554 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
that was before the Committee. And what was the weight of that little quantum of evidence ? The Rau Committee which came into existence on the 20th January 1944 drafted a Bill which was circulated to selected and distinguished lawyers for opinion. After their opinions had been received the Committee decided that the draft which they had originally prepared should be circulated throughout the country. The Bill was translated into Indian languages and about 6,000 copies were distributed. Opinions were invited on the 5th August 1944 and the opinions were to be submitted by the 31st December 1944. After the opinions had been received the Committee toured the country. I would like the House to note the extensiveness of the tour undertaken by this Committee. It visited the leading towns and cities of the provinces and as far as I remember it is not more than a dozen—Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta, Poona, Patna, Lahore and others. This was the extensive tour of the Committee. What is the population of these few leading towns and cities as compared to the total mass of population of the country ? Can the tour undertaken by this Committee for the purpose of examination of witnesses in these cities by any means give an indication of the real feeling of the counrty on this Bill ?
What was the extent of the evidence recorded ? Let us see. In all
121 witnesses and 201 associations represented by about 257 persons gave evidence. This was the total evidence taken. May I venture to ask a very pertinent question: Is this by any stretch of imagination sufficient evidence, considering the vastness of the country and considering the fact that the real India, the real Hindu India resides not in the cities but in the villages. They are agriculturists who represent 90 per cent, of the population. Can it be pretended by any stretch of imagination that the examination of witnesses by this Committee was in any way sufficient and commensurate with the vastness of the country and with the great divergences of opinion prevailing in the different provinces ? I respectfully submit that it was not.
Let us further analyse the result of that evidence. My submission is that on every basic point which forms the basis of the present Code the opinion was predominently and overwhelmingly against any change. Look at for instance one basic doctrine that is propounded within the four corners of this piece of legislation—introduction of simultaneous heirship of sons, daughters, widows etc.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : A widow is a simultaneous heir today under the existing law.