DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 843
a benefit upon those who do not want it. The people do not want it. Therefore, you must not force this upon them. I therefore heartily support the two suggestions made by the two hon. Members that the law should be made applicable first to those who want it. Then if we find that there is ready acceptance, that it is palatable to the Hindus, that they want it, that they readily accept it, then this Parliament may later on extend it do other people or to other classes of people. That should be the proper way. As has been suggested, if once we accept this principle, make its application voluntary, the whole controversy will vanish. The bitterness of the majority outside and the minority in this House will disappear at once. Then there will be no question of a difference of opinion. If it is good it is good for the highest class of society. It is not good to the condition of people who belong to the middle classes and to the lower classes. It is for this reason that I think that the suggestion in that amendment should be accepted.
Then, one of my amendments is that sub-clause (3) should be omitted. That sub-clause runs to the effect that :
“The expression ‘ Hindu’ in any portion of this Code shall be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion is, nevertheless, governed by the provisions of this Code.”
It says in effect that though a man is not a Hindu, if the Code applies to him he is a Hindu. It begs the very question. It could have been said a Hindu is a Hindu ! The draftsman was not satisfied and he tried to make confusing words confounded by the addition of sub-clause (3). To whom would you make the Code applicable ? If you say a man is a man who is a human being it does not help anyone. It simply shows some confusion of mind. You cannot say that a Hindu is not a Hindu but that although he is not a Hindu provided the Code applies to him he is a Hindu. I think a simpler way of approach should have been far more satisfctory and better. If you say all persons having two legs and two hands are Hindus I have no objection. If you say all Hindus are Hindus even that would have made some sense. You say, all Hindus are Hindus, all Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are Hindus, the illegitimate children of those are Hindus and then all those are Hindus who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews. You are not satisfied with this round-about and circumlocutory way of expression. You say that even though a man is not a Hindu he is a Hindu if this Code applies to him. You should be more straightforward, more logical, more clear in your expression. The draftsmanship of this clause