262 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
noting but the right of maintenance. We thought that that was not a desirable state of affairs from the point of view of giving security to women, and consequently certain changes were made. The original distinction that was adopted in the Rau Committee was deleted and a provision was made that the rights of the adopted son shall accrue to him not form the date of the death of his adopting father but shall accrue to him form the date of his adoption, so that any alienation that may have been made prior to his adoption were beyond his reach, were unchallengeable by him.
The second provision that we have made was that the adopted son shall not as a result of adoption deprive the adopting mother completely of her right of property. What the Bill says in its altered form is that only one half of the property of the widow will go to the adopted son. The other half, notwithstanding the fact that the widow has adopted will continue to be in the possession and enjoyment of the adopting mother. The result is that the Committee has permitted adoption which the Hindu community feels is a necessary thing for the purpose of perpetuating the family. But at the same time we have taken care to see that the adoption does not beggar the mother altogether.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is not that the result under the Deshmukh Act?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No. As I say, she gets only the maintenance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: She gets half the share of the property.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As soon as the adoption takes place all that passes to the son.
Shri Prabhu Dayal Himatsingka (West Bengal : General): According to the 1937 Act she is a co-heir with the son.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General): The son comes later on.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That may be so. Now I am coming to minority and guardianship. Here there are only two changes made by the Select Committee in this part of the Bill. The first change is that the power of the Hindu father as a natural guardian of his minor son has been taken away if he renounces the world or ceases to be a Hindu. The original law was that the father was the natural guardian and no matter what change took place in his condition either by his religion or in any other way, he still continued to be the guardian of his minor son. The Committee felt that as this was