496 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
that these are substantial changes and therefore thought that the Bill required recirculation. There are changes in other parts of the Bill which would required herculean labour to find out.
In view of these changes made by the Departmental Committee and in view of the weighty remarks of Dr. Tek Chand that these were very substantial changes I think the matter should not admit of any doubt that the Bill should be sent to the Select Committee to reconsider these changes or to recirculate it.
An Honourable Member : The same Select Committee.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have no objection to the same Select Committee. It consisted of men absolutely good and true, men with judicial and legal experience and who are practical authorities on those branches of the law. In fact, all kinds of talents were represented in the Select Committee. I have the fullest confidence in the Select Committee and I have not lost my faith in it. My point is that these matters should be carefully scrutinised and each change carefully weighed and deliberately accepted. Substantial changes have been quietly and deliberately introduced. We are assured by the Law Minister and again by the Select Committee that no substantial changes have been made. On the one hand we have the opinion of the highest legal talent in the House saying that these are substantial changes and on the other, another legal luminary says that he has deliberately introduced these changes and at the same time, that he has introduced no substantial changes. That is the guarantee under the signature of Dr. Ambedkar himself. So the Select Committee is hopelessly divided within itself. If two such eminent authorities differ on a broad matter like this I think the matter requires reconsideration by the Committee and that is what I ask for. Though the Law Minister thinks that these were not substantial changes only an unsophisticated House would agree with him. A man’s right to inherit is a substantial right. To say that changes therein are not substantial changes would be to say something that is palpably and obviously wrong. I submit therefore that the changes being substantial and the guarantee being that no substantial changes have been made, on this ground alone the Bill should be sent back to Select Committee or for circulation with the positive direction that their attention should be directed towards these changes and they should consciously, intelligently, wilfully accept or reject them. There are other substantial changes.