BR Ambedkar was at the epicentre of the political debate during the winter session of the Indian Parliament, which concluded on 20th December this year.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi attacked Amit Shah based on the false premise that the latter insulted BR Ambedkar.
He went on to claim that those who believed in Manusmriti would definitely have problems with the Father of the Indian Constitution. The Gandhi scion also made outrageous claims about the holy Hindu text.
"Manusmriti protects rapιsts & punishes rapε victims" – Rahul Gandhi.
— True Indology (@TrueIndology) December 21, 2024
No of rapιsts who cited Manusmriti=0.
No of rapιsts who cited Abrahamic scriptures = ∞.
Rahul Gandhi is openly slandering Hindus with shameless lies in Parliament. Far from protecting them, Manusmriti orders… pic.twitter.com/kNkjqcxRdo
Given that BR Ambedkar holds great significance in the context of Indian electoral politics, it is not uncommon for politicians to harp on his name and strengthen their caste-based vote bank.
Although Rahul Gandhi suggested that a believer in Manusmriti would have a problem with the Constitution, it is interesting to note that BR Ambedkar cited Manu to garner support for his Hindu Code Bill in 1949.
The legislation aimed to provide equality by ‘reforming‘ Hindu personal laws including those governing inheritance, marriage, and succession.
Manusmriti and women’s inheritance as guiding light for Hindu Code Bill
BR Ambedkar had contended that giving women rights in property was stated by Smritikars such as Rishi Manu. During the constituent assembly debate on 24th February 1949, he said [pdf]
“There is no doubt about it that the two Smritikars whom I have mentioned Yagnavalkya and Manu, rank the highest among the 137 who had tried their hands in framing Smritis. Both of them have stated that the daughter is entitled to a one-fourth share. It is a pity that somehow for some reason custom has destroyed the efficacy of that text: otherwise, the daughter would have been, on the basis of our own Smritis, entitled to get one-fourth share.”
He further blamed the Privy Council for prioritising customs over laws, in the absence of which Manusmriti would have empowered women and their inheritance rights years ago.
“I am very sorry for the ruling which the Privy Council gave. It blocked the way for the improvement of our law. The Privy Council in an earlier case said that custom will override law, with the result that it became quite impossible to our Judiciary to examine our ancient codes and to find out what laws were laid down by our Rishis and by our Smritikars. I have not the least doubt about it that if the Privy Council had not given that decision, that custom will override text, some lawyer, some Judge would have found it quite possible to unearth this text of Yagnavalkya and Manusmriti, and women today would have been enjoying, if not more, at least one-fourth of the share of their property.“
While upholding the views of Rishi Manu, BR Ambedkar emphasised:
“However, this is the position, namely, so far as the daughter’s share is concerned, the only innovation that we are making is that her share is increased and that we bring her in the line with the son or the widow. That also, as I say, would not be an innovation if you accept my view that in doing this we are merely going back to the text of the Smritis which you all respect.“
