DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 823
to all persons professing the Hindu religion”. It is very difficult to find out which version really holds the ground at the present moment when there have been so many revisions and such a huge lot of amendments have been moved. It is not easy to know where exactly we stand. I don’t see what is wrong with the original provision contained in the Code as it emerged from the Select Committee. The wording there is :
“ 2 (a) This Code applies to all Hindus, that is to say, to all persons professing the Hindu religion in any of its forms or developments.”
In his amendment Dr. Ambedkar proposes the substitution of these words by “persons who are Hindus by religion”. I don’t see any difference between the two wordings. By the words “all Hindus” you refer to all people who are “Hindus by religion”. The original wording further explains the words “all Hindus” by saying it means “all persons professing the Hindu religion”. Thereby the Code will apply to any person who claims to be a Hindu. These words are now sought to be substituted. No reasons have so far been given as to why they are going to be substituted by new words. If they are actually omitted, and if Dr. Ambedkar can persuade the House to omit those words, I think a very real difficulty may arise. If you eliminate “professing” how are you going to define who is a Hindu and who is not a Hindu. The words proposed are “all persons who are Hindus by religion”. But how do we know who is a Hindu by religion and who is not ? Is it proposed that every person would be required to make a declaration ? I don’t know what procedure is suggested and how it would be ascertained if a particular person is a Hindu or not. I would say that the words as they stood in the original Code as it emerged out of the Select Committee have stood the test of time. So far as my recollection goes, these words are there in Mulla’s Hindu Code and these words have been used from very old times. They have a sanction of long usage.
In view of that there is, in my opinion, no need for this amendment and I would suggest that it should not be accepted. I support the amendment moved by my hon. friend Shri Sarwate on the ground that if we accept it, we would be acting in the spirit of the Constitution. Otherwise all our efforts are liable to be fruitless in view of the constitutional difficulty I have pointed out.