Discussion on the Hindu Code after return of the Bill from the Select Committee (11th February 1949 to 14th December 1950) - Page 725

710 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

would enable a widow to remarry was opposed tooth and nail. But under the leadership of Shri Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar and other leaders

of that day public opinion asserted itself and this great disability under which Hindu women suffered was removed by another piece of legislation. Well, the Hindu religion did not come to an end by the enactment of

that legislation.

After that there have been numerous other Acts by which Hindu law

has been modified by the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of the day. Most of you will remember the great agitation which took place in 1890 and 1891 when the age of Consent Bill was introduced. At that

time the cry was raised that it would be a gross interference with the Hindu religion if a legislature consisting of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and dominated by bureaucrats were to legislate in regard to a custom

which permitted intercourse with a child wife below the age of twelve. If you have a recollection of what appeared in the papers, even advance papers like the Amrit Bazar Patrika, you will see in what kind of

convulsion the Hindu society was at that time. But again the legislators persisted and that Bill was passed a Bill which ultimately has culminated in the last session by almost unanimous vote of the House in the further

amending Bill which our friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava introduced and which if I remember aright was unanimously passed by all sides of the House. At that time none of our friends thought that this Assembly

was not competent to legislate with regard to a matter which was considered to be an essential part of the Hindu religion. Coming to more recent times, you will find that in 1916 the Indian Legislature passed

what is called the Dispensation of Property Act, an Act which has had the effect of repealing the law which has been laid down by Privy Council in what is known as Tagore versus Tagor case. In that case, following

certain texts of the Smritis the Privy Council had ruled that behests or gifts in favour of a class of persons who are unborn on the date of the gift were void according to Hindu Law. That had continued to be

the law for about sixty or seventy years. It had been suggested that that was a wrong interpretation of the texts. The matter was examined and it was found that certain texts according to their literal meaning could

only lead to the conclusion at which the Privy Council had arrived. This was found to be a great handicap and a great injustice. Therefore the legislature again intervened and by a unanimous vote of the House, it

passed that Bill in 1916.