886 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
that my learned friend’s attempt to depict me in rather unsavoury colours has fallen to the ground. I will not deal with that further.
Now, my friend’s objection was to sub-clause (d). He said that I am hoping in the convert to Hinduism. His point, if I understood it correctly, was that I have made no provision either here in clause 2 or in any other part of this Bill to have the rights of the convert in the family in which he was born. I must say that my friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad who legitimately claims a very extensive knowledge of law should have forgotten that there is a very old Act called the Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 which was passed just for this very purpose namely, to remove any disability from a person who wants to change his religon in order to safeguard what is called liberty of conscience. It was an Act which was passed on the agitation of the missionaries in this country who found that the Hindu were not prepared to change their religion because under the ancient Hindu Law a man who went out of the Hindu fold was a pant—a patit could not inherit property. In order to do away with that rule of Hindu Law this particular Act was passed and I have done nothing to abrogate the provisions of the Act. If my friend had refered to the Schedule which deals with the Acts which are repealed by this Code he would have found that the Caste Disabilities Removal Act is not included in that Schedule. Therefore, the convert will retain all the rights of inheritance in his father’s family if he wants to change his religion. And therefore Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad’s complaint is absolutely groundless.
My friend said he had an objection to sub-clause (2). Sub-clause
(2) says—
“ This Code also applies to any other person who is not a Muslim. Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”.
Obviously this sub-clause (2) is what I call a residuary clause, a clause which refers to the balance of people who are not included either among Hindus who are specifically mentioned or the Parsis, the Jews, the Christians, or the Muslims. There can be no doubt about it that there are in this country a vast number of people who do not follow any of these recognised religions, so to say. What are we going to do about it ? Certainly this Bill either should say that it does not apply to them or it should say that it does apply to them. And if it said that it does spply to them, it should say to what extent it applies to them. Everybody knows that there are in this country a vast number of people such as, for instance, the Adi Dravidas, the tribal people,