DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 39
which is included in the “Provincial List” not merely covered tenancy land but also covered succession to land and consequently any
provision with regard to the succession to land made by the Central Legislature would be ultra vires. In order that this may not happen, the Committee very deliberately exempted agricultural land from the
provisions of this Bill. But what I would like to say is something different. I should have thought that the omission of land from this Bill far from being a flaw or a fault in the Bill was probably an
advantage because I believe there is no necessity that a uniform law of inheritance should apply to all sorts of property. Property varies in its nature, varies in its importance in the social life of the
community and consequently it may be a matter of no mean advantage for society to have one set of law of inheritance for agricultural property and another set of law for non-agricultural
property. It may be that on a better consideration of the situation, Indian or Hindu society may come to the conclusion that land which is the foundation of its economic life had better be governed by the
law of primogeniture so that neither the junior sons nor females may take part in the inheritance. As I said, the question having been left open it is to the advantage of the society that it may consider the
matter de novo and afresh. I do not, therefore, regard that the comment made by my honourable friend on the part of this Bill is really a matter to be apologised for.
Coming to my friend, Mr. Chaudhuri, he considers, this piece of legislation as a communal legislation. I agree that in as much as
it refers to Hindu society, which is one of the many communities inhabiting this country, it might well in a logical sense be called a communal piece of legislation. But what is the alternative? If my
honourable friend’s alternative was that there ought not to be communal laws of inheritance and communal laws of marriage but there ought to be a common civil code, applying to all sections all communities, all
persons: in fact applying to citizens without discrimination as to religion, creed or caste, I am certainly one with him. Certainly, that is not his conclusion. His conclusion is, if I understand him, that this legislation
by reason of the fact that the other day a view was expressed that the future society here stated would be secular had no right to legislate for a secular community: that would be a most disastrous
conclusion. This country is inhabited by very many communities. Each