DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 723
of all property obtained by inheritance by partition, by seizure (that is by adverse possession)” and so on. That is to say, the property inherited by the woman from her husband or from her father or anybody else ought to be her full absolute property and nobody can control it. This was the law laid down by Vijnaneshwar in the 11th Century. That had continued to be law until the British came. Another commentator of the Banaras school N. S. Viramatadhira repeats it. Nilakantha, the author of Mayukha which is the leading authority in the Bombay Province, particularly in Gujarat and the Island of Bombay again repeats it. Except in Bengal in every other Province, that was the law until the British came. When the British came they said. “Well, let us examine the original texts of Mitakshara ”. They said it was a commentary upon Yajnavalkya. Yajnavalkya used certain specific notes and used the word adi and adi is interpreted by Vijnaneshwar in this manner. That was the position. A great deal of struggle went on. Of course some Courts struggled, particularly Madras, for a number of years. But ultimately the Privy Council said, “Well we must do it”, though it was quite contrary to the rule which the Privy Council itself had laid down that if there was a difference between the Smritikar and the commentary we must follow the commentator. That was the rule they laid down, but somehow or other they departed from it here.
So, I say, go back to the Vedic position with regard to the position of a daughter’s and a husband’s family, and go back to the position of Mitakshara. Tear off all this mass of judicial literature which has arisen in this country during all this period and go back to what was the law up to the eighteenth century. If you do these two things, I tell my friends, the supporters of the Bill and those who want to reform, that you will be getting much more. If the woman becomes a co-parcener in a husband’s family. You don’t disturb the joint family; the sons may continue. There may be good things in it, there may be bad things, but let it crumble away and die its natural death later on. But give the woman a right in her husband’s property, the same right as the son or the husband has. There may be some further points to be considered as to how this property is to go after her death and so on, but these are details into which I won’t enter. I will ask Hon. Members to give this matter the most serious consideration and then to see whether this is not a scheme which is not much better.
With regard to the unmarried daughter, I see no reason whatsoever why she should not get a full share along with the brothers in the father’s property, because no dowry has been given to her and she