DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 885
Dr. Ambedkar : That is what some hon. Members suggested when they said there should be a referendum.
Now, I will go back to some of the comments which were made on the draft of clause 2. These comments were made particularly by my friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, and my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. Yesterday you were not in the Chair, Sir, but . . .
Prof. Ranga (Madras) : But the Chair was there.
Dr. Ambedkar : The Chair was there. What I wanted to say was that Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad started in a very accusing mood. He tried to prejudice the House against me by saying that the language of my amendments was mandatory : “ substitute this.” He thought that the more polite way of putting down amendments was to say, such-and-such words shall be substituted for such-and-such words”. Really speaking, I need not have taken this point seriously because drafting is not my business—drafting is the business of another body of people who have their set rules of drafting and I could have very easily said that I am not responsible for it. But I did make enquiry into the matter whether the draftsman in using the language which he has used bad really fallen from grace or from the usual standard. The facts are these. For instance, the formula suggested by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad that is, “such-and-such a word shall be substituted”, I found is generally used when you draft an Act. There seems to be a distinction between the language adopted in drafting an Act and the language to be adopted in drafting an amendment. Therefore, as the draftsman was drafting the amendments he did not use the usual formula which I said is used in drafting an Act. The second thing is this. As the House will remember, the President has issued certain orders under the Constitution which he is entitled to issue. In that series of orders—I think it is a very fat book which some of my hon. Friends must have seen—the language that is used is the language which the draftsman has used in these amendments. He says, “I have followed the precedent which has been adopted by the President, in making these amendments”. I went further and enquired, “Why did the President depart from the usual practice” ? And the answer given was that the orders were so bulky that it was necessary to economise in printing paper and ink. Therefore, the draftsman who helped the President in framing his orders followed this particular way of putting these amendments. My draftsman, therefore, has really committed no error, no fault, in following the percedent adopted in the Constitutional orders. I, therefore, submit