364 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
and to each man according to his necessity”. In other words, a man is to enjoy the property in his hands to the minimum. He has to divert himself of individuality. He is never to consider that he has an exclusive individual interest in the property. If this is the basic understanding and if the world of progressive thought is moving towards this direction. I believe it would be admitted that it would be wrong to go into an opposite direction. Every effort should be made to promote such an idea and to promote such institutions as foster this idea. Dr. Ambedkar in his speech showed at length the attempts which have been made so far by the Smritikars and others to fritter away this idea of co-parcenership. Assuming that this is so, the effort now should have been in the opposite direction—not to complete the process of frittering but to restore the co-parcenary property.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati : Impossible.
Shri V. S. Sarwate : Impossible ? Yes, everything that is not attempted is avoided by saying it is “impossible.”
Nothing is impossible in this world if you try. Now therefore I submit that the idea behind the co-parcenary property system is admitted. Each individual member or co-parcener has to enjoy in full the common property, though he has no exclusive individual interest in it and he cannot alienate his interest in it. So when you attempt to deal with it, this co-parcenary you should take the idea as a whole. The idea of the joint property, as conceived by Mitakshara, seems to be this : that there is right of survivorship, and that each family is a unit and not an individual. It means also that the family continues though the individuals in it pass away and whether one is a male or a female one has a right of equal enjoyment. There is equality of sex in this sense. Therefore it follows that whatever is the property of the family has to go to those persons who constitute the family. Therefore if a daughter does not constitute the family, if she is the member of another family, she would necessarily not enjoy any right in that family. It is not neglect or unfairness or want of affection for a daughter. The very idea of a joint family is this : that whosoever is the member, whether widow, male or female, as long as he or she continues to be member of the family, he or she enjoys the property of the family which nobody has a right to alienate. I would have welcomed a provision to the effect that there would he no partition of joint family property and that no person or individual of the joint family has any right to alienate the family property. That would have