480 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
for taking insult in that ? He is perfectly entitled to say so. But he should not insinuate something else; that is what I have to guard against. But I believe he is entitled to express his views.
There is another point also to which I was going to invite the attention of the honourable Member. He says that because the Law Minister is unaware of a substantial change, therefore somebody else introduced the change. There is another aspect to it. If the point which he considers substantial is not considered by the Law Minister as substantial, then the Honourable Law Minister is perfectly entitled to say that he is not aware of any substantial change. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean that some other party in ignorance or behind the back of the minister, introduced it in the Select Committee. Let the points be substantial and let the controversy be limited to the question as to whether the points are substantial or not. That I believe is the chief point in dispute.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I stand subject to correction. It may have been done by the Law Minister without realising or without believing this to be a substantial change. But the matter is exactly where it was. These are substantial matters, whether introduced by the Law Minister consciously or by anyone else unconsciously, in any manner. It is not proper for us to argue on that. But by one stroke of the pen all texts, rules and interpretations of the Hindu Law have been abolished. The effect of this will be that all learned rulings of the Privy Council, the Federal Court and the High Courts are all gone, by one stroke of the pen. In fact, if this is not seriously interfering the original Bill, I do not know what is. There may be difference of opinions. But to one approaching the question absolutely impartially, and with a free mind, there would be no difficulty in agreeing with me that this is very serious interference with the Original Bill.
Shrimati G. Durgabai : Please speak of other substantial changes.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : This is dealing very lightly with a very serious matter. But I say these are very serious changes which verge on interpolations, bona fide or mala fide, it does not matter.
Then Sir, the next cage made by the Departmental Committee is to remove the definition of ‘ caste’ in Part I clause 5 sub-clause (b) which contained a definition of caste. This has been entirely omitted.
Mr. Speaker : What clause does the honourable Member refer to ?
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am referring to Part I, clause 5, subclause (b) which has the definition of ‘caste’.