DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 717
been stated that Entry ? in the Seventh Schedule be amended so as to include or rather to make the subject a concurrent subject, namely, the subject of succession to immovable property or movable property, including agricultural land. That was the provision. I suggested at that time, in my minute of dissent, both in the Select Committee and in my minute of dissent, that we might wait for a few months so that whatever measure we adopt to give redress to females, giving them a share in their father’s or husband’s property that that might apply to all kinds of properties. What you want is unformity of law, and I venture to point out that instead of uniformity, you will have diversity, and instead of unity, you will have confusion. If this provision had been passed, the position would have been, when a man’s immovable property is situated in a town, when he has urban property, to that movable property one law, namely the law of Dr. Ambedkar’s court but with regard to agricultural land situated, some three miles off, the old law will continue. The sons will have all the rights from the moment of their birth and the rule of survivorship will remain, and nobody will know what is the position with regard to the property. See how many loopholes you are leaving? If you do not want to give the property to your daughter, you can sell her share in Poona and go and buy agricultural land five miles outside and then you can deprive your daughter of her share, and thus circumvent the provisions of the Bill. But now luckily, what has happened? To-day when we are at the end of this first of the second reading of this Bill, the situation is this. The suggestion of Dr. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee has been unanimously accepted by the Constituent Assembly and it will, God willing, come into force on the
26th January which will be long before the third reading of this Bill. I asked the other day whether he is going to make a change now so that this particular clause in the Bill which excludes agricultural land be removed so that we might give one fourth or half or full share or no share, and he said, “No.”
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think the Hon. Member is entitled to disclose a conversation. All I said was that that was my present view : later on we may reconsider the position, Now that we have power, one of the impediments in our way had been removed.
Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand : I am very glad that my learned friend has corrected me. I am much thankful to him for the correction, that his present intention is not to repeal that clause, but to retain the distinction but later on...