DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 623
Clauses 86, 87 and 88 will show that none of them could be made applicable for the tenancy-in-common being introduced into the joint families that exist in Malabar.
With respect to inheritance, I do not know why mother should not be made an heir along with son and daughter. Suppose a man dies—suppose I die. My natural love and affection induce me to see my mother who has brought me up and who has taken interest in me all through my life, an heir to my property. Here what I find is that the mother has been omitted in Clause I.
My second complaint is why the son of a predeceased son or the son of a predeceased son’s son ought to be introduced in Class I. He ought to come in Class II. It is revolting to us to make them preferential heirs in Class I. If you ask anyone in Malabar as to whether he would like his property to go to his son’s predeceased son’s son, or his son’s son even, or to his sister or sister’s children, he will certainly say that even in preference to his brother it should go to his sister and sister’s children. So I say that the rank given to sister and her children in Class II of the Seventh Schedule ought to be raised than what has been given there. Sister and sister’s children come very low; in Schedule VII, they come only after son’s daughter’s son, son’s son’s daughter, son’s daughter’s daughter. It is after all these persons that we find even brother and sister appearing as heirs. I do not know why promotion ought not to be given to brother and sister who were born of the same womb. Natural love and affection should certainly induce us to give brother and sister a higher rank than what has been given to them under the provisions relating to inheriance.
[At this stage Mr. Deputy Speaker vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Shrimati G. Durgabai (one of the Panel of Chairmen)].
Looking at the question from all these points of view, it will be seen that the whole Bill has been locked at only from the law that is prevailing in the other parts of the country than Malabar—which no doubt is certainly followed by the largest number of people—but the matriarchal system of law has not at all been taken into consideration in framing this Bill. Therefore I feel that this Bill is not sufficiently progressive either with respect to the rights of women, which we all desire so much to be given to them, or from the general point of view.
We are very anxious to be brought within the scope of this Bill. We do want uniformity. I am one of those who wish, and the people