Dr Ambedkar On Marx

Volume One Page no. 212

Karl Marx propounded a third view. According to him history was the result of economic forces. None of these three
would admit that history is the biography of great men. Indeed they deny man any place in the making of history. No one
except theologians accepts the Augustinian theory of history. As to Buckle and Marx, while there is truth in what they say,
their views do not represent the whole truth. They are quite wrong in holding that impersonal forces are everything and
that man is no factor in the making of history. That impersonal forces are a determining factor cannot be denied. But that
the effect of impersonal forces depends on man must also be admitted

The means adopted by the Communists are equally clear, short and
swift. They are (1) Violence and (2) Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The Communists say that there are the only two means of establishing
communism. The first is violence. Nothing short of it will suffice to
break up the existing system. The other is dictatorship of the proletariat.
Nothing short of it will suffice to continue the new system.

Volume 3 page NO. 450.

Can the Communists say that in achieving their valuable end they
have not destroyed other valuable ends? They have destroyed private
property. Assuming that this is a valuable end can the Communists
say that they have not destroyed other valuable end in the process of
achieving it? How many people have they killed for achieving their end.
Has human life no value ? Could they not have taken property without
taking the life of the owner?.

Same page no. 452

For Untouchables to expect to gain help from the Hindu proletariat

is also a vain hope. The appeal of the Indian Communists to the
Untouchables for solidarity with the Hindu proletariat is no doubt
based on the assumption that the proletarian does not desire
advantages for himself which he is not willing to share with others.
Is this true ? Even in Europe the proletarian are not a uniform class.
It is marked by class composition, the higher and the lower. This
is reflected in their attitudes towards social change, the higher are reformist and the lower
are revolutionary. The assumption therefore
is not true. So far as India is concerned it is positively false. There is
very little for a common front. Socially, there is bound to be antagonism
between them. Economically, there cannot be much room for alliance.

Page no. 398-399- Volume 5

He thought that if India became independent it would be one of the greatest disasters
that could happen. Before they left, the British must ensure that the new constitution
guaranteed to the Scheduled Castes the elementary human rights of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, and that it restored their separate electorates and gave them the
other safeguards which they demanded. At present disillusionment was driving his
followers towards terrorism and communism. He was on trial with them for the efficacy
of constitutional methods.

The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party
and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution ? Is it because it is really a bad
Constitution ? I venture to say no. The Communist Party wants a Constitution based upon the
principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is
based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want
is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or
socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the
Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute
and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the
unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State. These are the main
grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of
parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the
principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there
can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and
the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied
in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an
overstatement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame
the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution ? I say why blame even the
Members of the Constituent Assembly ? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so
great a part in the making of the American Constitution, has expressed some very weighty
views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place, he has said :
We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind
themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another
country.

Volume 13

Dr Ambedkar on Russian Communism page no. 900 Onwards Volume 15

You go there, cut them up and divide the carcase, and hand over a part of the
carcase to what ? To countries who are interested in spreading communism. From
the figures which I have given there can be no doubt about it that communist
countries today are as big as a giantnobody has seen a giantI have not seen
anyhow ...................
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : ................... and he is supposed to be one of the biggest
individuals or persons that can be imagined. Here you have a vast country endlessly
occupied in destroying other people, absorbing them within its fold on the theory
that it is liberating them. The Russian liberation, so far as I can understand, is
liberation followed by servitude; it is not

liberation followed by freedom. But the point is thisand it worries me considerably.

You are, by this kind of a peace, doing nothing more but feeding the giant every
time the giant opens his jaw and wants something to eat. When you are feeding the
giant regularly and constantly, the question that I should ask myself is this. Is it not
conceivable that this giant may one day turn to us and say: I have now consumed
everything that there was to be consumed : you are the only person that remains,
and I want to consume you.

Can Communism and Democracy live Together? Ambedkar

The question is : Can communism and free democracy work together ? Can they live
together ? Is it possible to hope that there will not be a conflict between them ? The theory,
at any rate, seems to me utterly absurd, for communism is like a forest fire; it goes on
burning and consuming anything and everything that comes in its way. It is quite possible
that countries which are far distant from the centre of communism may feel safe that the
forest fire may be extinguished before it reaches them or it may be that the fire may never
reach them. But what about the countries which are living in the vicinity of this forest fire ?
Can you expect that human habitation and this forest fire can long live together ? I have
seen comments from Canadian statesmen and from European statesmen congratulating the
policy of co-existence. Their praises and their encomiums do not move me in the least. I
attach no value to their view and to their opinion. The statesmen of Canada can very easily
say that co-existence is possible because Canada is separated from China and Russia by
thousands and thousands of miles. Similarly, England after having pulled itself out from
the great conflagration, now thinks that she is too exhausted to do anything and therefore
likes to enunciate and support the principle of co-existence. But there again it is a matter of
distance. One must not forget that in the foreign policy of a country the geographical factor
is one of the most important factors. Each countrys foreign policy must vary with its
geographical location in relation to the factor with which it is dealing. What is good for
Canada may not be good for us. What is good for England may not be good for us. Therefore,
this co-existence seems to me a principle which has been adopted without much thought on
the part of the Prime Minister.
 Then, Sir, I will say a few words with regard to the SEATO. I was very carefully
listening to the Prime Ministers observations with regard to the SEATO, and I was glad to
find that he had not made up his mind about the SEATO. If I heard him correctly, he said
that in view of the fact that this country has accepted the chairmanship of some commission
in accordance with the Geneva decisions it may not be compatible for him and for this
country to join the SEATO at the same time. The two things would undoubtedly be
incompatible. But apart from that I think the merits of the SEATO must be considered.
The repugnance to SEATO appears to me to arise from two sources. I think I am not
letting out any secret nor am I accusing the Prime Minister of anything of which he
does not know, that the Prime Minister had a certain amount of hostility, or if he
does not like that word, estrangement between himself and the United States.
Somehow he and the U.S.A. do not see eye to eye together. That is one reason why I
think he always had a certain amount of repugnance to anything that comes from
the United States.

ON Problem of Kashmir

Now, I come to the other question. What will Russia say if we join SEATO ? And the
question that I like to ask is this. What is the key-note of Russian foreign policy ?
What is it ? The key note of our foreign policy is to solve the problems of the other
countries, and not to solve the problems of our own. We have here the problem of
Kashmir. We have never succeeded in solving it. Everybody seems to have forgotten
that it is a problem. But I suppose, some day, we may wake up and find that the
ghost is there. And I find that the Prime Minister has launched upon the project of
digging a tunnel connecting Kashmir to India. Sir, I think, it is one of the most
dangerous things that a Prime Minister could do. We have been hearing of a tunnel
under the English Channel to connect France with England. We have been hearing it
for 50 years, I think someone has been proposing, and yet the English have never
done anything to carry out the project, because it is a double-edged weapon. The
enemy, if he conquers France, can use the tunnel and rush troops into England and
conquer England. That might also happen. The Prime Minister, in digging the tunnel,
thinks that he alone would be able to use it. He does not realise that it can always
be a two-way traffic, and that a conqueror who comes on the other side and
captures Kashmir, can come away straight to Pathankot, and probably come into the
Prime Ministers houseI do not know.
 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes. The Prime Minister has been depending upon what may be
called the Panchsheel taken by Mr. Mao and recorded in the Tibet Treaty of non-aggression.
Well, I am somewhat surprised that the Prime Minister should take this Panchsheel
seriously. The Panchsheel, as you, Sir, know it well, is the essential part of the Buddhist
religion, and if Mr. Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the
Buddhists in his own country in a very different way. There is no room for Panchsheel in
politics and secondly, not in the politics of a communist country. The communist countries
have two well-known principles on which they always act. One is that morality is always in
a flux. There is no morality. Todays morality is not tomorrows morality.
You can keep your word in accordance with the morality of today and you can break
your word with equal justification tommorrow because tomorrows morality will be
different. The second thing is that when the Russian Communist State is dealing
with the other States, each transaction is a unit by itself. When we deal with
somebody, we begin with goodwill and end with gratitude. When the Russians deal
with somebody, they do not begin with goodwill, nor do they end with any gratitude.
Each transaction begins and ends by itself, and this is what I am sure the Prime
Minister will find at the end when the situation ripens. The Prime Minister has
always been saying that there is such a thing as the principle,

Asia for Asiatics. Yes, in so far as colonialism is concerned, that principle is perfectly true.
Asia must be for Asiatics, but we are dealing with a situation like this ? Is Asia one today ?
In what sense ? Asia is divided now, it is a divided house now. More than half of Asia is
communist. It has adopted a different principle of life and a different principle of
Government. The rest of Asia follows a different life and a different principle of
Government. What unity can there be among Asiatics ? What is the use of talking about
Asia for Asiatics ? There can be no such thing at all. Asia is already becoming the cockpit of
war and strife among Asians themselves. Therefore, it is better to align ourselves with what
we call free nations if we believe in freedom.
One word about Goa. There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister in pursuing the
policy of getting Goa evacuated is quite right. It is a very sound policy and everybody must
lend his support to him. I do. But there is one observation that I would like to make. This
question about the evacuation of Goa by the Portuguese and handing it over to India was, if
I remember aright, brought to his notice very early when we got our independence. I possess
with me some notes which were submitted to him by a delegationI have forgotten their
names, but I have got them with mebut the Prime Minister took no active interest in it. I
am very sorry to say that, because I feel that if the Prime Minister had in the very
beginning taken an active interest in the matter. I am sure about it that a small police
action on the part of the Government of India would have been quite sufficient to enable us
to get possession of Goa, but he has always been only shouting against them, only shouting
and doing nothing. The result has been that the Portuguese have been able, so far as we
know, to garrison Goa. Of course, the Prime Ministers information must be correct and
must be accepted by us that Goa is still defenseless, that there is no garrison there, no army
there, brought by the Portuguese.
Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: I said no such thing.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I thought he said so, but whatever it is, the point now is this :
Personally I myself think that

Muslims on Changing Consitution Volume 15- page 960

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am prepared to pick and choose from everyone, Socialist,

Communist or other. I do not claim infallibility and as Buddha says there is nothing
infallible; there is nothing final and everything is liable to examination.
Shri Tajamul Husain: That is why we are amending the Constitution framed by Dr.
Ambedkar.

Dr Ambedkar on Pakistan Policy

Volume 17- part 1 - 396

26. On the Kashmir issue, the policy adopted by the Congress Government is not
acceptable to the Scheduled Castes Federation. This policy if continued will lead to a
perpetual enmity betwen India and Pakistan, and the possibility of war between the
two countries. The Scheduled Castes Federation believes that it is essential for the
good of both countries that they should be good and friendly neighbours. For this
purpose the proper policy to adopt towards Pakistan should be based upon two
considerations. (1) There should be no talk about the annulment of the partition of
India. Partition should be accepted as a settled fact not to be reopened and that the
two countries to continue as two separate sovereign States. (2) That, Kashmir to be
partitioned the Muslim area to go to Pakistan (subject to the wishes of the
Kashmiries living in the Valley) and the non-Muslim area consisting of Jammu and
Ladhak to come to India.
28. The other centre of our foreign policy which has made other nations our
enemies is China. India is made to fight her battle for entry in the United Nations
Organisation as a permanent member thereof. This is an extraordinary thing. Why
should India fight the battle of China when China is quite capable of fighting her
own battle? This championing of the cause of Communist China by India has been
responsible for the prevailing antagonism between India and America with the result
that it has become impossible for India to obtain financial and technical aid from
America.

31. Indias first duty should be to herself. Instead of fighting to make Communist
China a permanent member of the U. N. O. India should fight for getting herself
recognised as the permanent member of the U. N. O. Instead of doing this, India is
spending herself in fighting the battle of Mao as against Chaingkai Shek. This
quixotic policy of saving the world is going to bring about the ruination of India and
the sooner this suicidal foreign policy is reversed the better for India. Before
championing the cause of Asiatic countries, India must strive every nerve, must
seek every aid to make herself strong. Then only will her voice be effective. This will
be the line of Foreign Policy that the Scheduled Castes Federation will pursue.

55. The Scheduled Castes Federation will not have any alliance with a Party like the
Communist Party the objects of which are to destroy individual freedom and
Parliamentary Democracy and substitute in its place a dictatorship

Page No. 402

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar said that his party would not in any case align with the
Communist Party for the plain reason that I do not believe in Communism, Asked
if he would prevent his party from aligning with the Communist Party simply
because he was personally opposed to Communism, Dr. Ambedkar said : I am not
going to be a slave to my party so long as I and my party agree, we work together
else we go our own way. I do not live on politics and I do not propose to live on
politics. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar added, however, that on the question of Communists
there was no difference of opinion between him and his party.

Page No. 406

Communists in Maharashtra page no. 467

Ambedkar ON Socialism page no. 951 Volume 15

What socialism means, nobody is able to say. That is the socialism of the Prime Minister,
which he himself said that he cannot define. There is the socialism of the Praja Socialist
Party; they dont know what it is. And even the Communists
Shri S. N. Dwivedy (Orissa): You dont know either.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am not a socialist.

Shri S. N. Dwivedy: You want to criticise without knowing what it is.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Then we come to part (c)(1) which says that the Code applies to any
child, legitimate or illegitimate etc. A Hindu is a Hindu and the child of a Hindu should also be a
Hindu. But what I say is this. Sub-clause (2) seems to be somewhat misplaced, because it states that
the Code applies also to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.
Looking at it from the drafting point of view, this is a circuitous way of drafting the thing, and it
shows the piece-meal introduction of an idea. If this is the idea, why not say straight away that all
persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews are Hindus ? Instead of doing that, you first
of all say that Hindus are first of all Hindus. Then you say that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are
Hindus and then you say that theCode will apply to other persons who are not Muslims, Christians,
Parsis or Jews. I think the most straightforward and logical way of putting this definition would have
been to say that all persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews are Hindus. It comes to
that. Therefore, I submit, at that time, there might have been some hesitation in the mind of the
draftsmen and this idea was introduced at a later stage. Otherwise there was nothing to prevent
them from saying what they actually meant.

But there is a snag in this clause 2, sub-clause (2). Does it necessarily follow that a man who is not
a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew is a Hindu ? He may be a communist, as is suggested by a friend
here. Or he may belong to the religion of Shintoism as professed in Japan. Or he may have no
religion at all. How can it be accepted as an inexorable principle that a man must be a Christian,
Parsi, Muslim, Jew or a Hindu ? There may be a person who belongs to no religion, or there may be a
person whose religion is apart from any of these great religions.

Shri Tyagi : Hinduism is a cocktail of all religions.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Of course, to say that all the rest belong to the Hindu religion may
sound very sweet to Hindu ears. But the question is whether we should force the so-called benefits of
this Code on anybody ? Should we call anyone a Hindu and force the Code on him ? That is the point.
Suppose there are some foreigners here, or their servants or subordinates or friends. We are
encouraging tourist traffic and we can expect many such persons in India. And suppose one such
foreigner dies while in India. Who will inherit his wealth ?

Dr. Ambedkar : You will inherit his wealth if he dies in India.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The question is, are those persons who do not belong to any of
those religions to be the victims upon whom the so called benefits of this Hindu Code should
be forced ? The Hindu community is docile and in an absolute minority in the House, but
outside there is a great deal of objection raised and that being the case, should these so-
called benefits be forced on all ? Should you force the Code upon all the persons who are
neither Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews, and because they do not belong to any

of these religions, does it necessarily follow that they belong to the Hindu religion ? Should the Code
be applied to them ? That is the question which the House will have to answer. I submit that this sub
clause (2) must be omitted because it seeks to enact a proposition which should not be accepted. Let
us proceed gradually. You must not force the Code upon such persons. There may be some who follow
some other religion or who have no religion at all, or a new religion may come into the world and to
them the law should not be made applicable. The application of the law should be gradual. The
impact of this tremendous measure should be gradual. In fact I was very much enamoured with part
of the amendment moved by my hon. friend Mr. Kapoor. There was a great deal of sense in that part
of the amendment which said that the Code should apply only to those persons who want it. That
was also the purport of the amendment of Shri Jhunjhunwala. Of course there were some differences
with regard to detail. But the important principle is that the Code should apply only to those who
want it to be applied to them. Therefore this definition of a Hindu is not warranted. If the Hindu
Code was not a controversial one and had been an acceptable one to all there would have been no
difficulty. So by accepting that part of the amendment.

Pandit Krishna Chandra Sharma (Uttar Pradesh) : It means that everybody should be allowed
to make a law for himself.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : You are trying to force down the throat of a person a medicine which
he does not like. However good the Code may be you cannot force it down the throat of the Hindu
community.

An Hon. Member : Who says that ? We all want it.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : First of all you must take public opinion on your side. You must
approach them gradually. Make it first optional and then if the law is good for everybody they will
gravitate towards it. They will themselves push each other and compete with each other in getting
themselves registered earliest. The law should attract people voluntarily and not by force. That is the
great principle which underlies these amendments and suggestions. It is not a case of everybody
making a law for himself but a case of a few persons forcing a law upon 33 crores of people.An
Hon. Member : Who are you to say that ?

Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : That is also lately the correct position. Go ahead. Let them shout at
the top of their voice.
 Mr. Chairman : Hon. members should not go on speaking to each other while sitting. It will
create confusion. Let the hon. Member proceed.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : That is why I heartily support the suggestion to make the application
of the Code voluntary thereby robbing it of its sting. Then I dare say that if the law is good gradually
every one will come to it. I therefore submit that the law should be made applicable to those who are
fit for it.

India is a vast sub-continent where there are highly advanced people as also extremely backward
people. The law is a good law to hon. Members because it is good to the community from which most
of the Members come. It is an advanced law suited to the advanced community from which hon.
Members come. But why should it be made applicable to hill tribes, aboriginals and backward people
who have no education and who do not even have two meals a day. Why should it be made applicable
to them by a stroke of the pen against their wishes ? That is the point which arises out of the
suggestions contained in these two amendments. It is experience and not logic that should guide law.
I therefore submit that the law should be made applicable to those who accept it and those who are
fit for it. Gradually those who are semi-fit for it will qualify for it..

Shri Khurshed Lal : That is why it is not being applied to you.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I agree that I am too backward to appreciate the benefits of this law.
This law is a jumble. It does not contain much of the Hindu law. It is borrowed from the Muslim law,
from the Christian law and borrowed all the worst elements of those laws. Therefore I would prefer to
be called a backwardman so as to please my hon. friend Mr. Kurshed Lal rather than be looked upon
as civilised and be made to accept a law which is not applicable to me and which does not appeal to
me either. The great difficulty is that the Government is committed to a principle rather prematurely
and the people outside are against it.

Shri Bharati : Who are you to say that ? Who said that ?
Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Just go out and see. If you had gone to the Gandhi Grounds
yesterday you would have seen something of that.

u"Vs e`rs izozftus] Dyhcs p ifrrs irkSA

i=pLokiRlq ukjh.kka] ifrjU;ks fo/h;rsA

pandit Madan Mohan Malviya On Hindu Code Bill

Volume 14-part 2, page nos. 1142-1143

There is only one formal thing which I must do now and that is to move

the amendments of which I had given notice three days ago. I beg to move :

(i) In part (a) of sub-clause (1) of clause 2, after including insert Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs.

(ii) Omit part (b) of sub-clause (1) of clause 2.

After the first amendment, the clause will read as follows :

to all Hindus, that is to say, to all persons professing the Hindu religion in any of its forms or
developments, including Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Virashaivas or Lingayats and member of the Brahmo,
the Prarthana etc. etc.

I have moved this amendment for a simple reason. I hope and pray that I am a devout HinduI do
not know if I can make that claim and
Dr. Ambedkar: After such a speech who else can make that claim ?

Pandit Malaviya : And in the Sankalpa which we perform on all occasions, we say
Bauddhavatare. If only I had the time, I would have tried to show that Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism
etc., while they have their own independent place and position, cannot, by any stretch of imagination,
be treated as outside the pale of Hinduism. That does not mean that Hinduism lays any claim upon
them or wishes in any way to restrict their complete independence and separate existence. It is not
that. I am talking of the historical relation. They have all sprung out of it and have always formed
part of it. Even in their religious books and procedure, even in their daily practices and daily life,
there are any number of points of identical similarity which still persist. In this land there should be
no need, therefore, to show them separately. My amendment does not make any difference in the
result. The clause instead of coming as a separate clause comes within the previous one.

I have now only to make an appeal to the Members of this House to view this matter dispassionately.
As I said, I do not deny that there are some people who feel that it will be good for society if such a
law is enacted. My appeal to them is to proceed in the right manner about it. Sometime ago there
was the Inter-caste Marriage Act which was passed, making inter-caste marriages among Arya
Samajists valid. At that very time Dr. Bhagwan Dasji, that great learned scholar and devotee of
Manu, brought before the then Central Assembly, a Billfor the application of that clause to the whole
body of Hindus. That Bill was not proceeded with, and after long and careful discussion it was
dropped. Inter-caste marriages among Arya Samajists had gone on for some decades and they had
carried on their movement for a long time and when the same had become common and the time
came the measure was adopted. Let us take a leaf out of that book. If social reforms have to be made,
nobody can object to them, if all those who are concerned should desire to have them. Let us,
therefore, adopt that course, if for nothing else, so that what you do may not remain a mere dead
letter on paper without any effect whatsoever.
It has also been pointed out that because now we are only taking up the parts of the Code
relating to marriage and divorce, we should consider the feasibility of making an All-India All-
Community Code towards that end. I am not one of those whose argument is that if
monogamy is good and is to be enforced for the Hindus, it should necessarily apply to
everybody. I do not say that at all. If monogamy is good, then I want it for the Hindus
whether it is applied to anybody else or not. I do not want to argue that if the rule of
monogamy is good for the Hindus it should not come to them unless it comes for everybody
else. That is for the others to decide and if they do not want it, let them not have it but if it is
good for the Hindus let it come to them. (An hon. Member: Is it good ?) It is good and I think
it is the only good thing ; but that, however, does not mean that we should become blind to
the requirements of a good thing in itself or that we should not take other relevant facts and
aspects into consideration. So far as the principle of monogamy goes I have no objection to
it, Nobody can have any objection to it, and I should be unhappy if anything except
monogamy is found in practice anywhere...

Uniform Code Bill

Khwaja Inait Ullah : If they so desire, and also those who do not. Amendment No. 90 runs :
This Code applies to all Indians irrespective of their religion, caste or creed. Likewise, it is also in
91, 92 and 93. Some membersmy hon. friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, especially while moving
this amendment said at the very outset that secularism was spreading like a disease in India. I
regret to say that my friend, who is so very capable, thinks secularism, which is not a disease but a
cure, to be a disease and wants that all the laws under it be made uniform, i.e., the laws that are
made for Hindus be also made applicable to the Muslims. This is quite correct if it (the law) is a law
of economy, a political law, influencing somebodys character or the social life of India ; it should then
definitely be one ; but secularism never means that such laws and personal laws be formulated as
may be same for a Hindu and a Muslim. It means that the same will be said about Hindus as about
Muslims, though it is not necessary so for a personal law as we have several laws which differ from
those of Hindus. Just yesterday a Sikh colleague of mine, said that their laws also differed from those
of Hindus. I do not intend discussing that aspect of the matter, but I only submit about its
application to Muslims.
Our Hon. Minister Gadgil said in his speech yesterday that he wanted to change the social
law of the Hindus, and for changing this he advanced the argument, which I think he did
successfully, that since this law has been seeing changes, we are also entitled to change it.
But he said furthermore that they would try in this way so that in the days to come the
Muslims may be included. To him I would like to submit humbly that they can change that
law only because of the fact that the Hindu Law, as he proved, has been seeing changes. But
here I want to tell him that Muslim law has neither been changed for the last 1350 years, nor
shall it be changed in the days to come, since Muslims believe that their laws for marriage
and division of property are not made by them but made by God and as they appear in the
Holy Quran so nobody