360 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Sir, let me dilate for a moment when I speak on this point, because the opposition about which I spoke have been going round telling many women who do not understand law or the provisions of a Code, that their own women were trying to bring in laws by which they will be divorced. They do not realise that it is only a permissive measure, that it is only the aggrieved person who can claim divorce, and for whom alimony is provided. These things are not mentioned. At hundreds of public meetings these matters were brought to me
4 P. M.
and I had to explain the point, and I think the women Members of this Assembly can also say the same thing.
Turning to the joint Mitakshara family, I do not think there is any need for me to add one word to what the honourable the Law Minister has said
on the subject. It has been fully amplified by him.
So far as the daughter’s right of ineritance is concerned, it is the focus of the opposition. It is only natural because that alone proves that it is not
bigotry so much, not blind prejudice so much, but it is the vested interests that are up in arms. The honourable the Law Minister has already spoken on this point, but I should like to say one or two more things. The economic
status of a woman can only be established by the recognition of the daughter’s right to inheritance. It was a point that was brought up by my honourable
Friend Sheth Govind Das yesterday. He said—I do not know how far he believed in it—he said. “Why should we have inheritance ?” Certainly, I do
agree that a time will come and must come—if we want and believe in equality of opportunity for all, if we believe that disparity of wealth shall
go—a time must come when inherited property must go out. But until such time, if there is a difference between the daughter and the son, then that
difference means a difference in the status. It is the daughter’s status that has to be recognised; she as a daughter, as a woman, is a natural heir.
It is not merely from the theoretical point of view that I mention this. We are dealing with intestate succession and it is far more natural that a father
will not disinherit his daughter, than a father-in-law would, in spite of what my honourable friend Pandit Bhargava said. A woman’s rights in the joint family, which in years gone by may have served a very useful
purpose, have not under the existing conditions been so sure in recent years. My honourable Friend Sucheta Kripalani made a point yesterday
which I would like to endorse. Those women or men who are social workers know that an analysis of the inmates of rescue homes in this country
will go to prove how many of these women are those who have been