What leading women are saying about the new law governing Hindu women’s right to a share in agricultural and ancestral property

2. The amendment should not lead to a stalemate between Centre and state with the states claiming that agricultural land is a state subject.

3. The Hindu succession Act of 1956 had divided property under two categories: ancestral and self-acquired. Daughters anyway got a negligible share in ancestral property, which too was more often than not robbed by brothers through emotional blackmail or intimidation. A daughter’s rights under self acquired property were negated through the instrument of the will or wasiyat — a provision deliberately brought in to enable fathers to disinherit daughters and leave their wives at the mercy of sons. Succession to the property of their parents was taken away from females by the institution of wasiyat — in 1956 the then law minister Mr. Pataskar had openly declared in the Parliament that the government had introduced the provision of the will specifically to ‘‘enable father to disinherit daughter’’.

My fear is that if a conducive atmosphere is not created, families will convert joint-family property into self-acquired property because then they can disinherit daughters through the will.

The use of the will as an instrument of warfare against women has striking parallels with the use of the sex determination test to selectively target only female foetuses for abortion. In most other parts of the world, neither SDTs nor the will are used in this vicious fashion against women. Just as we have banned the sex determination test in India, so also we must declare illegal such testamentary documents which selectively disinherit women of the family.

I welcome the amendment, but I feel the issue of ancestral property is unresolved. What is ancestral property, is not clearly defined in the amendment. Even so, those women who have substantial ancestral property will benefit from it. The amendment doesn’t apply to self-acquired property.

Of course I welcome the amendment. In fact, all laws unequal to women should be changed, gradually but certainly. It will initially shock society but eventually society will have to come to terms with it. It will accept the fact that it has to give equal rights to all — man or woman. How can parents discriminate amongst their children? All children should be treated equally, and the law should be ideal. If it is a law, it should be perfect.

This should have been done more than 20 years ago. I don’t know if it will empower women, but it would give them more rights than before.

Kamini Jaiswal (lawyer):

It’s a very welcome step that we recognise sons as equal to daughters. I firmly believe that it will go a long way to wipe away the malaise of dowry that exists in India — where daughters are given dowry and disinherited from the family property. It will make women more secure. They won’t have to put up with the rubbish of in-laws demanding dowry because it will provide them with financial security.

Compiled by Moonis Ijlal