f>6 SOCIAL SCIENTIST neither allowed to complete his sentence nor was there any response to his intervention. The reason was simple. Behind the pretence of being sensitive the ruling party was camouflaging its policy of in fact disabling the minorities. In an case the deprivation of the Muslim community is all too clear to need elucidation. ^ There were several other occasions when the claim of ruling party members of being sensitive to minorities was challenged. During the course of his excruciatingly long submission the Law Minister stressed that it is "relevant for me to point out that no government worth its salt can remain deaf to the demands of the minority community". When MPs asked "What happened in Barabanki ?" or "What happened in Moradabad ?" they were reprimanded by the Speaker. Not surprisingly, since the Law Minister would have been at a loss to explain these away. During the debate in the Rajya Sabha the same Minister contended that "Pandit Jawahar Dal Nehru repeatedly said that the personal laws of the Muslims would be changed only with their consent. And if the Muslims want it tomorrow, they will have it tomorrow". When a member asked, "Have you taken the opinion of all the Muslim people?" before proposing the Bill, she was curtly ignored. When the same member asked "If one section of the Hindu community wants revival of 'sati', will the Minister consider that also ?", the Minister, with insidious humour, responded : "Sir, it reminds me of that fable in Sanskrit ; one king said, (! shall give away my daughter to anyone who can defeat me in debate'. The wife of the king was very much grieved and she asked 'What have you done ? Are you going to barter away your daughter ? If tomorrow anybody defeats you in debate will he take away our daughter ?' He said 'My dear wife, why are you getting worried ? It is for me to judge whether I have been defeated or not" (sic !). The implication was different from what was intended. It meant, as the Prime Minister had earlier opined, that it is for the government to decide what is or is not the majority opinion in each case. And presumably what "concession" is to be made and when, is the exclusive prerogative too of the government. Had the reasoning in favour of the Bill ended on this note their submissions could have been less significant. However, the contrary was the case. And the ruling party's intervention turned ominous. The Union Minister of Commerce, Shiv Shankar, one of the four ministers who presented the ruling party's submissions to the parliament, in his speech to the Rajya Sabha on May 8, introduced the line of argument that was perfected by K.C. Pant. Shiv Shankar argued that "these are the matters where you cannot judge these issues on the anvil of total logic and reasons. These are matters of faith and that is why one has to keep the background of the shariat law, the Muslim law. for the purpose of a proper understanding of the whole issue." In times better than ours such statements would have been considered unexceptionable. Such not being the case what was implied was that the Muslims could not be expected to look dispassionately on