It has all been said before

Some time ago, Indira Jaising had argued on this page (IE March 28) for a wider recognition of a wife’s rights over the matrimonial hom...

Some time ago, Indira Jaising had argued on this page (IE March 28) for a wider recognition of a wife’s rights over the matrimonial home. The twin rights of a wife to the matrimonial home — right to reside for life and ownership rights — have all along been there. The marriage hymns from the Rigveda, recited at the time of solemnising the marriage and thus forming an inalienable part of the “marriage vows”, enjoin these rights. Rigvedic richas (X.18.8 and X.85.42) expressly confirm a wife’s rights.

Since Indo-Iranian times the husband and wife were regarded as joint owners of the household. The Vedic word for couple, dampati, etymologically means joint owners of the house. The Avesta (Yashta 15, 4) describes the husband and wife as nmano-paiti and nmano-pathni, showing thereby that they were equal partners and joint owners of the common household. RV (III.53.4) says: “A man’s wife is his dwelling; verily she is his place of birth”. It means the Rigveda identifies a household with the housewife. Atharvaveda (XIV.1 & 2) declares the wife to be the “empress” of the house. The Sanskrit word used in both richas is samrajani (empress). In AV (XIV.1.43), the bride has been specifically declared to be samrajani of her matrimonial household.

The rights of the wife are reconfirmed in another marriage richa RV (X.85.42): “Abide here together; may you never be separated; live together all your lives, sporting with sons and grandsons, happy in your own home.” Please note that in the Sanskrit text of this hymn, swa-grihe is the word used — one’s own home. Thus, the Hindu wife has Rigvedic rights over her matrimonial home and no law can dispossess her if her marriage was solemnised as per Vedic rites.

Story continues below this ad

RV (X.18.8) commands a Hindu widow to return to the world of living beings, return alive to her home and return alive to her children, and take a new husband. Also, this very richa confers upon her the full right on the house (matrimonial) of her deceased husband. In 1995, the apex court interpreted Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act to the effect that a Hindu widow has full ownership rights over properties she inherits from her deceased husband.

It is sad that rights conferred upon Hindu women by Vedas were slowly whittled down, mostly under literature (shastras) composed during the Christian era. Yet all these compositions concede that Vedas are the supreme source of law but our courts, not aware of such stipulations, either give primacy to Christian era shastras over the Vedas or put them on an equal footing. But primary sources cannot be allowed to be superseded by secondary sources. Can the Constitution be superseded by commentaries written by individual authors, howsoever eminent, on the Constitution? If not, then Vedas also cannot be superseded by commentaries on the Vedas.

The writer is ambassador to Finland. These are his personal views

H-1B $100,000 entry fee explained: Who pays, who’s exempt, and what’s still unclear?

Explained2 hr ago

The White House's decision to impose a $100,000 entry fee on H-1B visa holders has sparked worry among Indian tech workers and students. While uncertainties remain about its implementation and exemptions, major tech companies have cautioned employees against traveling. The policy could lead to a shift towards other visa categories and potentially change the STEM immigration pipeline.

View all shorts

Live Blog