1254 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
this system and those communities that have followed this custom for many centuries have benefited from it to a great extent. For example, in old days and even now in India, when a girl is married in a certain family, she becomes a member of that family, though she is married to one individual. Whatever share of property she gets becomes a part and parcel of that family’s property. An effort is made to retain the property and her share in the family, and after her husband’s death the responsibility of bringing up her children devolves on the family as a whole. This is the basis of the Kareva system. By following this, she by getting married to her husband’s younger brother or his cousin continues to be a member of the family even after her husband’s death. In this way her children by her first husband are brought up with the same love as before and are not inconvenienced in any way. The hon. Members are aware that such popular customs have been recognised in India. According to Section 2 of the Widow Remarriage Act, 1856, if a widow marries again she loses all her rights in her husband’s property. I would invite the attention, specially of Hon. Dr. Ambedkar, to the fact that after remarriage a widow loses all her rights pertaining to maintenance or to her share in her former husband’s property. The obvious reason for this is that after remarriage, a widow becomes a member of another family. But by following Kareva system i.e. marrying her husband’s brother after his death, she retains her share in her former husband’s property. This custom is prevalent to a great extent in Jat Sikh communities in the Punjab. When the widow continues to be a member of her husband’s family by marrying his younger brother after his death, she does not lose her right over land.
The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): Would this not be more relevant when we deal with the clause on marriage ? Now we are dealing in a general way. I have said that whenever each clause comes, to whatever extent it may be necessary that clause may be made subject to custom. I would only suggest to my friend that probably his remarks would be more relevant when we come to that part.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have also been thinking of it. The amendments he has tabled seek that only those portions of the Bill must prevail where they are not inconsistent with custom, Then he wants certain customs to be saved. So far as these customs—which will be saved—are concerned, they may be more specifically referred to when we come to the relevant portion on marriage and divorce. With reference to the general question as to whether this should operate