DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 485
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh (C. P. and Berar : General): I think the honourable
Member is wrong.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : If honourable Members go on interrupting in this
way it will be impossible to conduct the business of the House in an orderly manner. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad may go on without putting questions to
other honourable Members.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : As I said the definition of son has been omitted
as also the illustrations found in Part II, sub-clause (3) of clause 2 in regard
to intestate succession. Four illustrations have been omitted. These are substantial changes. I am only trying to draw attention to the nature of
the changes made. According to me these are omissions of a very serious
nature. They are not omissions of a drafting nature. I am not questioning the right of the Select Committee to improve the Bill, or to make these
omissions. These changes, however, were made not by the Select Committee
but by the Drafting Committee and the attention of the Select Committee
was not particularly drawn to these omissions.
Then I come to another important part of the Bill to show the very serious changes introduced by the Drafting Committee. In Part II, clause 4 of the
original Bill, the list of heirs has been given. It says that the inheritable
property of a male intestate shall devolve according to the rules laid down
in this part: (a) upon the enumerated heirs referred to in section 5, if any; (b) if mere is no enumerated heir, upon his agnates, if any ;(c) if there is
no agnate, upon his cognates, if any; and (d) if there is no cognate, upon
the heirs referred to in section 10, if any.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not know if the honourable Member has
not a copy of the Hindu Code Comparative Tables, which was circulated to all honourable Members. The original Hindu Code as drafted by the Rau
Committee has been revised in the Ministry of Law and the changes made
have been indicated there. I would therefore suggest that the honourable
Member need not labour this point. I think he has spent
4 P . M . sufficient time over the first point. I personally think that
the point is sufficiently clear and of course illustrations can always be
multiplied. If it is a point here and there, the House will take it into
consideration. There are certain points which when made are sufficient in number. I agree they can be made clearer, but the changes made in the
tables, are sufficient.