DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 465
numbering and separate parts was a thing unknown and purposeless, and therefore, they wanted to blend the different parts into one complete whole with consecutive numbering. That is clearly mentioned in the report. That is the reason why they produced a Hindu Code which they thought was self-contained and more logically arranged. The purpose of the Rau Committee of separate enactments and their subsequent consolidation was entirely missed.
The first point, which I should like to take in this connection is that the changes made by the Departmental Committee set up by the Ministry of Law went beyond the purpose of the original Bill, or rather the different Bills. In fact the blending of the different parts of the original Bill into one is the thing which has created a lot of difficulties and has made confusion worse confounded. As was suggested by the Rau Committee, the better thing would have been to pass separate parts separately, so that there will be the least objection and the attention of the House as well as of the country could be focussed upon individual subjects, though they may have a comprehensive view of the entire Hindu Law. Now the blending of the different parts or Bills into one whole with running numbers has placed us in this difficulty that we find in the House that there is hardly any Member who has spoken; who is completely in favour of the consoclidated Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee. Some are in favour of the marriage provisions; others are in favour of the inheritance; with regard to guardianship and other things, there is the least objection. Separate Bills as in the original scheme would have simplified matters and reduced our troubles.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Maintenance portion is the best; all the rest is rubbish.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Maintenance portion, as Pandit Maitra reminds us, is the least objected to. So if the parts were kept separate, then the House would have been in a position to deal more easily with individual subjects. The subject of maintenance is not controversial. It does not affect the religious structure of the society. It does not wound the religious feelings and age-long beliefs of the Hindus and it could have been passed at once. That was the reason for the separate treatment. But the Departmental Committee rather, missed the purpose of the separate treatment and blended the whole thing into one.
Sir, I would point out that in the second Rau Committee report also, the Bill was prepared in different compartments, they repeated