DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 917
misapprehension and try to convince not only the members of this House but also the people outside and then launch upon his offensive.
- Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa) : Sir, I thank you very much for having given me a chance to have my say in the course of discussions over the Hindu Code Bill. I was really trying to play the role of a backbencher in regard to the discussions on this Bill. But certain views expressed by the Hon. Minister of Law have goaded me to speak and record my protest.
In the course of his speech—need I say very lucid and analytical, speech—he used certain choice expressions which are not only unwarranted but uncalled for. He has declined the demand for a referendum. I am not very much in favour of a referendum. I am not very much in favour of a referendum after all that has taken place. But to call it ‘absurd’ is as absurd as the absurdity itself. You are going to legislate on very important matters, namely, questions relating to marriage, divorce, adoption, joint family, women’s property, succession, maintenance and the rest. The Hon. the Law Minister himself has recognized and admitted that the system of Hindu Law involves not only the legal frames of the society but also of our religious precepts would it be fair for him to take up the legislation of such important questions which concern the society, the life and living of crores of people of this country, without consulting the people themselves ? In the course of his speech he stated that he does not know of any country where a plebiscite is taken for legislation. Even in ordinary matters, such as nationalisation and the rest, important political parties have refused to undertake such responsibility in a democracy. They dissolve Parliament and go and take the mandate of the country on such important issues. I would ask the Hon. Minister whether the principles involved in the Bill are less important than those in England and elsewhere where Parliaments have been dissolved and a mandate of the people has been demanded and taken. Does it come well from him to say that these are not matters on which a popular mandate is necessary. Let me not think of a plebiscite or even a dissolution of Parliament or anything of the nature demanded by some of my friends though those are relevant, logical and constitutional. We are an indirectly elected Legislature. Parliament has to carry on business till the House is duly constituted. It is more or less in the nature of a caretaker Parliament I do not dispute the technical
*P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 7th February 1951, pp. 2504-17.