DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 479
Shri B. Das : We are here to legislate. We are not here to understand the interpretation of lawyers or High Court Judges. (Interruption).
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, much depends on the substantial changes. Have not these been introduced by the Departmental Committee ? On that issue the whole case depends. If it was introduced by the Departmental Committee and if it is a substantial change, then the Select Committee was not informed of it. It has been repeatedly made clear that the Select Committee considered the Departmental Bill and not the original Bill. If this is insinuation, I am sorry I shall have to discharge my duty faithfully but absolutely fearlessly though very respectfully. I submit the Select Committee was absolutely cajoled into believing that the Departmental Bill was a substantial reproduction of the original Bill, and even the Honourable the Law Minister is persuaded to believe that there was no change. It is not insinuation, it is a fact. Who has made the changes ? If it were the Law Minister, then he would have been aware of it. Is it somebody else ? Then is it improper for me to point out that somebody else has made the change ? I say he has done it by mistake or bona fide. Would it be proper for me to suggest that these changes were made fraudulently ? I do not suggest anything of the sort. The only thing I could do is to assume that these things were done bona fide— just a little flourish of the pen to improve upon it. “Why merely rule out customary law ? Let us abolish all the rulings of the Privy Council.”
Sir, criticism is proper. If any language I have used is improper, I withdraw it. But what about the criticism ?
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Let us hear the other points.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Why be anxious? Why not listen to this?
Mr. Speaker : Order, order. We cannot carry on the discussion of the Bill in this manner. There are Members who want to support the Bill and others who want to oppose it. Let everyone have his say in any manner he likes, without being offensive or speaking unparliamentary language. That is the only objection. Otherwise, at every stage there will be interruption and those who want to support the Bill will be the sufferers in the long run, because time will be spent in unnecessarily carrying on this kind of discussion. The Member honourable will have his say and if he says that the Select Committee did not give attention to this or that or that these points were not examined by the Select Committee, where is the ground