even in the new Constitution we have never pressed for separate rights for overselves. We would have pressed for these if we did not think that they go against the benefit of the entire society. If Hindu women benefit, I am sure the Hindu society stands to benefit. This is for the larger good; that is why we are pressing this point.

Here, I would also like to say that our men on the whole been very co-operative and helpful to us. They have not stood against our progress. It may be that this is due to the benevolent influence of Mahatma Gandhi. You all know that Gandhiji was one of the greatest supporters of women's rights. The tradition that he has established has been followed by our men; because of Gandhiji's influence, because of the sympathetic attitude of our leaders, we have never had to fight for the political rights as women of other countries had to fight. Therefore, I am more than sure that now we will follow the good traditions, we will keep up the spirit of co-operation that we have    had all these years and all my brother Members will support this Bill and consider this Bill not as a measure of right for the women, not as a measure of justice that you are giving to the woman, but as justice done to the society. This is a measure by which we are trying to make Hindu society healthy and wholesome. The Hindu society is full of defects. We are now independent. If in the world we have to take our status, we have to set our house right; unless we do it we cannot take our position in society. Therefore, let us get together and remedy the defects that arein the house. I only appeal to you and I am sure we will have the support of all of you for this good measure.

Assembly then adjourned till a Quarter to Eleven of the Clock on Friday the 25th February, 1949.

Mr. -Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed with the further consideration of the following motion moved by the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on the 31st August 1948:

That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim): Sir, I have moved amendments and I think, it will be proper for me to advance arguments and for others to speak. Instead of that if I have to listen to them now and then speak, where would be the scope for them to reply ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the honourable member who has moved an amendment to the motion will be in a better position if he speaks later because as he knows he won't have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I do not wish to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that view it will be right that the honourable Member should hear certain speeches for and against his motion so that he may be able to reply and he may speak once for all. I have called Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (Interruption). The duty of regulating the order of speakers is with the Chair. I feel it right to call upon Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava.

^[f7]  Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab : General) : (English translation of the Hindi speeches) Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Hindu Code Bill that has throughout India .. ..

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In English please.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: As this matter is of vital importance so for this very reason I wish to speak in Hindi.

Dr. Mono Mohan Das (West Bengal : General) : We can understand the Hindustani spoken by the honourable the Minister of Education. It is entirely different from the Hindi or Hindustani spoken by Seth Govind Das or Pt. Thakur Das Bhargava. As beginners we do not know which is Hindustani.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no set standard which is copied here. Whatever is spoken is Hindustani.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Before I begin my speech, (Honourable members): " English please ") as a number of honourable members desire that I should speak in English I have not the least hesitation in paying deference to their wishes. But all the honourable members know that it is easier to express oneself in his own mother tongue rather than in English. So, if they allow me I wish to speak in Hindi. But if they would insist on my speaking in English then I would not have the least objection in commencing my speech in English. (Honourable members : " Hindi, Hindi "). As I think that a majority of the honourable members do not. insist upon my speaking in English so I like to speak in Hindi.

Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Kindly speak in simple Hindi so that we also may be able to understand.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I will try to speak in simplest Hindi. Today when I have stood up to deliver a speech before the House about the Hindu Code Bill a number of conflicting thoughts are clashing with one another in my heart. At the very outset I beg to submit that I am not one of those people who declare this Hindu Code Bill to be the death knell of the Hindu culture, and Hindu Civilization. I wish that the Hindu culture, the Hindu Society and the Hindu Civilization may survive till eternity, till the end of this world. I am, in no way, an opponent to this. I am not at all afraid that this Bill or any another Bill would in the least be able to put the Hindu Culture or Civilization to harm. I wish that those evils that have crept in the Hindu Society since long, and about which Dr. Ambedkar made an appeal before the House in the concluding   parts of his speech, may be eradicated; and the appeal may be considered over very thoughtfully with a cool heart. But in fact if the Hindu Society is to be preserved then there is no doubt that if necessity would be felt for repairing the society then repairs will have to be done.

12 noon

I strongly oppose those persons who hold that this Bill would put the Hindu Culture to an end. I am not prepared to acknowledge even for one moment the fact that this Assembly or the Honourable members of this house, who have the same ability as the Smritikars of the old, do not have the right of making any changes in our Shastras or Laws. I hold that the members of each and every community have got the fullest rights to frame laws according to the needs of the time. Today if some one makes an appeal that this being an old custom so we must act accordingly; then about such an allegation I would submit that there is not a single custom that India has not experimented with. There are certain places in India where the system of inheritance is quite different from the other parts of India. Do we not know that among the Khasi tribes and in some parts of Southern Punjab the entire institution of inheritance depends upon the fact that the entire property devolves upon the daughters instead of sons. There are certain parts in India where instead of the girl going to her father-in-law's place the husband of the girl is imported info the wife's family.. India is such a country where every type of custom and law has been in vogue. Is there any such social system that we have not tried. Only yesterday Dr. Ambedkar told that in some Smrities it is mentioned that daughters should be declared similar heirs along with sons. So this provision was present since long. Apart from this I do not know of any other law that can be called a new one. Divorce is customary in many places even today. On going through the old Smrities it is found that divorce is mentioned there also. I am not prepared to accept that we must revert to those old ideals simply because for the reason that they are mentioned in the old Smrities. If we think that those ideals do not suit our present day society then why should those ideals be kept up. I know that in India there was a time when even the institution of marriage itself was not in vogue in India, and the people did not know anything about marriages. In olden days the system of Niyog continued for a long time in India. The Hindu Law mentions 8 kinds of marriages. Some of those kinds of marriages cannot even be called marriages. Can anyone assert that those ideals should be re-introduced in the present times. I do not think there is any. So I do not want to consider the question that is before us today from this view point as to what was in vogue in the olden days, how our ancestors used to regulate the society by framing laws of their own. The question before me is that in the present times what things we require after fully taking into consideration our needs, our legal conceptions and our necessities. This Code has created throughout the whole country a great deal of unpleasantness, restlessness and uneasiness. Some women declare that they would have rights equal to those of men. This Code favours the women. Some declare that women have no rights. Very humbly I beg to submit to this House, that till the time the Bill is under consideration here, we must never pay any attention to the various slogans or any such things like the allegations that this Bill is favourable to women or it is favourable to men. With a cool heart we must think over whether this Bill is appropriate or not. Which man can say that he has not been born of a woman, and which woman can say that she is not the daughter of a man. So in a matter like this will we not treat our sisters, our daughters, and our mothers with kindness. Do our mothers, sisters and daughters demand that they will not behave properly with their husbands, their brothers and sons. So it is not necessary to introduce any bitter controversy in this matter. I know that this is a very delicate problem. We ought to consider it in the proper mannner and with a cool head.

Before I discuss this point any further, I wish to submit a few things about a question so that at least the honourable, members of this House and my honourable sisters in particular may not think that I oppose or support this Bill with some set ideas. At the very outset I wish to submit that I belong to that school of thought who believes that till the women are not given their proper rights in both the immovable and movable properties their personality will not attain full development. I very strongly oppose the economic dependence of women. I do not like that sloka of Sitaji wherein she has said:

mitam dadati hi pitam bhrata mitam sutah

amitashyatu dataran bhartarn na pujayate

I hold Ramayan in a very high esteem but I am not, for one moment, prepared to accept the principle that the women should always be kept dependent. I am not, for one moment, prepared to accept the verdict of a few of the Smrities that a woman till she is not married must remain under the control of her father, and after marriage under the control of her husband, and if she becomes a widow then under the control of her son. I oppose this verdict of the Smrities not for the reason that it is painful to women. I know that till the women of India will not attain a strong personality, till the women will not improve their condition economically and till they will not have an all round development our genealogy will not, improve. Like men the women also should be given all kinds of opportunities for their development. I think that it is not at all justifiable to look at this question from a narrow angle of vision. We have to decide this question very prudently and keeping in view the welfare and advancement of our entire nation and country.

Since thousands of years we have been believing in certain prevailing customs and rites and have also been preserving them. But along with this we have also to decide our line of action as to how we should act upon the slogans that are being raised in the present day world like "women must have rights equal to men". We may not accept this principle in toto but we at least stand committed to afford them scope and facilities equal to men for their development. We will have to keep this principle in view. Therefore, I wish to submit without any reserve that women must get their lawful rights in the movable and immovable properties. I am strongly in suport of this. I also congratulate Dr. Ambedkar for his accepting in this Bill the principle of the Abolition of Caste in marriages and adoption. I do not possess sufficient eloquence to let you know how important I consider this question to be. I look upon this question in this light that it is question of nation-building, it is a question of our life and death. This pertains to basic principles. If any thing has mined India, marred her progress and became an instrument in creating Pakistan, it is this caste system. If there is anything that has entered our society and is eating into the vital : that has made Brahmins enemy of others, the Jats enemies of non-Jats and the Kshattriyas the enemy of all other communities, it is tllis caste system only. I do not know how can we refuse to follow the path of formation of a class-less society, the path pointed out to this country by Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation. The two things, that are instrumental in uniting the people of this country, are inter-dining and inter-marriages. As far as the question of inter-marriages is concerned, till this question is not resolved the problem of nation building in India cannot be solved. Therefore, as far as this question is concerned, I am strongly in its favour.

As far as the question of monogamy goes there may not be a single member against it. As far as the consequences of monogamy are concerned I know that its passing would badly affect the area I come from. Because even today, according to the circumstances, it generally happens that when some one dies-leaving his widow, the widow is re-married to the younger brother. I know that in the coming times we should not continue these out of date-customs. I think that if the defects of this out of date system would be told and explained to those people whom it will affect then they would also readily agree to renounce it.

As regards the question of monogamy and the people about whom I am talking I wish to submit that these people according to their needs and intelligence thought out and adopted this principle in that time when widow remarriage was not in vogue in India. Without any reservation, I wish to submit that as far as the questions of monogamy, abolition of caste system and giving of the fullest rights to women, are concerned I am fully in support of them.

As regards the question of divorce I know that the system of divorce exists in a major portion of Inida. These days to some people this system of divorce appears to be bad. In fact in a country like ours where according to our customs the women used to commit Sati, the opposition of the system of divorce is not a thing to be wondered at. According to our beliefs marriage constitutes an indissoluble relationship, and from this point of view the right of divorce should not be given. But I like to submit that the system of divorce has always been in our country and is still present to this day. If the people wish to walk with their eyes closed, if they do not want to see as to what is happening in the world around them., then it is upto them to do so. Dr. Ambedkar told us that this system is found in 90 per cent. of the people of this country. I beg to submit that these figures are under-estimated rather than over-estimated. As regards the question of divorce and as far as it is in practice in India I am entirely in support of it, not for the reason that it is in vogue in the present day society but for the fact that it is one of our own customs. Therefore I am in favour of divorce.

The question arises that in this Hindu Code Bill, as it has emerged from the Select Committee the main defect is that it does not go far enough. In fact the customs prevalent in our country and the reforms suggested by the Select Committee fall far too short. The people in Punjab are not so backward. As regards social reforms the people of Punjab are far ahead than those of the rest of India. This Code does not go to that extent even. For them this Code is not a kind  of social reform but it draws them back instead. If this Code would be shown to any Hindu or Sikh of the rural areas of Punjab then he would say, " Oh Sir, what are you doing ? You arc retrogressing us to a great extent. We are far ahead of all this. You want to take us still backward. " The people of Punjab will not be benefited by this Code. The present Code has emerged from the Select Committee in such a form that the needs of the people of Punjab have lagged far behind; the needs have not only been left behind but certain things in this Bill compel us that we will have to throw this Bill out if it remained in the present form. If we want to preserve our institutions then they cannot be preserved in the present form of the Bill, and thus this Bill becomes annoying.

Shri Mohan Lal Gautam (U. P. : General) : Quote any example.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I just give an example. After this introduction, with your permission Sir, I beg to submit the objections that I have to raise against this Bill and say to what extent I have to support this Bill. There are many such provisions in this Bill about which no one may have any objection. There would be a very few persons who would say that they are against all the provisions of the Bill. But Sir, if you were to go through the Bill you would find that there are notes of dissent from 11 out of the 17 members of the Select Committee, and who are they ? Shrimati Ammu Swaminadhan and Shrimati Renuka Ray are among them. Notes of dissent from both of them are there.

Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal : General) : These notes are not on fundamental principles.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am coming to that. To tell the truth these 11 members who have written notes of dissent, themselves oppose this Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee. I was submitting as to who have written notes of dissent. One of the notes of dissent is from Bakshi Tek Chand who has worked for social uplift throughout his life and is prepared to go to any extent for social reforms. When he also writes a note of dissent then it is for us to think as to where are we going ? If these notes of dissent he carefully read then it would become clear that out of 17 members at least 11 strongly oppose this Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee. After this introduction I beg to state why I am prepared to move such motions, which are generally considered dilatory against this Bill as it has     emerged from the Select Committee.

Mr. Tajamul Hussain (Bibar : Muslim) : Sir, I beg to raise a point of information. The honourable member has stated that 11 out of 17 members of the Select Committee have written note of dissent. If they are opposed to this Bill, then I would like to enquire from the honourable members how this Bill came to be recommended by the Select Committee so that we may pass it.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my opinion this question is neither a point for information nor a point oforder even. You may go through this Bill yourself Sir. Mr. Bharathi has also written a note of dissent.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : (Madras : General) : Mine is little ahead of the Bill. I want to enlarge the scope of the Bill. That is my dissenting minute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Should honourable members go on explaining every remark and every sentence ? It is not necessary.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: No, Sir, I was ....

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable member's note of dissent is in print. He will have his turn if he wants to offer any explanation. It is no good going on interrupting a speaker and other honourable members also by simultaneously standing up.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: May I say. Sir ....

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard the honourable member sufficiently.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : On a point of personal explanation, Sir ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Sir, I would not give Mr. Bharathi the trouble of explaining his viewpoint before the House. I myself present his view point. The note of Mr. Bharathi is that he is no way against the fundamental principles of this Bill. He wants that as a logical consequence the women must be given the right that all these women who own limited estates, he wants that they at once be made absolute owners. I am correct, I think.                   

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: I am not permitted to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable member Pandit Bhargava may go on.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: For this very reason Sir, I was submitting that a number of members of the Select Committee have written notes of dissent on that form of the Bill as has emerged from the Select Committee. With what intension these notes of dissent were written, I will submit later on, but I wish that I may not be interrupted in the course of my speech.

Sir, I was submitting that although this Bill does go to a certain extent and I am prepared to go even beyond that in social reforms yet still I do not find myself in a position to fully support this Bill. And this is quite natural. Even Dr. Ambedkar himself, by whose kindness the Bill has taken this form and who has delivered such a speech of which every Indian and especially every Hindu must feel proud, is not in support of all the provisions of this Bill. Therefore he told that at places the Select Committee has gone out of reason. I do not want to use harsher words. But I say that he also is against this Bill and in this way there are 12 notes in its dissent. So I was submitting that when 12 out of 17 members are against this .Bill then in such a condition the House should not feel astonished if I wish to support the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. The reason is quite clear. I do not wish that any of you may misunderstand me. There are many such sections of this Bill about which I do not wish that their passing be delayed even by a minute Had his motion been dilatory I would not have supported him. Many of my motions also were not dilatory. I know that this Bill is not going to be passed in this Assembly i.e. in this Session of the Assembly. A special session of the Assembly will have to be called to pass this Bill. The next session will come off after about 6 months. The objection that I am raising can very easily be decided in this period of six months. With your permission Sir, I wish to submit that I do not want that the Bill may not again be sent back to Select Committee : and for such a move my reasons are quite different. Perhaps some of the honourable members might be thinking that I wish this Bill may anyhow come to an end. I do not want to kill this Bill. I wish that this Bill be passed. I wish that all the good points of this Bill be accepted. So it is necessary to look upon this Bill with a cool heart. It is not necessary to infuse heat. Therefore, I wish that whatever I want to submit, you must hear it with a cool heart and I think that Dr. Ambedkar will not misunderstand it. I wish to submit all this very humbly and not with the spirit of antagonism. But I must have the courage to say what I want to say and I wish that others must interpret it at least fairly if not generously. I submit all this very respectfully and attach no less importance to this. Now I wish to submit that as each and every honourable member of the house knows that new elections are to be held. All the present members have come here by indirect election. The members that are to come after us will come from direct election and adult sufferage. According to the resolution passed by us in the Constituent Assembly the elections will be held in 1950. Only then I would be prepared to call that, as you yourself Sir, had said, an absolute sovereign body. Yet still on the principle of propriety I beg to submit that instead of us deciding a matter that concerns the daily life of 30 crores of people it would be better that those people. Who are to come from direct election and adult sufferage, should decide this issue. I would submit that this will be the proper course. I wish to submit on the principle of propriety. Some people feel that this Assembly can frame the constitution only. This is the same argument that was advanced yesterday that when fragmentation does not take place on dividing a property among twelve sons then there cannot be any if it is further divided so as to include a daughter as well. But I say that " one wrong cannot justify another ".

Shri Mohan Lal Gautam has said that this Assembly is not also competent to frame the constitution even. I do not agree with his views but if you do agree then why are you repeating the mistake ? This is quite wrong. If you do not hold this view then it is another thing. In my opinion this constitution framing Assembly is a sovereign body. It is perfectly legal and in the same way this house is fully authorised to pass today any laws that it likes. Yet still the sense of propriety, the sense of proportion, demands of us that we must not make haste in this matter. We have been following these principles since thousands of years and therefore I wish to submit that in the next 6 months the sky will not fall down upon our heads, so that we may pass the Bill immediately with undue haste. Therefore I would very humbly submit that as you Sir, have written in your dissenting note: out of these twelve persons, the twelve signs of the Zodiac—you are one of them; and along with you Babu Ramnarayan Singh has also mentioned on page II :

" The members have been elected indirectly and have no mandate from the electorate. The mass of opinion and the majority is against most of the provisions of the Bill and the Bill seeks to alter the fundamental structure of the Hindu Society. "

I very humbly beg to submit that justice demands that the

representatives of direct election after being elected to this Assembly should be given the opportunity of deciding this matter. Our much respected and a true leader of the country Dr. Rajendra Prasad, agreeing with this principle, had also written a letter that this Bill as a whole be presented before the coming representative Assembly.

Mr. Tajamul Husain : What it was that the Governor-General had written ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Sir, whatever you say about the Governor-General has been mentioned here. But I very respectfully beg to submit that I highly honour and esteem the opinion of the elders. This matter today concerns me, concerns every woman who lives in any distant village. Everybody will be affected by this and so every one has got a right to express his opinion. Why I do not agree is that yesterday my honourable sister Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani had said that in this manner centuries would pass. This Bill has been on the anvil for the last ten years. It was drafted in 1941. This argument does not appeal me. May I ask how much literacy is there in this country ? May I ask how many women of this country are literate ? I wish to address my honourable sisters here, who are the members of this house and whose opinion I highly esteem; but I would say whether thousands of their sisters who live in villages and towns have the right to express their opinion in this matter. For this reason I would urge my honourable sisters here that they should have patience in this matter and exercise some restraint. If I were to submit that the opinion of those also be included, who have full right to express their opinion, then this may not be considered a crime. Very respectfully I beg to submit that the people living in towns and villages are not at all aware what the Bill is and what its provisions are. Some honourable members say " Hear " " Hear ". Very respectfully I beg to submit that those people who have not studied the provisions of this Bill and a number of members of this House have not at all realized what its importance is.

Shrimati G. Durgabai : When you consider women of this country fit enough to understand the provisions of your other Bills for reform, don't you think they will be able to understand the provisions of this Bill?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I welcome this interruption, because it gives me an opportunity to explain the real point. Sir, an objection has been raised that once upon a time the Sattee Bill was passed, widow marriage Bill was passed, Sharda Act was passed; and the Bill that is before the House today is also of the same category which, according to Shrimati Durgabai, is something higher in level from those that can be passed taking into consideration the opinion of the common people.

Mr. Tajamul Husain : May I be allowed to move a point of order ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order, please ?

Mr. Tajamul Husain: My point of order is this. Sir, that the contempt of the whole House has been committed by my honourable friend in this way; you heard him out and he says that there are members of this House who have not understood the Hindu Code Bill. This amounts to a contempt of this House and I want a ruling on this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not think that there is anything in this point of order. All that the honourable member means is that the full implications of the Bill may be understood differently by different sections of the people. According to him they have not been understood in the manner in which he would like honourable members to understand it.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Besides this Sir, I do not claim and I am not at all prepared to say that I have understood the provisions of this Bill any more than the other honourable members of the House. About myself I am prepared to say that I have not understood fully all the provisions, all the clauses and all the implications of this Bill and this I can say about all the honourable members and myself in particular. The honourable members here, who are not lawyers, can say that they have fully understood the Bill; but the lawyers present here cannot say with confidence that they have understood all the provisions of the Bill as has emerged from the Select Committee. I am not permitted in this House but, if I be permitted then I like to put two or three questions to Mr. Tajamul Husain and he should give an answer whether he understands or not. It is not at all my intentions to commit contempt of the House. Very respectfully I beg to submit that it is not at all my intention . . .

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Every citizen is presumed to know the Law, every honourable member is presumed to have read this Bill. The honourable member can go on with his speech.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I was submitting Sir, after this introduction, I was submitting why I am in favour of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad's amendment. Sir, I submitted some facts for your kind consideration, that this House is not so representative as it is to be

tomorrow and this is not to take much time, in a few months the new house will come into being and therefore it would have been proper to (postpone the discussion on this Bill till the new house comes into being).

A still stronger argument in favour of my submission is that you, Sir, are well aware of the fact that today property includes two different types of thing. One is lands and the other houses. As far as the landed property is concerned this Bill does not affect it. What will be its effect on succession in a country like India which is mainly an agricultural country and where 90 per cent of the people live in villages. After the death of a person his lands will be governed by one law and his house in the village will be governed by another law. What will happen to me ? If I have some property in Delhi then this property will be overned by one law and my landed property in Bahadurgarh will be governed by another law. My house built in my fields at Bahadurgarh will be governed by one law and my house at Delhi by another law. Is this uniformity ? If such a thing is being maintained then what the result would be? The appointment of an heir takes place at Bahadurgarh whom the Hindu Code does not recognise, then that boy, who is the appointed heir, will of course inherit the landed property at Bahadurgarh but on the residential house of the deceased some one else would have a claim. The boy will get the landed property but will have no claim on the house, then after all where the boy will go ? The effect of this Bill would be that it will not apply on landed property. I think that Dr. Ambedkar wishes to pass a Bill whereby economic holdings could be made and the landed property of average man may not be partitioned. But when this Act will come into being and when the abolition of zamindari takes place, I am not aware of this.

Shrimati Renuka Ray: You can introduce such a Bill immediately.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Respectfully I beg to submit that intentions are not so easily fulfilled in this world as my honourable sister thinks that simply by introducing a Bill this intention will be accomplished. This is a Bill for the benefit of the country, but how many obstacles this Bill is encountering. How much time the Land's Bill, whereby the rights of everybody will be usurped, will take and where will it be passed ? This is under the power of the Provincial Government. I wish that we may make such changes in our constitution whereby, as far as the question of lands is concerned, under the consitiution, this may also be within the powers of the Central Government. If this Bill is passed then I see in it the defect that it does affect the residential property and does not include the landed property. This is a great confusion. A change has now been made in the original Bill that now this Bill will also apply to the lands in the Centrally administered area's, i.e., it will be applicable on both the residential and landed properties of Ajmer Merwara and Delhi. In other provinces this Bill does not apply to lands. In Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara this will apply to both the rural and urban properties. This is a great defect of this Bill and which knock out its bottom.

As yet the people are not aware how this Bill would affect them. For this reason only I had submitted that full publicity has not been given to this Bill. I know that if today people were to know that through this Bill such far reaching and fundamental changes are being made in their law of inheritance, changes which will have affect on each and every family of India, then at one time the people of the whole of India on coming to Delhi would present their applications that this law may not be passed. Many people are not aware of this. The knowledge is shared by the members of this House. Bar associations and a few of those who read newspapers. You can well understand how small the number of such persons is. Such a Bill, which affects the entire Hindu Society, has not been given sufficient circulation and no opinions on this have been taken. A committee was set up, it took evidences at many places and the report of the committee is with me. If you would see as to where the members of this Committee went, what they did and whose evidences they recorded; then you would find that the committee has asked the opinion of some well placed and educated persons only and they have not taken the opinion of a major part of the country. In this there is no question of education. For this Bill every mother and father, who fully realize their responsibilities, can give their opinions. Everybody is affected by this and so every person is competent to give his opinion. Besides this I would submit that nobody has the knowledge of the changes that have been made by the Select Committee in the origianl Bill. Only the members of the Assembly have information of these changes, the rest of the people do not know what changes the Select Committee has made. Now the question arises that as the Select Committee has made changes in this Bill so its circulation has become very necessary. Leave aside the old question that no law should make rapid changes in the customs of the people till the opinion of a majority of those people, who are to be affected by it, be not taken. The Bill that is being introduced today's one wherein the Select Committee has made such changes as are of vital importance and about which everybody must have full information. For this reason only its circulation is all the more necessary.

Before I submit anything about these changes, I wish to draw the attention of the House towards one point. I regret to say that the Law Department itself which is an embodiment of law because its name even is Law Department, these same people do not respect the law. When these people themselves establish such a procedure that they must not have established, then I will have to say—

Urdu script

I do not want to touch the question that has been decided by your predecessor. That question has been decided. That ruling is final for me. I do not question it. I highly honour that ruling although I know that this ruling according to my opinion was not correct, yet I do not want to question it.

Mr. Tajamul Husain : No one can say inside the House that the ruling of the Chair is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sorry the honourable member has not understood Mr. Bhargava at all. What he says is that he does not agree with the ruling but he cannot question the ruling here. It is open to any member to think for himself and also to say that in his opinion he does not accept it, but he is bound by the ruling. I think there is nothing wrong.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I am very sorry that whenever my honourable friend Mr. Tajamul Husain raises any point of order it does not survive even for a minute. I wish that he may raise such a point of order which I may also be able to reply. I know that at this time he is enquiring from another honourable member whether this Bill applied to lands or not but he pretends and says that he understands this Code Bill. Then I like to submit that I am perfectly within my rights if I say that on the ruling I hold a different opinion. I wish to submit a few other fundamentals that have not at all been touched by the Honourable the Speaker's ruling. Most humbly I beg to draw the attention of the House particularly towards the fact that this House which is a constitution making House, is a master of her laws. None of our matters can be referred to any court in the country. If this house forsakes its principles for the sake of passing a certain Act then we commit such a mistake that we cannot be absolved of its responsibilities. I beg to submit that in this redrafted Bill, reported by the Select Committee, the mistakes that we have committed therein are of three types. Firstly when a Bill comes before the House, comes in the possession of the House, and is introduced in the House, then after this except for the House no member of the House, however big he might be, however good he might be, cannot even change a comma therein without the consent of the House. If there be any clerical mistakes then it is another thing; and if that also be a material mistake then it will have to be printed again and re-circulated and after again being introduced in the House can be referred to any committee. Very respectfully I beg to submit Sir, that I am presenting two or three technical points for your kind consideration.. About these points I will have to submit very humbly to the other honourable member, but not to Dr. Ambedkar as he is familiar with technical rules and things, and he knows how much injustice can be done by forsaking these technical rules. So I was submitting that by forsaking these technical rules except injustice and unlawful things nothing beneficial can be accomplished. Mr. Oslow has been a very famous speaker of the house of Commons. He had said that no work should be done in contravention of the technical rules. For the protection of minorities, for the protection of the House as a whole, there are technical rules, and these rules are of such a fundamental character that whenever the limits will be transgressed nothing except mistakes can be accomplished. This principle has been laid down in the May's Parliamentary Practice, which is the convention of the mother of Parliaments. The convention is that as soon as Bill is introduced it passes out of the hands of the member introducing it and comes within the power of the House. I am translating the words of May's Parliamentary Practice which I will soon read out to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not think anybody in the House doubts that any honourable member even though he may be the mover has got the right to change the Bill when once it has been placed before the House. As I understand it, the Honourable Speaker's ruling is that the very same Bill was considered in the Select Committee. Therefore, there is no good canvassing that position. The Honourable the Law Minister did not say that another Bill was considered in the Select Committee though the other draft which he placed before the Select Committee was considered along with the original Bill. As any honourable member is entitled to place amendments before the Select Committee instead of sending piecemeal amendments, according to him, he printed all his amendments and placed them before the Committee. That is the ruling of the Honourable the Speaker. Barring that, the honourable member can go on. Nobody doubts the position stated in May's Parliamentary Practice that it is not open to a member even though he may be the mover of the Bill, to change the Bill when the house is seized of it. The Honourable the Speaker has said this has not been done. We are bound by that; otherwise the honourable member may go on.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I wanted to submit only this much that after hearing your opinion I have become still more staunch on my belief.You have decided that if it is somehow proved that in fact no amendments on this controversy came before the Select Committee then it should be accepted that the redrafted Bill should not have been considered. For this reason I would submit that I have no need to quote the ruling again before you. Sir, I have got a ruling of Hansard Vol. 215 of 1873 wherein at page 302 it has been laid down that if a member gives notice of introducing a Bill and this Bill is printed then that member cannot make any changes in the Bill before the second reading, and if he makes any changes then the Honourable the Speaker gave the ruling that the Bill be withdrawn—the Bill cannot be further discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position of law is accepted, there is no need to convass that. I do not think the Honourable the Law Minister denies the postion of law that he is not entitled to changes . . .

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law): No.

Mr.. Deputy Speaker:. . .. any comma or semi colon except as accepted by the Select Committee. But it is open to him to place matters before the Select Committe. I think that was the ruling of the Chair. The honourable member may go on.

Pandit; Thakur Das Bhargva: Sir, very respectfully I wish to submit that if the other original Bill is placed before the House then I will have no objection. Had this Bill been considered in the House in this manner then nobody would have any objections. After being introduced in this manner the Bill should have been technically considered clause by clause and word by word. If this procedure has not been adopted and if the Bill was sent to the Select Committee and in the Select Committee it was not considered word by word and clause by clause then I would like to ask if the first Bill was before the honourable member or was it in his poccket or had he come after reading it at his house. I wish to draw your attention Sir, towards Parliamentary Practice. No member of the Select Committee has any claims against this. I have with me strong reasons and I wish to draw your attention Sir, towards them. In the first place perhaps in the majority report it is written: " We confined our deliberations to this redrafted Bill. "

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: May I interrupt ? This is not correct.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The original Bill has not been considered clause by clause and word by word in the actual sense of the term. In the popular sense as the Honourable the Speaker said before and in the sense in which Shri Balkrishna Sharma submitted before the House, the Bill was before us, then I have no objection against the Bill. I am prepared to accept that whatever Shri Balkrishna Sharma and the Honourable the Speaker have stated .... (English translation of Hindi speeches is over)

Shrimati G. Durgabai : On a point of order. He is questioning the ruling of the Speaker

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the honourable member, though I do not understand every word that he says, I am bound to safeguard the ruling of the Speaker. I am not interested in seeing that what I may have said today, may be upset by a Chairman who follows me. The ruling of the Speaker is there. Though the honourable member speaks forcibly on one or two points, I understand that he wants to persuade the house to allow the country an opportunity to consider the Bill. That is all that he means (Honourable Member " NO. no. ". I may say immediately I do not intend to go behind the ruling of the Speaker.) Any arguments that may be advanced for consideration by the house of the country at large is welcomed but not in a spirit to question the ruling of the Speaker.

Dr. Mono Mohan Das : On a point of information. I want to be informed whether the next ten minutes will be taken up by the honourable Member so that we who do not understand Hindustani could return to our hotels.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Since you have been pleased to say that you do not follow me and I want every word to be followed by the House and by your goodself I will speak in my broken English.

Shri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar (Madras : General) : Hitherto you have had no consideration for those who did not know Hindi. There is a large number of them here and if you do not care for them and you do not want them to listen, it is your own look out.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I had already decided to speak in English and my friend's orders are only supplementary. But after what you have been pleased to say, I will continue in English.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Whatever has been beared has been beared in Hindustani.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I am not going to repeat all that I have said as it will not be possible. In future I shall submit to you what I have to say, so that I may not be charged for attempting ....

Mr. Tajamul Husain: There should be no repetition.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I do not want to be ordered by Mr. Tajamul Husain. If he does not want to ....

Mr. Tajamul Husain: I am addressing the Chair.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I do not want Mr. Tajamul Husain to make unintelligent interruptions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sorry that, Mr. Tajamul Husain goes on interrupting repeatedly. I am here to protect the house so that there is no repetition. It is unfortunate that we are spending much time in this way.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I do not want to repeat. I submit that the manner in which the Honourable the Speaker gave his ruling I respect it and I will not say a word against the ruling, though I maintain. Sir, that ruling is not the last word.

Mr. Tajamul Husain: It is the last word in this House.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am not going to be taunted by these things. I think the House can revise its own order. I can quote a ruling to this effect from the book ' Decisions of Chair '. At the same time, let the house not think that I am asking the Deputy Speaker to review that order at this stage. I am not doing so. Let the House not be impatient. But may I ask where is the rule that a ruling once given cannot be revised ? There is no such rule. Since I am not attempting to get the ruling revised., this does not arise. What I was saying was that the ruling of the Speaker was to this effect that the Bill was considered along with this redrafted Bill not in the actual sense nor in the technical sense in which we understand what " consideration " is. I submitted for your consideration that in the technical sense in which we use the word " considered " this Bill was never considered.

Shri Mohan Lal Gautam: I beg to state that this is a repitition of what he spoke in Hindustani.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In so far as to enable me to understand the full implications.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Without these preliminary remarks I could not make myself understood and those who know would have realized that I could not do more than this.

I was submitting with a view to convince you that as a matter of fact the real consideration, technically so called, was only given to the redrafted Bill. I said that I wanted to submit certain arguments: firstly, the report says that " we confined our deliberations to the radrafted Bill ". Secondly, Sir, the dissenting note of Bakshi Tek Chand as well as of Balkrishna Sharma says the same thing. I do not want to read further because the members have read it and it will be waste of time to read it again. When Mr. Balkrishna Sharma spoke the Honourable the Speaker was pleased to accept his statement. He again repeated in his speech that " we confined our attention to this redrafted Bill " : and when you see the report you will find that in the report itself there are some indications for instance in clause 99 that only the re-drafted Bill was considered in the technical sense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am not able to follow what the honourable Member is driving at so far as this is concerned.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am sorry I have not heard what has fallen from Mr. K. C. Sharma.

Honourable Members : Order, order.

Mr. Tajamul Hussain : Sit down !

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If you will permit me I will try to get along.There are two questions. If it is a question that we ought not to proceed with this Bill, then that point has been decided. The Bill has been taken into consideration. The Speaker has said that this Bill was before the Select Committee and with the other amendments that have been tabled. Therefore, so far as that matter is concerned, 1 may immediately say I am not in a position to go beyond the ruling of the Speaker. Apart from the question of a similar case in the Civil Procedure Code, a ruling has been given and it is not desirable to go over it in the same case. It may not be a precedent for some others.

When it comes up in any other connection it will be open to the Chair or members of the house or whoever might occupy the Chair for the time being to go behind the previous ruling. At this stage in the same proceedings I am not prepared to go behind it. In these circumstances I would like to ask the honourable member for what purpose these arguments are raised. If as I understood sometime ago, it is only for the purpose of persuading the House to accept the motion for circulation in view of the fact that the Select Committee did not look into the original draft but the other one, both of them were before the House. So it is not as a point of order but for the purpose of persuading the House, which I can understand. For that reason May's Parliamentary Practice and other rulings need not be referred to. So far as the matter of law is concerned enough has been said and I would request the honourable member, if possible, to conclude this portion of his argument and proceed to some other matter.

Siri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. and Berar: General) : Sir, the previous speaker. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava said that the Speaker's ruling is not final. May I, Sir, draw your attention . . .

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not want any further arguments on the matter. I have already given my ruling that so far as this proceeding is concerned the Speaker's ruling is final. I cannot allow any questioning of that. It is therefore unnecessary to reinforce the argument or to strengthen my hands.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Sir, it is far from my mind to invite you to give a ruling contrary to the Speaker's. I am not going to request you to do that. I can quite understand that it is not desirable to review a ruling when it is given in the same case, though I know according to law you are perfectly competent to give another ruling. The law is not so narrow as not to provide for cases in which injustice is perpetrated. So I shall desist from speaking any futher on this subject that the ruling of the Chair may be looked into. What I am submitting is that there are several motions before the House and it is not the only motion for circulation. This Bill could go before the same Select Committee and it could come back to the House in 15 days. As I submitted already it is not a matter of dilatory tactics. All that I want is that the house should adopt a procedure which is according to law and which is fundamentally right. I am a member of this House and as such I have a right to see that the Bill sent to Select Committee is considered in a manner which the law requires. There is no escape, therefore, from its recommittal to the same Select Committee. This is the reason which I want to submit before you. After all the taxpayer has to pay for every minute of the time taken in this House and I hate to take a dilatory or obstructionists attitude. All the same . . .

Mr. Tajamul Husain: You are doing it all the same.

An Honourable Member: He is again on the Speaker's ruling.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I hope the house will bear with me for a little more time ...

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the honourable Member likely to take more time ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Yes, Sir.

(The House rose for lunch)

The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Half Past Two of the Clock

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar) in the Chair.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Sir, when the House rose for Lunch I was submitting for your consideration that the functions of a Select Committee are to go through the text of the Bill word by word; the function of a Select Committee is to go into the text of the Bill clause by clause, and if necessary, word by word. I would refer to May's parliamentary Practice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : May I request the honourable Member to proceed to another point because I have already given a ruling ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I respect your ruling. You were pleased to say that you are not going to reverse the ruling given by the Chair and I do not want it to be reversed. As a matter of fact I am unfortunate that I have not been able to make myself fully appreciated. The ruling of the Chair says that this Bill was with the Select Committee at the time when the draft was being considered. I do not dispute that at all. My dispute is that the functions of a Select Committee were that they should have gone through the original Bill clause by clause and word by word. It is not only this. As the House is bound so is the Select Committee bound to consider the Bill clause by clause and word by word.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We will assume that under the ruling both the original Bill and the amended draft were there and they looked into it clause by clause. What follows next? Is it the question that we ought not to go into this and it is not competent to do so? If that is so, it has already been ruled. When once it has been ruled how is it open to go into it again ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: On a question of fact I would still request the Members of a Select Committee, to kindly enlighten the House whether both the Bills were taken and considered together. Assuming that this is correct my contention is that unless and until every clause of the original Bill was taken, unless and until it was considered clause by clause and word by word the requirement of law and procedure is not complied with.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. and Berar: General): Has not the question of competence of the Select Committee been disposed of by the Speaker once for all ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to meet that point myself. Whenever I find it difficult, I will ask the honourable Member Mr. Kamath to help me.

I have already said I am anxious to know what follows. I will assume for the moment that both the Bills were there and that the other draft Bill was considered clause by clause. What next ? What is the legal objection ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I request you to give me two or three minutes to explain my position. There is another aspect of the case also. Besides this being a fundamental rule that the original Bill should be taken clause by clause and word by word the way in which the entire Bill is to be considered is that each clause must be considered of the original Bill, then the new clause, then the Schedule, then the new Schedule. Parliamentary Practice gives that. The next question is what is the effect. What follows—this is the question before you. I beg to call your attention in this connection to the general principles of practice and law as well as the particular point involved. In regard to the general practice the rule of law is absolutely clear that when any law or any practice or the general principle requires that a certain procedure is to be observed, unless and until that procedure is observed the thing cannot be regarded as having been validly done. For this principle I will quote another authority of the Privy Council itself which is 1936 Privy Council page 253.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am assuming the next step also. I am only taking the honourable Member's argument step by step. Let us assume it is so—that the Select Committee did not consider this or considered something else. Then the honourable Member evidently wants to say that I have no jurisdiction to go into the matter. It is with respect to that I want to say that it has already been ruled by the Speaker. I shall hear the honourable Member if he is able to satisfy me that that ruling does not cover the point he has stated. So far as I am concerned I have considered it carefully and I believe the same has been covered. I would therefore suggest to the honourable Member to proceed futher without taking any more time. Already we have taken much time on this. There are other speakers also waiting to speak. I would like the honourable Member to dispose of this point as early as possible and go to any other point if he wants to.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: My humble submission is that the previous ruling of the chair did not consider this point. The only point raised by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad was that the motion cannot be allowed to be made as only the redraft was considered. That was the simple point. This point which I am urging in regard to taking up clause by clause was not even argued. The effect will be this that a Bill will be sent to Select Committee and if you don't observethis fundamental rule, any other Minister may, after the Bill, put a redraft, get it considered and the real purpose of this fundamental rule that it should be considered clause by clause will be defeated. This is sufficient ground that no person had a right to make any alteration whatever in the Bill—for this I would refer you. Sir, to the ruling of the Speaker in the Commons (page 301 of Hansard, Volume 215). If you agree with me in this and in the Committee being required to go through it clause by clause then the position is absolutely clear that this Bil must be recommitted to the same Select Committee. Let the Select Committee devote two hours—1 do not want that the Report should not come in this session— I want them to devole two hours and consider the original Bill clause by clause, and we will consider it then. This point, I may submit was never considered by the Speaker and I beg of you kindly to consider this point.

Leaving aside this point as you have asked me not to spend any more time on it, I would take up the other points. Now the question is what is the effect of this. One met as I have already submitted is that we must abide by the rules, and the rules in a matter of this kind are fundamental rules which cannot be disobeyed. Then what is the real effect of it? That I am submitting to you. Now the differences or discrepancies between the provisions of the original Bill and the Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee relate not only to matters of procedure but to matters of great substance. In the Dissenting Note given by Bakshi Tek Chand and Pandit Balkrishna Sharma it has been pointed that as a matter of fact in the redrafted Bill very drastic changes were made and they have given examples of the changes. I am not satisfied that they have exhausted all the substantial changes in the minutes and I would beg of you to consider it from that point. When I began my speech I invited your 'attention to the fact that in this measure, as it has emerged from the Select Committee after the redrafted Bill was considered, many changes have been made which are certainly destructive of the institutions which we have not in the Punjab. I will first of all call your attention to the institution of appointment of an heir. In regard to the appointment of an heir we know the views of the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. He himself stated that he thought that the adoption of heirs is an artificial affair. I also think so. We remember the speech made by Mrs. Hansa Mehta at the time when the Bill was sent to the Select Committee. She also made certain remarks. Now, according to the present measure, no person could adopt an heir in any form except in the Debute form whereas according to the original Bill the Kritrim and Goda forms were also allowable. So far as adoption is concerned adoption of a son is a mere fiction. How can such a son become a real son? But the Hindu law provides for it and I have no quarrel with those who believe in it. But in regard to appointing heirs to property, just as the Romans did by way of Nominis Hereditio, if the people in the Punjab had got practices like that nobody has the right to touch them. According to our institutions, in the appointment of an heir, though it is in effect just like an adoption; there is no religious efficacy, there are no particular ceremonies. There is no question of age. The son is not engrafted in the family of the adoption but he continues in his own family. There are various rules and the Punjab High Court has given hundreds of rulings over this point. That institution is too strongly fixed in the public mind and you will be tampering with the custom of at least a crore of people if you are not allowing it in this Code. According to the Hindu Code no other form of adoption will be allowed, that is the provision in the present: it does not go far enough. I understand that so far as custom is concerned, custom has been ruled out except to the extent which has been recognised.

When I read the speech of Dr. Ambedkar himself which he was pleased to deliver at the time when the Motion was referred to Select Committee, I found that his attitude was very reasonable and he made certain statements in regard to custom which are very much opposite to the provisions of the Bill. Sir, I doubt very much whether this Law Department Committee had on its personnel our Law Member himself. I do not know who those persons were who tampered with the Bill, but at the same time I can certainly say that I very strongly suspect—though I do not know it—that Dr. Ambedkar must not have been there because he is very anxious to see that the customs of the ninety per cent of the people are not affected—as I am anxious to see. Either this thing missed him—he may not have appreciated it— or some other persons might have been there who were not Members of the Select Committee. They entirely changed the face of the Bill, which they had not the right to do; then it was the other Bill which was considered—it is a fiction that the original Bill was there and considered. Sir, I would refer you to page 3652 of the proceedings (9th April 1948 ) in which Dr. Ambedkar said:

" His second comment was that the Bill had not taken into consideration the customary law. He cited some ruling of the Privy Council. I should have thought that at this hour of the day it was unnecessary to cite the authority of the Privy Council because it has been well established by a long course of decisions, that so far as the Hindus are concerned custom would override the text of the " Smriti ".We all know this. But what are we doing ? What are we doing is this. We are shutting down the growth of new customs. We are not destroying existing customs. The existing customs we are recognising because the rules and law which are prevalent in Hindu society are the result of customs. They are born out of customs and we feel that they have now grown so sturdy that we can indeed give them flech and life in the body politic by one legislation.

Dr. Ambedkar was referring to the speech of Srijut Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri : He also said:

" that we had not taken into consideration the question of the tribal people, whose life is undoubtedly governed in a large measure by customary law. If my friend had read the definition in this code as to who is a Hindu and who is not and to whom this Code applied, he would have seen that there is a clause which merely said that persons who are not Muslims, Parsis, or Christians, shall be presumed to be Hindus: not that they are Hindus. The result is that if a tribal individual chooses to say that he is not a Hindu it would be perfectly open to him under this Code to give evidence in support of his contention that he is not a Hindu, and if that conclusion is accepted by the Court he certainly would not be obliged by anything contained in this Bill.

The position is this : if I accept my institutions as good, if I appoint my heirs according to the custom which governs me, then according to Dr. Ambedkar I am not a Hindu. That is my difficulty. Either you must provide for these one crore of people and accept their customs

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law) : I have no desire to interrupt my friend, but I must say that I do not accept the interpretation that he puts upon that part of my speech. It refers to quite a different matter.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very glad that I am wrong. It gives me satisfaction that Dr. Ambedkar did not want that the one crore of people should go out of the pale of the Hindu law. But all the same, the argument I was admitting was this. If this custom was good—and I claim it is good because according to the definition given in this very code, the custom is ancient, reasonable and not opposed to public policy or morality—1 claim this custom should have been recognised by the Code. But this custom is not recognised. To a certain extent the kritrima form was adopted as a good form by the original Bill but the present Bill says that no adoption will be recognised except this kind of adoption which according to Dr. Ambedkar is governed by certain rules. What are the rules? A man must not be more than 15 years of age. He must be given by somebody in adoption. He must not have married. Even according to the present law of adoption these rules are not there. Supposing a Hindu's daughter and son-in-law have died then the daughter's son cannot be adopted; the sister's son cannot be adopted, even the nephew cannot be adopted if the parents are not there. It is common knowledge that even today this rule that if a person is married he cannot be adopted, is not in practice and according to law in vogue, it is not necessary that a person should not have married before he is adopted. Similarly about age. So, all these measures have been changed in such a way that they cannot fit in with the present conditions, or they cannot be useful to us or cannot govern us.

We passed in the Constituent Assembly that we want a Civil Code. Even if this were not the Hindu Code and if Dr. Ambedkar was charged with the duty of framing a Civil Code, (I think he will be so charged after the Constitution is passed.) he will certainly include this civil institution—the nomination of an heir—in the Civil Code also. A man may be able to help, in their old age, those who appoint him the heir. My submission is that this point alone is sufficient to see that as a matter of fact the re-draft is much worse than the original Code and full attention was not paid to the original Bill. If full attention had been paid, this thing would have been considered. Had it been considered clause by clause, you would not have arrived at this.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This part of the Bill was, if I may say so, very much considered.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I am very glad. Sir, that the original Bill was considered. Then the only technical point remains, that it was not considered clause by clause, there is intrinsic evidence that it was not so considered. What is the effect? Supposing there are provisions omitted. How were those provisions considered? When the entire attention was on the draft of the other Bill those clauses could not have been considered. This is not a technical matter. . .

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member is aware that the House is not bound by whatever the Select Committee has done. The Select Committee have sent a recommendation; it is open to the honourable Member to accept or not to accept it; if he does not accept it, he can persuade the House not to accept it. We need not go into that again. After all, some Members were there. It is not right to go into what they considered or what they did not consider, the honourable Member would do better in addressing the House as to why we ought not to accept a provision or why we should accept it.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I will accept your advice. Sir, I will not refer in future to what happened before the Select Committee. I will only say this point, with your permission. Even if the Select committee acquiesced in this fraud that the original Bill is not to be considered and the substitute Bill is to be considered, we are not bound. An accused, before a criminal court, acquiesces in a certain procedure which is illegal; then it does not bind him. May I quote some rulings? A Court is required to go into a question and find out for itself whether there is good evidence or record to bind an accused under section 107 Criminal Penal Code. The accused says, " I agree to be bound in that evidence ". The Court says, " You are bound ". But the appellate Court still rules that the right procedure was not observed and the acquiescence of the accused in a wrong procedure does not make the order legal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is not the honourable Member satisfied with tearing the report of the Select Committee in pieces ? Should he also say they are                " accused" ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Those who are guilty of disregard of the fundamental rules of procedure which govern a Select Committee are today accused before the House. I am sorry I have to say something which may not be wholesome to some of my friends, but I do so in all humility and with a view to safeguarding the rights and prestigious of the House. I now leave this point and come to the second point.

In regard to marriage and divorce which are very important questions, what does the Code say and what are the facts at present ? In Punjab no specific ceremonies are required for marriages which are called Karewa and Chadar, Ardazi marriages. The woman puts on the bangles supplied by the husband or the husband puts the Chadar on the wife and there the matter ends. (Shri Mahavir Tyagi : " Charming marriage ") It is very easy for Mr. Tyagi to avail himself of such a procedure. It is not a sacramental or civil marriage. Again, in the original Code there was a loophole. Such persons could come to court and get themselves registered. The changed rules is that unless the marriage is sacramental, it cannot be registered. There are other points on which I shall have occasion to speak before you, but I wish to make certain general observations inregard to what is happening in regard to many persons and what has not been considered from the point of view of the common man.

In the mofussil areas, the people are illiterate. They are poor. They do not know the intricacies of the law. On the question of divorce, when Dr. Ambedkar said that he was speaking for ninety per cent. of the population, I know that he was saying nothing but the truth. In regard to this ninety per cent. How does the divorce take place today ? They go to a petition writer and get a letter of release. Another way is they congregate together and put a white sheet on the woman.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : And supply a good deal of liquor to the fellows assembled !

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : That may be so, but it is not part of the ceremony. What is the present law. Sir ? What have our leaders done for you ? I am a representative of those poor people. I include myself in them. But when Dr. Ambedkar just by his finger indicates that he is one of those he will excuse me if I do not agree. Dr. Ambedkar lives here in a paradise.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have lived in Improvement Trust chawls for several years who charged me rupees three as rent.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : You can crush them under your feet: you can crush them under your thumb, but Sir, do you think that any poor villager getting about Re. I or Rs. 1/8/- a day could go to a district judge without the help of a lawyer ? Dr. Ambedkar is a lawyer. He wants that this world may be peopled by lawyers alone like me and by nobody else. What would happen to these people ? Will they go to a district judge for dissolution of marriage or divorce ? (An honourable Member, " Impossible ") And this is not sufficient. Even if he obtains a decree, it should be confirmed by a High Court, which so far as Punjab is concerned, to the High Court at Simla. Now, this procedure is unknown to people. It is a great tyranny upon those people. You are legislating for those who live in the Marine Drive in Bombay or in the palaces of Calcutta and Delhi and not for these poor people for whom you have such a soft corner in your heart.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati: He wants to make it difficult. Do you want to make it easy ?

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Another answer is that they want to make it difficult. I do not want to make divorce easy. Absolutely not. I am in favour of divorce on one condition only, that you enact laws in which it may be very difficult to bring about conditions in which divorce may take place. Chastity and continuity of family life are the very pivot of our culture. But if I agree to divorce, it is because I see so many deserted women. It is on account of that I agree. How can a poor man who is absolutely illiterate be able to engage a lawyer and go to a district or high court ? It is impossible to accept this. This old Act of 1869 was enacted, not for the poor people of the Punjab or any other part of India, it was enacted for Christians who were of the same caste as the then rulers. There is a world of difference between them and these people. If you go through the provisions from article 38 to 50 of the Bill, you will come to the conclusion that such a complicated and intricate procedure has been laid down that it is very difficult to follow it. If you think deeply, you will find that the whole Hindu society will rebel against you if you pass those provisions. According to your law, if a man marries his aunt's (father's sister) daughter, that marriage is good ; if he marries the daughter of his maternal uncle—it is in vogue in certain parts   of Bombay, I understand...... (An honourable Member: " And Madras."). But so far as we are concerned it is regarded as highly incestuous. There is a very great difference. (Shri Mahavir Tyagi: " The man may be killed.") Mr Tyagi is not very far being correct. It is a fact that in all the villages of East Punjab—and I speak with such feeling not because I want to speak with force but I regard it as true if you allow this thing to be done, that man shall be killed and nobody will associate with him. (Mr. Tajamal Husain: " Is there any compulsion ?"). If a man marries his sister or mother, is there any compulsion ? Is this an enabling measure ? This is going into the very vitals of the society. It is intolerable. It is impressible for us to be reconciled to this situation simply because in regard to some people there is such a custom. I do not say that those people should not be protected, but for them provision can be made.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati : Exactly that has been provided if you refer to clause 7(5)—the parties should not be sapindas of each other.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: May I humbly enquire if a daughter of the aunt can be married to a man ? I have seen the rules. I submit for your consideration that in these matters the law has been changed, and unless the law is brought to suit our conditions it is difficult for us to support this measure. That can be done. In the Select Committee amendments can be moved. I do not want that the Bill should be throttled or killed:

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It can also be done by an amendment in this House.

An Honourable Member: I hope you will accept.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I shall be prepared to accept any reasonable amendment.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very glad, and to that extent I am agreeable to support this Bill.

Mr. Tajamul Husain: Does the honourable Member intend to finish today ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member seems to be interested in this than other person, who are affected by this Bill. I have been noticing it. I cannot ask the honourable Member when he proposes to finish. It is open to him to take a reasonable time without repetition.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : It is not my intention to take one more minute than is necessary. If I am repeating, I may be called to order. If a Bill is there which affects the lives of thirty crores of people, it is not too much to consider it for several days.

Now I come to the provisions made by the Select Committee and to the most crucial questions in this matter. They are, whether in regard to succession and maintenance, what should be our attitude. I fell strongly on these. As I submitted in my earlier observation, I am in favour of giving to the women of India rights over property, moveable as well as immoveable, so that they may be economically independent. But, at the same time, I am opposed to giving the daughter a share in the property of the father.

3 p. m

I want that, so far as an unmarried daughter is concerned, she may be given full share like the son as long as she does not marry. But as soon as she is married the position becomes different. I see that there is a lacunae in our law, but it may be met by enacting that, as a woman marries a man, then the man and woman, when they are united in love, they may be united in property. Ultimately the man and woman may be joint owners and, when the father of the husband dies, both of them may succeed equally. Further on, the devolution of the property may take place in a particular way. I know that perhaps the demand for equality may not be fully net thereby. But in a matter of this kind, I do not think our sisters are well advised in weighing every question in golden scales. The yard-stick employed by them is not correct.

May I submit that, in regard to maintenance, they have such laws and such provisions the equal of which is not to be found anywhere else. Sir, the question of succession and the question of maintenance must be considered together. If they are not considered together, the difficulty will be that the full implications of the provisions will not be realised. Now, in regard to maintenance the duties of a husband or a man are quite different from the duties laid upon women. According to the Chapter on Maintenance, the wife has a right to be maintained by the husband, but has the husband a right to be maintained by the wife ? I am only saying that the rights are not equal. I maintain that the rights cannot be equal. They are diverse. Ladies and men have to do different work in life and on this basis it should be so arranged that the woman gets her full right and not an absolutely equal right.