This being the last Session of the present Parliament, Cabinet had to consider whether the Hindu Code Bill should be got through before this Parliament ended -or whether it should be left over to the new Parliament. The Cabinet unanimously decided that it should be put through in this Parliament. So, the Bill was put on-the agenda and was taken up on the 17th September 1951 for further clause by clause consideration. As the discussion was going on, the Prime Minister put forth a new proposal, namely, that the Bill as a whole may not be got through within the time available and that it was desirable to get a part of it enacted into law rather than allow the whole of it to go to waste. It was a great wrench to me. But agreed, for, as the proverb says, “it is better to save a part when the whole is likely to be lost. The Prime Minister suggested that we should select the Marriage and Divorce part. The Bill in its truncated form went on. After two or three days of discussion of the Biil the Prime Minister came up with another proposal. This time his proposal was to drop the whole Bill even the Marriage and Divorce portion. This came to me as a great shock bolt from the blue. was stunned and could not say anything. am not prepared to accept that the dropping of this truncated Bill was due to want of time. am sure that the truncated Bill was dropped because other and more powerful members of the Cabinet wanted precedence for their Bills. am unable to understand how the Banaras and Aligarh University Bills, how the Press Bill could have been given precedence over the Hindu Code even in its attenuated form? it is not that there was no law on the Statute Book to govern the Aligarh University or the Banaras University. It is not that these Universities would have gone to wreck and ruins if the Bills had not been passed in this sessional is not that the Press Bill was urgent. There is already a law on the Statute Book and the Bill could have waited. got the impression that the Prime Minister, although sincere, had not the earnestness and determination required to get the Hindu Code Bill through.
In regard to this Bill have made to go through the greatest mental torture. The aid of Party Machinery was denied to me. The Prime Minister gave freedom of Vote, an unusual thing in the history of the Party. did not mind it. But expected two things.! expected a party whip as to time limit on speeches and instruction to the Chief Whip to move closure when sufficient debate had taken place. A whip on time limit on speeches would have got the Bill through. When freedom of voting was given, there could have been no objection to have given a whip for time limit on speeches. But such a whip was never issued. The conduct of the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, who is also the Chief Whip of the Party in connection with the Hindu Code, to say the least, has been most extraordinary. He has been the deadliest opponent of the Code and has never been present to aid me by moving a closure motion. For days and hours filibustering has gone on a single clause. But the Chief Whip, whose duty it is to economies Government time and push on Government Business, has been systematically absent when the Hindu Code has been under consideration in the House. have never seen a case of a Chief Whip so disloyal to the Prime Minister and a Prime Minister so loyal to disloyal Whip. Notwithstanding this. Unconstitutional behavior, the Chief Whip is really a darling of the Prime Minister. For notwithstanding his disloyalty, he got a promotion in the Party organization. It is impossible to carry on in such circumstances.
It has been said that the Bill had to be dropped because the opposition was strong. How strong was the opposition? This Bill has been discussed several times in the Party and was carried to division by the opponents. Every time the opponents were routed. The last time when the Bill was taken up in the Party Meeting, out of 120 only 20 were found to be against it. When the Bill was taken in the Party for discussion, 44 clauses were passed in about 3l, hours’ time. This shows how much opposition there was to the Bill within the Party.in the House itself there have been divisions on three clauses of the Bill – 2, 3 and 4. Every time. there has been an overwhelming majority in favour even on clause 4 which is the soul of the Hindu Code.
I was therefore, quite unable to accept the Prime Minister’s decision to abandon the Bill on the ground of time.
