880 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
It will be seen that in the amendment which I have moved there are three specific points. The first point is that I propose to omit the word professing which occurs in sub-clause (1). The reason for omitting this word is that it has been felt that probably today as the Hindu society is composed, there are people who are Hindus, but who do not profess the Hindu religion in the theological sense in which the word ‘profess’ is used. In former times one could give the illustration of the Brahmo Samajists in Calcutta or the Prarthana Samajists in Bombay, two sects which were formed from out of the Hindu community, which openly declared that they did not profess the Hindu religion. As my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava observed in the course of his speech there are many Hindus to-day who, so far as religion is concerned, prefer to adopt an eclectic attitude. They like to have something from some religion which appeals to them, and to that extent they are prepared to abandon the religion of their ancestors. If, therefore, the word “profess”. remained in this context, it would be open for anybody to argue that unless it was proved that a particular individual was a professing Hindu this Code would not apply to him. That certainly is not the intention of the Code. The intention of the Code is that it should apply to every person who belongs to the Hindu faith. I prefer the use of that terminology and it is therefore, to do away with any such ground for an objection founded upon the word “profession” that I propose to delete it.
My second amendment relates to clause (d). Clause (d) as it stands, says that this Code shall apply to a convert to the Hindu religion. Now, as the house knows, we are using the words “Hindu religion” in a very broad sense; not in the limited sense in which it would apply to a person who believed in the Vedas, who believed in the infallibility of the Vedas, who believed probably in the Chaturavarnas, and who also believed in the performance and the sanctity of the yagnas as a means of salvation. We are using the word in a large sense, to include also Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs etc. who do not believe in these dogmas. Consequently, if clause (d) remained that the convert who is referred to in sub-clause (d) is the convert only to the Hindu religion in the limited sense of the word. In order to do away with that contention. I propose to use the new phraseelogy—“convert to the Hindu religion, Buddhist……..” and so on and so forth.
My third amendment deals with the deletion of sub-clause (4). As the House will realise, this sub-clause (4) did not exist in the original