DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 363
of this country. Therefore, I plead that those who today are opposing this Code should give it a little more thought. If they do not, it may be that Hindu society and Hindu law may be left behind, for the march onwards must go on and India is not going to go back to slavery or domination by others.
- Shri V. S. Sarwate (Madhya Bharat): I would offer my congratulations to Dr. Ambedkar for his learned and lucid exposition of the Bill, becoming as it was to a professor and an advocate that he is.
As regards the several provisions of the Bill, one would necessarily find himself in agreement with some and in disagreement with others. This is not the occasion to dilate much either on the points of agreement or on the points of difference. I would, in the general discussion, confine myself to certain broad principles and I would try to show that in these principles the Bill goes in a fundamentally opposite direction to the notions which have all along, in my humble opinion, been lying behind Hindu law.
There has been a considerable section of Hindu society against this measure. It cannot be denied ; it cannot be concealed. Some may say that it is a cry of “Religion in danger” ; it is sentimental; it is reasonless. All the same, those who are bent upon making legislation which vitally affects a society of more than 20 crores would do well to pause, ponder and consider its substance. They should consider what is there in the Bill which makes so many people—intelligent, educated people—to be against the Bill.
[ At this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Shri S. V. Khshnamoorthy Rao (one of the Panel of Chairmen) ] .
I submit that there are two reasons for this. The first point that I would refer to is the change in the nature of the joint property. I would submit that the co-parcenary aspect of the joint property has certain very noble ideas behind it. The co-parcenary means that there is a community of interest, as every member of the House knows. It means that every individual has the fullest right of enjoyment but he has no individual share nor the right to alienate the property. The whole trend of modern society, the progress of thought of the society, in my opinion, is in this direction. We may condemn Communists, but Communism in its pure form, pruned of certain things, is bound to come and would come. What does Communism mean in this aspect ? As I understand it, it means “From each man according to his ability
- C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 25th February 1949, pp. 929-34.