DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 257
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I find from the proceedings on the 31st 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