DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 539
his report deserves careful consideration at the hands of the House. The opinions are again classified according to Provinces as according to subjects. With regard to the effect of the evidence, according to Dr. D. N. Mitter the opinion on each point is preponderatingly against the Bill for codification, for divorce proceedings and for other matters. The opinion of the public was directly against the codification. These opinions and evidence are preponderatingly against the principles of the Bill. The Hindu Law Committee Report is only a majority report. It was definitely opposed by Dr. D. N. Mitter but the other Members thought it fit to stick to their original Bill amended in slight respects here and there, not according to public opinion, but according to their own ideas. I therefore submit that the Bill has been framed in direct defiance of public opinion. That is the basis upon which my argument stands. Though Mr. Krishnaswami Bharathi said that the public opinion is behind the Bill, I venture to submit that public opinion is against it.
An Honourable Member : Question.
Mr. Tajamul Husain : No, not at all. It is for the Bill.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: So far as the written opinion is concerned, it is definitely against the Bill.
I submit, therefore, that public opinion has not been properly consulted as a democratic Government ought to do. In fact, this Bill is a negation of democracy and it is conceived under circumstances which no longer prevail today. A full-fledged democracy is now in operation and public opinion should be taken into account and followed in giving effect to legislative proposals. I submit therefore, that so far as written opinion goes it is against the Bill, but what about the unwritten opinion ? We have a large number of protests lodged in your own office and we hear of proceedings of large number of meetings. In fact, we had meetings in the very heart of this city. The meetings were largely attended and many honourable Members and also the Honourable Minister for Law were invited. Some Members attended but the Minister for Law did not.
Babu Ramnarayan Singh : He did not have the courage to attend.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : He did not think it necessary to attend, because it seems to me that public opinion is not the criterion or his guide so far as this Bill is concerned. In fact, Dr. D. N. Mitter gave a clear analysis of the opinion. The Honourable Minister for Law said that he would quote an earlier of Dr. D. N. Mitter to contradict him.