682 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
over-zealous in things idealistic than be corrupt in material things. It is this mentality of ours that brought about the death of the Father of the Nation. It was supposed that the murderer was a better Hindu than the person who lived according to the highest ideals preached in the Gita and in the Upanishads and whose life was lived in the light of the teachings of our scriptures. I would wish the Hindu community to divest itself of such false notions about their religion. Our religion was not made by murderers and thieves; it was made by Sadhus, Sanyasis and Mahatmas.
Yet, there is the other side of the question. A great deal of confusion has been caused, for one party says that religion is in danger and another party says that the modern religion of progress is in danger. If you do not support the Bill you are a reactionary.
I will tell you how I was converted to support the Bill. One reason I have already told you. Another reason I will give you now.
There was a woman and she whispered to another woman “Kripalani won’t support the Bill : he is a reactionary.”
Shri B. L. Sondhi : Were they both members of this house ?
Acharya J. B. Kripalani : They were hon. Members, not members. She in confidence told me “I protested and I said Kripalani is progressive.” So I was put on my honour. You see what subtle kind of propaganda goes on. One woman tells something to another woman in confidence and she brings the story to me. Now how am I going to act ? I cannot consider myself reactionary and not progressive : I may be called a nonHindu but for a modern man not to be modern is a greater stigma than to be without religion. I may not believe in God, but how can I not believe in the God of progress as is in the West ?
I will also tell you why the first woman said that I was a reactionary—it is a very interesting story—but only if you promise not to interrupt me by your laughter. I happened to be the Chairman of the Fundamental Rights Committee. In the Fundamental Rights Committee the proposition brought forward was that it should be the fundamental right of women not to be in purdah. Of course I am in favour of all women going without purdah—and what male will not. I admire those people who would not, but I am not one of those admirable people. I said that I have no objection to this clause going in the Fundamental rights, provided that all purdah disappears—the ancient purdah and the modern purdah. Take a round in the City of