Post on 22-Apr-2023
SEEKINGGENDEREQUALITYINTHEFAMILYSPHERE:
ACOMPARATIVELEGALHISTORYOFWOMEN’SINHERITANCE
RIGHTSININDIA,HONGKONGANDSINGAPORE
JULIETTEGREGORYDUARA(B.A.History,WhitmanCollege)
(M.A.EastAsianStudies,StanfordUniversity)(J.D.,UniversityofChicago)
ATHESISSUBMITTED
FORTHEDEGREEOFMASTEROFLAWS
LAWFACULTY
NATIONALUNIVERSITYOFSINGAPORE
2010
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SeekingGenderEqualityintheFamilySphere:
AComparativeLegalHistoryofWomen’sInheritanceRightsinIndia,HongKongandSingapore
InbringingthisprojecttoitsfruitionIwouldliketothankArun
ThiruvengadamforhisinsightfulcommentsonthematerialsonIndia,particularly
thoseonthecolonialera.IwouldalsoliketothankAndrewSimesterforhis
guidanceduringtheGraduateStudentSeminar.IamgratefultoDebbieOngforher
roleinseeingthisprojectthroughtosubmission.Finally,Imustgivemyloving
thankstomyhusband,Prasenjit,andmydaughter,Nisha,fortheirsupport,loveand
forbearancethroughouttheperhapsundulylongresearch,readingandwritingthat
thisprojectentailed.Ofcourse,allerrorsandomissionsaremine.
iii
SEEKINGGENDEREQUALITYINTHEFAMILYSPHERE:
ACOMPARATIVELEGALHISTORYOFWOMEN’SINHERITANCERIGHTS
ININDIA,HONGKONGANDSINGAPORE
TABLEOFCONTENTS
CHAPTERONE:INTRODUCTION 1
A.Whatisan“inheritancesystem”? 4
B.Whatis“customarylaw”? 5
C.Whydoesthispaperdiscuss“inheritancerights”? 8
D.Whatmakesthecomparisonbetweentheinheritance
systemsofSingapore,HongKongandIndiavalid? 9
E.Whyshouldwebeconcernedaboutgenderequality? 14
F.Whyshouldwebeconcernedaboutgenderequalityin
inheritancerights? 21
CHAPTERTWO:THESTATUSOFWOMENUNDERTHEINHERITANCE
SYSTEMSPRIORTOBRITISHCOLONIALISM 25
A.HinduCustomaryLaw:OfDharmaandDiversity 25
i)TheMitaksharaSystem 29
iv
ii)TheDayabhagaSystem 31
iii)Stridhana 32
iv)OtherSystemsofSuccessioninPre‐ColonialIndia 34
B.ChineseCustomaryLaw:WomenattheMarginsofan
EnduringPatriliny 36
i)TheRoleofDowry 41
ii)TheDaughter’sHalf‐Share 42
iii)TheWidow’sInheritanceRights 42
C.TheInheritanceRightsofWomenunderShari’aLaw 53
i)TheScienceoftheShares 53
ii)GiftsandEndowments 59
iii)MuslimInheritanceSystemsinCulturalContext:
OfIslamandAdat 61
D.Hindu,ChineseandIslamicCustomaryInheritanceSystems
OntheEveofColonization 68
CHAPTERTHREE:BRITISHCOLONIALISMANDITSIMPACTONTHE
STATUSOFWOMENUNDERTHEINHERITANCESYSTEMS 70
v
A. Culture,CaseLawandtheQuestfortheAuthentic:The
BritishLegacyinIndia 70
i)TheBritishDecisiontoAdministerIndigenousLaw 70
ii)TheImplementationofHastings’Directive 81
iii)WomenandtheColonialLegalSystem 88
iv)Anglo‐HinduLaw:ConservatismintheWoman/
Tradition/Law/Scripture/PropertyNexus 91
v)TheHinduWoman’sEstate 100
vi)Anglo‐MuhammadanLawandtheInheritance
RightsofMuslimWomeninIndia:AMixedLegacy 111
B. ChineseandMuslimSuccessionLawinSingaporeunder
BritishColonialRule:TheQuestionofAccommodation 115
i)TheReceptionofEnglishLawintotheStraitsSettlements 115
ii)TheWidows’Might:TheFateofChineseCustomary
PracticesunderEnglishLaw 120
iii)MuslimSuccessioninColonialSingapore:Ofthe
WillandtheWaqf 128
C. SuccessionAmongtheChineseofColonialHongKong:
vi
Elliot’sProclamationsandthePerpetuationofQingLaw 140
i)TheFoundationsofHongKong’sDualLawSystem 141
ii)TheAttributesofChineseCustomaryLawas
AdministeredinColonialHongKong 147
iii)TheBeginningoftheEndofChineseLawand
CustominHongKong 152
D.SummaryComparisonoftheImpactofColonialism 159
CHAPTERFOUR:THEPOSTCOLONIALCATHARSISANDTHE
INHERITANCERIGHTSOFWOMEN 161
A.India’sHinduCodeStruggle 162
B.MonogamyandtheSingaporeWomen’sCharter 171
C.HongKong’sNewTerritories:BringinganEndtoan
Exception 174
D. MuslimMinorities,IslamicInheritanceLawandthe
GenderIssue 177
i)MuslimInheritancePracticesinIndependentIndia 177
ii)TheAdministrationofMuslimInheritanceLawin
viii
SUMMARY
SeekingGenderEqualityintheFamilySphere:
AComparativeLegalHistoryofWomen’sInheritanceRightsinIndia,HongKongandSingapore
Thispaperexaminesthehistoryofwomen’sinheritancerightsinthreeAsia
societiesfromacomparativeperspective:India,SingaporeandHongKong.The
introductionoftheBritishcolonialadministrationanditslegalapparatusintothe
threesocietiesunderreviewprovidesacommonexperiencetoexplorethedifferent
responsesofeachsocietywithregardtogenderandproperty.
Thehistoricalnarrativeisstructuredaroundthequestion:Howandtowhat
extenthastheencounterwithmodernity,mediatedinpartthroughcolonialism,
createdspaceforchangeingenderpowerintheinheritancesystemsofHongKong,
IndiaandSingapore?Toaddressthisquestionsystematically,thechaptersare
structuredchronologically,addressingpre‐colonial,colonialandpost‐colonial
developmentsamongthreecustomarylegalsystems:Hindu,ChineseandMuslim.
Forthepre‐colonialera,thethesisconcludesthatontheeveofcolonization
patrilinealdevolutionofpropertywastheorderofthedayformostHindusandHan
Chinese.Realpropertygenerallybelongedtoafamilyunitwithownershipvestedin
oneormoreofitsmalemembers.Thispropertywasdividedequallyamongsonsat
asuccession.Bilateralwithamalebias,theIslamicinheritancesystemwasmore
favorabletowardwomenthantheHinduandHanChineseinheritancesystems.
Nevertheless,theIslamicinheritancesystemoftenadapteditselftolocalcustoms;
ix
theresultingcustomarypracticesfavoredwomeninplacessuchassouthwestIndia
andMalayawhereeithermatrilinealorbilateralsuccessionwasthenorm,but
disfavoredwomeninmuchoftherestofIndia.
Amongthecomplexandperhapscontradictorytasksofcolonialrulewere
ensuringthatasystemofpropertyinterestswasinplaceinwhichtitleswereclear,
thetaxbasetransparent,andassetsfungiblewithoutundulydisturbingastatusquo
inwhichtheseattributesmaynothavebeenpresent.Althoughsomesocial
legislationdesignedtoimprovethelivesofwomenwasenacted,throughoutmostof
thecolonialerawomen’spropertyrightsdidnotfigureinanyprogressiveagenda.
ThisisnottosaythatwomenneverbenefittedfromBritishpropertypolicy–in
casesofintestacytheChinesewomenintheStraitsSettlementsbenefittedfromthe
decisiontoapplyEnglishlawtothecolony;itistosaythatanybenefitssoaccrued
wereincidentaltodecisionsmadeforotherpurposes.
Eventually,thewomen’smovementandtheconceptofgenderequalitydid
reachtheHinduandChinesecommunitiesofIndia,SingaporeandHongKong.
AlthoughsomechangeswereintroducedbyBritainasacolonialpower,themost
sweepingchangeswereinitiatedlaterbyrepresentativegovernments.
Meanwhile,theminorityMuslimcommunitiesofIndiaandSingaporehave
effectivelyworkedtodeveloptheirautonomyfromtheprevailingsuccessionlawsof
bothcolonialandindependentstates.Althoughavigorousdebatethrivesaround
theissueofwomen’splaceinIslam,underthescience‐of‐the‐shares,Muslimwomen
remaininarealmoflesserpropertyentitlements.
1
SEEKINGGENDEREQUALITYINTHEFAMILYSPHERE:
ACOMPARATIVELEGALHISTORYOFWOMEN’SINHERITANCERIGHTSIN
INDIA,HONGKONG,ANDSINGAPORE
CHAPTERONE
INTRODUCTION
The legislator regulates the estates of citizens once and he rests for
centuries: motionhavingbeengiven tohiswork, he canwithdrawhis
hand from it; themachineactsby itsown forceand isdirectedas ifby
itself toward a goal indicated in advance. Constituted in a certain
manner, it gathers, it concentrates, and it groups around some head
propertyandsoonafterpower; inaway, itmakesaristocracyshootup
fromthesoil.Guidedbyotherprinciplesandlaunchedonanothertrack,
its action ismore rapid still; it divides, it partitions, it disperses goods
andpower;…1
InthestatementquotedaboveTocquevilleexpressesaboldassumption
abouttherelationshipbetweenlawandsociety;inTocqueville’sopinionsocietyis
butputtyinthehandsofthelawandbyextensionthosewhomakethelaw.One
mayfindproblematicTocqueville’sviewofsocietyassomalleable;nevertheless,in
thestudyofinheritancelawinAsia,Tocqueville’sperspectiveissuggestive.
Considerthequestion:Ifpropertyandpowerconfinedtoafewproduces
1Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,Vol.1,pg.47.
2
aristocracy,thendoespropertyandpowerconfinedtomalesproducepatriarchy?
Thiswouldseemtobealogicalconclusiongiventhepatrilinealdescent
characteristicoftraditionalHinduandChinesepatriarchalsocieties.The
interrelationshipbetweenpropertyandpowerraisesanessentialissueofcausation
relevanttomanycommunities,includingmanyofthecommunitiesofHongKong,
IndiaandSingaporewhereChineseandHinducustomarylawsandpractices,aswell
asthoseofIslamiclawkeptwomeneitheroutofthelineofinheritancealtogether,
orinarealmoflesserpropertyentitlements:Doesenhancingwomen’sproperty
entitlementsempowerthemwithinsociety?
Thisworkassumesthatpropertyrightsareanessentialelementof
empowermentforanygroup,althoughthefocusofthisworkisthewomenofIndia,
SingaporeandHongKong.FollowingTocqueville’slogic,thisworkassertsthat
transformingapatriarchalsocietyintoonethatismoreegalitarianrequiresthe
rightlegislativeandjudicialaction.Althoughneithertheproblemofpatriarchynor
itsrectificationintheinterestsofgenderequalitymaybesosimplyrootedin
positivelaw,asupportivelegalframeworkisessentialtoeffectingsuchfundamental
change.
Anaccuratepictureofthelaw‐societyrelationshiprequiresanuanced
approach,forneitherlawnorsocietyisunitaryineitherstructureorobjectives.
Indeed,customarylawisparticularlydiffuse.BinaAgarwalcharacterizesthestate
inherseminalwork,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,as
“…adifferentiatedstructurethroughwhichandwithinwhichgenderrelationsget
3
constitutedthroughaprocessofcontestation.”2Justasthestateisa“differentiated
structure”,sotooarelawandsocietydifferentiatedstructures.Therelationship
betweenthesestructuresorelementsisdynamicratherthanimmutable.Inthis
contextpatriarchyisbutonecharacteristic,albeitadominantoneinthehistories
examinedhere.
InIndia,HongKongandSingapore,thiscomplexrelationshipbetweenlaw
andsocietyiscomplicatedfurtherbytheexperienceofcolonizationduringwhich
timemanyofEngland’slawsandEngland’slegalprocedureswereimposeduponthe
localinhabitants,eithermodifyingordisplacingthesediversecustomarylawsand
practices.Hereagainthecolonizermustnotbeseenasamonolith,butasadynamic
projectionofanothersocietyalsointhethroesoftheprocessesofindustrialization,
modernizationandglobalization.Itisinthiscomplexmilieuthatthisworkanalyzes
theimpactoftheconceptofgenderequalityontheinheritancesystemsofHong
Kong,IndiaandSingapore,asking:Howandtowhatextenthastheencounter
withmodernity,mediatedinpartthroughcolonialism,createdspacefor
changeingenderpowerintheinheritancesystemsofHongKong,Indiaand
Singapore?Totheextentthatspaceforchangeingenderpowerhasbeen
created,whatroledidcolonialismplayinthischange?Assuggestedabove,the
answersrequiresituatingeachofthesesocietiesintheconfluenceofnumerous
processes,includingcolonization,decolonization,industrialization,modernization
andglobalization.Inordertososituatethem,wemustlooknotonlytothe
2Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.79;emphasisinoriginal.
4
inheritancelawsthemselves,butalsotothecontextinwhichtheywereintroduced,
thediscoursesatthetimeofintroductionandjudicialinterpretationspost‐
implementation.Customarylaws,statutesandcaselaw,togetherwiththe
discoursesanddebatessurroundingthem,willbeusedtoanalyzethenatureofthe
inheritancerightsconferredtotheextentsuchrightsaregenderdependent.
Anthropologicalandsociologicalmaterialsalsowillbeusedtofleshoutthe
implicationsoftheselaws.
A.Whatisan“inheritancesystem”?
Whatismeantbyan“inheritancesystem”:DavidS.Powersinhiswork“The
IslamicInheritanceSystem:ASocio‐HistoricalApproach”invokes“adistinctionthat
socialscientistshavedrawnbetweeninheritancelawsandinheritancesystems:
inheritancelawsindicatewhosharesintheestateandhowmuchheorshewill
inherit;theterm‘inheritancesystem’referstoacombinationoflaws,customs,land
tenurerightsandsettlementrestrictionsthatregulatethedivisionoflandata
succession.”3Thisexaminationofwomen’sinheritancerightsnecessarilylooksat
inheritancesystems,asgenderequityininheritancelawsisanecessary,butnot
sufficientconditionfordeterminingwhetherwomen’sinheritancerightsare
commensuratewiththoseofmen.
Theinheritancesystemsexaminedherewillincludetherightsaswellas
customarypracticesinmakingintervivosgifts(alsoreferredtoasdonative
transfers)andtestamentarydispositions,aswellasthelawsandcustomsof
3Powers,DavidS.,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem”,pg.21.
5
intestatesuccession,i.e.successionwithoutawill.Forexample,intraditional
Chineseinheritancepractices,familypropertymayhavebeendistributedeither
beforeorafterthedeathofthefamilypatriarchandhiswife,asbothpre‐mortem
andpost‐morteminheritancepracticeswerecommonatdifferentpointsinChinese
history.Similarly,inIndiapartitionofajointfamilyestateorcoparcenaryunderthe
Mitaksharasystemdidnotnecessarilyfollowthedeathofthepatriarch,butmay
havetakenplaceeitheratanearlieroralaterdate,dependingonthewillofthe
coparceners.4Nevertheless,allofthesepracticesaresubsumedwithintherubricof
“inheritancesystem”.
Itisalsoimportanttonotethatthisdiscussionwillincludeallformsof
property.Asimportantaslandis,otherformsofpropertycanalsobeimportantina
succession,particularlyinurbanareaswherevariousformsofpersonalproperty
maytakeongreaterimportance.
B.Whatis“customarylaw”?
Theuseoftheterm“customarylaw”isproblematic;thisisprimarilybecause
theuseofthetermpresumesthatthebehavioralsystemsinvolvedconstitute“laws”
intheWesternsense.Forexample,VedP.NandaandSuryaPrakashSinha
commencetheirbookentitledHinduLawandLegalTheorywitharejectionofthe
“notionheldgenerallyinWesternlegalthoughtforover2000yearsthatlawis
somethinguniversal.”5Insteadtheyseeasuniversaltheexistenceof“fundamental
4Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.307.5Nanda,VedP.andSuryaPrakashSinha,ed.s,HinduLawandLegalTheory,pg.xi.
6
principlesofsocialorganization”ofwhichlawisoneandtheHinduconceptof
dharmaanother.6Accordingtothisview,lawisconcernedwiththe
“institutionalizationofrightsandresponsibilities,”7whereasdharmaisconcerned
with“thediscoveryofone’sduty”.8Sincethiscomparativeanalysisisconcerned
withthespecificpracticesinvolvedinthesuccessiontoproperty,itneednotengage
inthisdebateonthenatureofsocialstructures.Instead,thisdiscussionwillfinesse
theissueofdefining“customarylaw”byusingasetofcontextspecificdefinitions
relevanttoeachofthecommunitiesunderdiscussion.
Chinesecustomarylawhasbeendescribedascomprisedofthreeelements,
specifically,1)statutorylawderivedprimarilyfromConfucianethicsandthe
conceptofli;2)“generallyacceptedcustomsandconventions,whichwerelargely
influencedbyConfucianethicsandli,andwhichstatutelawgavecountenanceor
madeenforceable;and3)locallyacceptedcustomsandconventions,which,though
notnecessarilycoincidingwithmoralsorpreceptsofanykind,statutelawdidnot
forbid.”9WhileConfucianismwasanimportantelementincustomarylaw
throughoutmuchofChina’shistory,thedegreetowhichChinesestatutorylawand
customsandconventionswerederivedfromConfucianethicsandtheconceptofli
variedovertimeandacrossdynastiesandisoftenapointofdisagreementamong
historians.Thus,thisdiscussionofChinesecustomarylawwillnotbelimitedto
statutes,customsandconventionsderivedfromConfucianconceptionsofthe
6Nanda,VedP.andSuryaPrakashSinha,ed.s,HinduLawandLegalTheory,pg.xi.7Nanda,VedP.andSuryaPrakashSinha,ed.s,HinduLawandLegalTheory,pg.xxi.8Nanda,VedP.andSuryaPrakashSinha,ed.s,HinduLawandLegalTheory,pg.xxi.9WenYenTsao,“TheChineseFamilyfromCustomaryLawtoPositiveLaw”,pg.728.
7
appropriateorderofsociety,butwillincludestatutes,customsandconventions
contrarytoConfucianpreceptswhenandwheretheseinformedtheorderingof
Chinesesociety.Forourpurposesstatutorylawmayinclude,dependingonthe
context,notonlydynasticcodes,suchastheTangCodeandtheQingCode,butalso
thestatutespassedduringthebriefRepublicanperiodofChinesehistory.Ofcourse,
thisdiscussionofstatutorylawaspartofChinesecustomarylawalsoincludes(if
notprimarilyincludes)thosestatutesenactedandcaselawproducedbythe
coloniallegislatureandjudiciaryinHongKongandtheStraitsSettlementstothe
extentthatsuchstatutesandcaselawwereintendedtocodifyorrenderinto
commonlawChinesecodifiedlawandthelocalcustomsandconventionsofthe
ChineseresidentsoftheStraitsSettlements,HongKongIslandandtheKowloon
Peninsula,andtheNewTerritories.
TheinheritancepracticescommonamongHindus,althoughuncodified,were
thesubjectoflearnedcommentarieswhichinfluencedinheritancepractices.These
practicesvariedovertimeandbyregion.Thus,Hinducustomarylawshallreferto
thefollowingthreeelements:1)“thepreceptsofbehaviorfoundintheliteratureof
theVedas,DharmasutrasandDharmasastras,andelaboratedinvarious
commentaries”;102)locallyacceptedcustomsandconventionsofHindus;and3)
“thepersonallawoftheHindusgiveneffectbythecourts,bothintheBritishperiod
andinthepost‐independenceera.”11
10Nanda,VedP.andSuryaPrakashSinha,ed.s,HinduLawandLegalTheory,pg.xii.11Nanda,VedP.andSuryaPrakashSinha,ed.s,HinduLawandLegalTheory,pg.xii.
8
ThetermsIslamiclaworShari’a,whichareusedinterchangeablyhere,refer
toMuslimlawandcustomarypracticesastheyexistedfromtimetotimeinIndia
andSingapore,whichisreferredtointherelevanthistoricalperiodsasMalaya,the
StraitsSettlementsand,finally,Singapore.WaelHallaqhasdescribedthepre‐
modernShari’aas
…notonlyajudicialsystemandalegaldoctrinewhosefunctionwasto
regulatesocialrelationsandresolvedisputes,butadiscursivepractice
thatstructurallyandorganicallytieditselftotheworldarounditinways
thatwereverticalandhorizontal,structuralandlinear,economicand
social,moralandethical,intellectualandspiritual,epistemicandcultural,
andtextualandpoetic,amongmuchelse.12
ThisdescriptioncapturesthecomplexrelationshipbetweentheShari’aandthose
societieswhereitispracticed,reinforcingtheneedasdescribedbyPowersabove,
toapproachallinheritancepractices,includingIslamicinheritancepractices,asa
partofasocialsystem,ratherthansimplyasasetoflawsorrules.
C.Whydoesthispaperdiscuss“inheritancerights”?
Somemightwonderwhywomen’s“rights”shouldbediscussedinthecontext
ofinheritedproperty.Ifthereadercomesfromajurisdictionwheretestamentary
freedomisthenorm,thenthisassertionofentitlementmayseemmisplaced.
Althoughmanyjurisdictionswithtestamentaryfreedomdoimposesome
restrictionsinfavorofasurvivingspouseorminorchildren,theserights,ifthey
12Hallaq,WaelB.,“WhatisShari’a?”,pg.156.
9
existatall,areoftenrestrictedtomaintenancerights.Indeed,theissueof
safeguardingwomen’snewlywonpropertyrightsunderthevariousinheritance
systemsdoesbecomemoresalientinthecolonialandthepost‐colonialerasas
peopleavailoftestamentaryfreedomandtherebypossiblydeprivetheirfamily
membersofpropertytheywouldhaveacquiredthroughintestacy.Nevertheless,in
contextsinwhichmostpropertyeitherpassesoutsideofatestamentarysystem,
whetherbyintestacyforHinduandChinesecustomarylaw,orbytheShari’alaw
systemreferredtoasthe“scienceoftheshares”discussedbelowwhichpermits
testamentarydispositionofonly1/3ofadecedent’sestate,itisfairtoassertthat
thecustomaryorstatutoryruleswhichdeterminewhoreceivesadecedent’s
propertyconstitute“rights”inthesenseofanentitlement.
D.Whatmakesthecomparisonbetweentheinheritancesystemsof
Singapore,HongKongandIndiavalid?
ApproachingtheinheritancesystemsofthesethreeAsiansocietiesfroma
comparativeperspectiveisvalidandpromisingbecauseoftheircommon
experienceswithBritishcolonialismanditscommonlawsystemincontrastand
confrontationwiththeirancientandestablishedsystemsofcustomarylaw.
InheritancelawsinparticularfallundertheBritishcolonialconstructknown
as“personallaw”which:
…isauniquephenomenonandisfoundonlyintheex‐British
possessionswhichhadEnglish(common)lawasthegenerallawforthe
population.Itmaybedefinedasrules(a)applicableonlytopersonsofa
10
specifiedraceorreligion(b)formulatedinEnglishlawterminology(c)
derivedfromindigenousmannersorcustoms(d)butsubjecttoEnglish
lawstandardsofjustice,equity,andgoodconscience.13
Theinheritancepracticesimbeddedinthecustomarylegalsystemsfrom
whichthepersonallawswerederivedarethoseoftheChinesecustomarylawof
HongKongandSingapore,theHinducustomarylawofIndia14andtheIslamic
customarylawofIndiaandSingapore.Withafewexceptionswithineachsocietyas
willbediscussedbelow,allthreeinheritancesystemshadlongestablishedpractices
ofeitherexcludingwomenfrominheritingproperty,especiallyrealproperty,orof
placingthemindeeplysubordinatedpositionsinrelationtotheinheritancerightsof
maleheirs.Incontrast,todayChinesecustomaryinheritancelawhasdisappeared
almostcompletelyfromthelegallandscapesinHongKong15andSingapore16and
13Hooker,M.B.,“EnglishLawandtheInventionofChinesePersonalLawinSingaporeandMalaysia”inLawandtheChineseinSoutheastAsia,M.BarryHooker,ed.,pg.95.14HinducustomarylawwasalsopresentinSingapore,howeverthedevelopmentofthislawwillnotbediscussedinthiswork.15SeeLewis,D.J.,“ARequiemforChineseCustomaryLawinHongKong”,32InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly347(1983)andJones,Carol,“TheNewTerritoriesInheritanceLaw:ColonializationandtheElites”inWomeninHongKong,Pearson,VeronicaandBenjaminK.P.Leung,ed.s,OxfordUniversityPress(1995).16SeeFreedman,Maurice,“ChineseFamilyLawinSingapore:TheRoutofCustom”inFamilyLawinAsiaandAfrica,Anderson,J.N.D.,ed.,GeorgeAllenandUnwinLtd.(1968).
11
Hinducustomarylawhasbeencodifiedtotheeffectthatwomenhavestatutory
inheritancerightsincasesofintestacyequaltothoseofmen.17
Indeed,thetransformationofcustomarylawthroughthecodificationof
inheritancelawssothatgenderstakeequallyinintestacy,capturestosomedegree
thestoryofinheritancelawinthemajoritycommunitiesofcolonialandpost‐
colonialHongKong,IndiaandSingapore.InthesesocietiesHinduandChinese
customarylawswhichwerepredominantlypatrilinealandpatriarchalhavebeen
modifiedbyjudicialholdingsandamendedbylegislativeenactmentstocreatemore
gender‐neutralalternativesintheinterestsofpromotinggenderequality.As
ChineseandHinducustomarypracticeswerepremiseduponthesubordinationof
womenwhooftenhadfewrightstoproperty,eitherwomenweretoremain
subordinated,ortheselawsandcustomarypracticeshadtochange.AsHarriet
SamuelsassertsinherworkonwomeninHongKong,“ultimately,theNew
Territorieslawscouldnotsurvivebecausetheyoffendedtheprincipleofformal
equalityforwomenthathasbeenabsorbed,atleastonsomelevel,intomodern
HongKongculture.”18
Tosaythatinheritancelawsincasesofintestacyhavebeenrenderedgender
neutralimpliesthatlegalmeansexistfortestatesuccession,orthepassingof
propertybywill.Generallyspeaking,pre‐colonialChineseandHinducustomary
17SeeAgarwal,Bina,“LandmarkSteptoGenderEquality”,TheHindu,September25,2005.18Samuels,Harriet,“HongKongonWomen,AsianValues,andtheLaw”,HumanRightsQuarterly21.3(1999)pg.723.
12
lawsdidnotpermittestatesuccession.19Propertypassedatasuccessionin
accordancewithestablishedrulesandpracticeswhichwereparticulartothe
propositus’community.Directingpropertytobedistributedbywillinamanner
contrarytoestablishedpracticewasnotpartofeitherChineseorHindupre‐colonial
inheritancesystems.(ThereissomeevidencethatinChinaduringtheTangand
SongDynastieshouseholdswithoutsonsmayhavehadsometestamentarycontrol
overhowtheirpropertydevolved.However,eveninthissituationthepowerto
devolvepropertybywillhadlargelydisappearedbytheMingDynasty.20)Forthe
ChineseandHinduinheritancesystemstestamentaryfreedomwasacolonial
innovation.Therelationshipbetweentheintroductionoftestamentaryfreedomand
thedevelopmentofwomen’sinheritancerightsisuneasyastestamentaryfreedom
opensthepossibilityofcircumventingthenewrightscreatedforwomenunderthe
intestacylaws.
Formally,Islamiclaw,forcenturieshasthroughthe“scienceoftheshares”
combinedasystemoftestamentaryfreedomforone‐thirdofanestatewithset
mandatorydistributionfortheremaining2/3(orallifthereisnowill).Intheory
thissystemenduresrelativelyunchangedinrespecttotheinheritancerightsof
women,thoughinpractice,asdiscussedbelow,implementationmayvaryto
accommodatelocalcustom.The“scienceoftheshares”isacomplexsystem
19SeeWakefield,David,Fenjia:HouseholdDivisionandInheritanceinQingandRepublicanChina,pp.13‐14;andDesai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.367.20SeeWakefield,David,Fenjia:HouseholdDivisionandInheritanceinQingandRepublicanChina,pp.32‐33.
13
governingpost‐mortemdistributionsbasedinpartonQur’anicversesandinparton
doctrinesdevelopedwithintheSunniandShi’isectsandtheirrespectivesub‐sects.
AprinciplecommontobothSunniandShi’iinterpretationsisthattoamalegoesa
portionequaltotwofemales(whenthemaleandfemalearesimilarlysituatedin
relationtothepropositus).21Thus,ancillarytothequestionofhowthemodern
conceptofgenderequalityhasalteredtheinheritancesystemsofIndia,HongKong
andSingaporeisthequestionofwhyithasalteredsomecustomarylegalsystems
morethanothers;specifically,whyhaveHinduandChinesecustomarylawsatleast
asrelatestointestacyyieldedtolegalprovisionsinfavorofwomen’sequal
inheritancerights,whileIslamiclawasimplementedinIndiaandSingaporehas
not?
DespitethecommonalityofBritishcolonialism,theadventoflegislation
revisingthecustomarylawstoenablewomentoinheritcameindisparatewaysand
atdifferenttimesineachofthesesocieties.Forexample,onemightthinkthatsince
Chinesecustomarylawwastheheritageofamajorityoftheinhabitantsof
SingaporeandHongKong,thatthedevelopmentofwomen’sinheritancerightsand
relatedrightstopropertywoulddevelopsimilarlyinthesetwosocieties.However,
thisisnotthecase.WomeninSingaporewereabletoinheritrealproperty
anywhereinSingaporewellbeforethisrightwasfullyrealizedbywomeninthe
NewTerritories,whoonlyreceivedthisrightin1994withthepassageoftheNew
TerritoriesLand(Exemption)Ordinance(Enacted1994).Thispaperexaminesthe
21Pearl,ATextbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,2ndEdition,CroomHelm(1987),pg.149.
14
factorsthatledtotheseandotherdifferingjudicialandlegislativeadaptationstothe
conceptofgenderequality.
Whilemuchofthispaperwillfocusonhistoricaldevelopments,thetopic
remainsofvitalimportancetothesesocietiestoday.Asindicatedabove,asrecently
as1994womeninHongKong’sNewTerritories“weresubjecttoChinesecustomary
lawand,underBritishcolonialism,stillunabletoinheritland”.22Thepassageofthe
NewTerritoriesLand(Exemption)Ordinance23finallyredressedthisdiscriminatory
situation.In2005theHinduSuccession(Amendment)Act,200524finallygave
daughtersfullrightsascoparcenerswiththeirbrothersforpropertiesgovernedby
theMitaksharabranchofHindulawwhichcoversmostofIndia.25Ofcourse,the
commonlaw,statutorylawandcontemporarydiscoursemaysupportgender
equality,butwhetherwomenareabletoavailofthoselawstoenjoyinheritance
rightsequaltotheirbrothers,sonsandhusbandsisaseparate,butrelatedquestion,
onethatwillnotbeaddressedhere.Indeed,inIndiaandHongKong’sNew
Territoriesthedramasarestillunfoldingandthosestoriesareyettobetold.
E.Whyshouldwebeconcernedaboutgenderequality?
Manynationsnowprofessthatgenderequalityisnecessaryforajustsociety.
Indeed,Indiaprohibitssexdiscriminationinthesectionofitsconstitutiondealing
22Merry,SallyEngleandRachelE.Stern,“TheFemaleInheritanceMovementinHongKong:TheorizingtheLocal/GlobalInterface”inCurrentAnthropology,Vol.46,No.3,June2005.23HongKong:NewTerritoriesLand(Exemption)Ordinance(Enacted1994).24India:HinduSuccession(Amendment)Act,200525Agarwal,Bina,“LandmarkSteptoGenderEquality”,TheHindu,September25,2005.
15
withfundamentalrightswhereatPartIIIFundamentalRights,Article15onthe
“Prohibitionofdiscriminationongroundsofreligion,race,caste,sexorplaceof
birth”atSection(1)itstates:“TheStateshallnotdiscriminateagainstanycitizenon
groundsonlyofreligion,race,caste,sex,placeofbirthoranyofthem.”In
recognitionofhistoricalinequalitiesSection(3)ofthesamePartandArticlealso
statesthat:“NothinginthisarticleshallpreventtheStatefrommakinganyspecial
provisionforwomenandchildren.”
Article22oftheHongKongBillofRightsOrdinance,1991(Cap.383)on
equalitybeforeandequalprotectionoflawstates:“Allpersonsareequalbeforethe
lawandareentitledwithoutanydiscriminationtotheequalprotectionofthelaw.
Inthisrespect,thelawshallprohibitanydiscriminationandguaranteetoall
personsequalandeffectiveprotectionagainstdiscriminationonanygroundsuchas
race,colour,sex,language,religion,politicalorotheropinion,nationalorsocial
origin,property,birthorotherstatus.”Article25oftheHongKongBasicLawsimply
statesthat“AllHongKongresidentsshallbeequalbeforethelaw.”
AlthoughtheSingaporeConstitutioncontainsnoprovisionfortheequal
rightsofwomen,Singapore,aswellasHongKong26andIndia,areallpartiestothe
ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationagainstWomen
(hereafter“CEDAW”orthe“Convention”).IndiaratifiedtheCEDAWonJuly9,
26Petersen,CaroleJ.,“EngenderingaLegalSystem”,pg.23.
16
1993,27whileSingaporeratifiedtheConventiononOctober5,1995.28Britainfinally
extendedtheCEDAWtoHongKongin1996.AlthoughBritainratifiedtheCEDAW
onApril7,198629,theConventionwasnotextendedtoHongKongatthattimedue
tooppositionfromthelocalHongKonggovernment,whichdidnotwanttobe
boundbytheConvention.30WhenChinaresumedsovereigntyoverHongKongon
July1,1997,italsoassumedtheHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegion’s(“Hong
KongSAR’s”)obligationsundertheConvention,whichthePeople’sRepublicof
ChinahaditselfratifiedonNovember4,1980.31
Thebasicpremiseofformalequalityistotreatlikethingsalike;32thenext
premisecomesfromhumanrightslawanditisthatmenandwomenarealikefor
thepurposesoftheenjoymentofhumanrights.ThePreambletotheCEDAW
expresseswellthisversionofgenderequality.Toquoteinpart:
TheStatesPartiestothepresentConvention,
27CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.28CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,200929CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.SeealsothewebsitefortheCentreforComparativeandPublicLawattheFacultyofLaw,theUniversityofHongKong(http://www.hku.hk/ccpl/research_projects_issues/cedaw/index.html),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.30Petersen,CaroleJ.,“EngenderingaLegalSystem”,pg.23.31CentreforComparativeandPublicLawattheFacultyofLaw,theUniversityofHongKong(http://www.hku.hk/ccpl/research_projects_issues/cedaw/index.html),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.32MacKinnon,CatharineA.,“SexEqualityundertheConstitutionofIndia”,pg.181.
17
NotingthattheCharteroftheUnitedNationsreaffirmsfaithin
fundamentalhumanrights,inthedignityandworthofthehumanperson
andintheequalrightsofmenandwomen,
NotingthattheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsaffirmsthe
principleoftheinadmissibilityofdiscriminationandproclaimsthatall
humanbeingsarebornfreeandequalindignityandrightsandthat
everyoneisentitledtoalltherightsandfreedomssetforththerein,
withoutdistinctionofanykind,includingdistinctionbasedonsex,
NotingthattheStatesPartiestotheInternationalCovenantsonHuman
Rightshavetheobligationtoensuretheequalrightsofmenandwomen
toenjoyalleconomic,social,cultural,civilandpoliticalrights,…
Haveagreedonthefollowing:(thencommencesArticleI)
RatificationofCEDAWwasanimportantsymbolicaffirmationofawoman’s
righttoequalityineachofthesesocieties.Nevertheless,noneofthesesocieties
endorsedtheConventionunequivocally,butrathereachmadesignificantrestrictive
declarationsorreservations.Forexample,allofthemexemptedthemselvesfrom
paragraph1ofArticle29oftheConvention,whichempowerstheInternational
CourtofJusticetoresolveanydisputeundertheConventionnototherwiseresolved
byarbitration.Inaddition,Indiamadethefollowingtwodeclarations:
i)Withregardtoarticles5(a)and16(1)oftheConventiononthe
EliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen,the
18
GovernmentoftheRepublicofIndiadeclaresthatitshallabidebyand
ensuretheseprovisionsinconformitywithitspolicyofnon‐interference
inthepersonalaffairsofanyCommunitywithoutitsinitiativeand
consent.
ii)Withregardtoarticle16(2)oftheConventionontheEliminationof
AllFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen,theGovernmentofthe
RepublicofIndiadeclaresthatthoughinprincipleitfullysupportsthe
principleofcompulsoryregistrationofmarriages,itisnotpracticalina
vastcountrylikeIndiawithitsvarietyofcustoms,religionsandlevelof
literacy.33
Article5(a)oftheConventionrequires“StatesParties”“tomodifythesocialand
culturalpatternsofconductofmenandwomen,withaviewtoachievingthe
eliminationofprejudicesandcustomaryandallotherpracticeswhicharebasedon
theideaoftheinferiorityorthesuperiorityofeitherofthesexesoronstereotyped
rolesformenandwomen”.34Article16(1)statesthat“StatesPartiesshalltakeall
appropriatemeasurestoeliminatediscriminationagainstwomeninallmatters
relatingtomarriageandfamilyrelationsandinparticularshallensure,onabasisof
equalityofmenandwomen:
33CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations.htm),lastvisitedonMay6,2010.34CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.
19
(a)Thesamerighttoenterintomarriage;
…
(h)Thesamerightsforbothspousesinrespectoftheownership,
acquisition,management,administration,enjoymentanddispositionof
property,whetherfreeofchargeorforavaluableconsideration.35
Similarly,Singaporemadethefollowingreservation,amongothers:
(1)InthecontextofSingapore'smulti‐racialandmulti‐religioussociety
andtheneedtorespectthefreedomofminoritiestopracticetheir
religiousandpersonallaws,theRepublicofSingaporereservestheright
nottoapplytheprovisionsofarticles2and16wherecompliancewith
theseprovisionswouldbecontrarytotheirreligiousorpersonallaws.36
TherelevantprovisionsofArticle16areassetforthabove.Article2oftheCEDAW
statesinrelevantpartthat:
StatesPartiescondemndiscriminationagainstwomeninallitsforms,
agreetopursuebyallappropriatemeansandwithoutdelayapolicyof
eliminatingdiscriminationagainstwomenand,tothisend,undertake:
(a) Toembodytheprincipleoftheequalityofmenandwomenin
theirnationalconstitutionsorotherappropriatelegislationif
35CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.36CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations.htm),lastvisitedonMay6,2010.
20
notyetincorporatedthereinandtoensure,throughlawand
otherappropriatemeans,thepracticalrealizationofthis
principle;…
(f)Totakeallappropriatemeasures,includinglegislation,to
modifyorabolishexistinglaws,regulations,customsand
practiceswhichconstitutediscriminationagainstwomen;…37
WhentheUnitedKingdomextendedtheConventiontoHongKongin1996it
madeanumberofclarificationsasdeclarations,includingthefollowing:
LawsapplicableintheNewTerritorieswhichenablemaleindigenous
villagerstoexercisecertainrightsinrespectofpropertyandwhich
provideforrentconcessionsinrespectoflandorpropertyheldby
indigenouspersonsortheirlawfulsuccessorsthroughthemalelinewill
continuetobeapplied.38
Takenasawhole,thesedeclarationsandreservationsindicatethatIndia,
HongKongandSingaporeareinfavorofwomen’sequality–oratleastinfavorof
beingseenasbeinginfavorofwomen’sequality‐‐solongastheydonotneedto
ventureintothefamilyspheretosecurewomen’srights.Intheconclusionthis
37CEDAWwebsite(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.38CentreforComparativeandPublicLawattheFacultyofLaw,theUniversityofHongKong(http://www.hku.hk/ccpl/research_projects_issues/cedaw/index.html),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.
21
paperwillexaminetheimplicationsofthesereservationsoncontemporary
inheritancesystems.
F.Whyshouldwebeconcernedaboutgenderequalityininheritance
rights?
InthefaceofthereservationsmadebySingapore,IndiaandHongKong
concerningtheequalrightsofwomeninthefamilysphere,thisworkholdsthat
inheritance,thoughitbepartofthisfamilyrealm,isanimportanteconomicright.If
menandwomenaretoachieveequalityinsociety,thentheyneedtoenjoythisand
othereconomicrightsinequalmeasure.Theinterestsoffamily,aswellaswomen’s,
welfarerequirethatinheritancerightsbeequalbetweengenders.
BinaAgarwal,inAFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,
arguesthat“women’sstrugglefortheirlegitimateshareinlandedpropertycan
provetobethesinglemostcriticalentrypointforwomen’sempowermentinSouth
Asia.”39Herargumentsinfavoroflandforwomenarenotonlycompatiblewith,
butalsofortifythepositionthatwomenshouldhaveinheritancerightsequalto
thoseofmen,apositionalsoadvocatedbyAgarwal.Bothestablishingthatwomen
shouldhaveequalopportunitiestoownlandintheirownnames,andarguingthat
womenneedinheritancerightsequaltothoseofmenrequirechallengingthe“long‐
standingassumptionineconomictheoryanddevelopmentpolicy,namely,thatthe
39Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.2.
22
householdisaunitofcongruentinterests,amongwhosemembersthebenefitsof
availableresourcesaresharedequitably,irrespectiveofgender”.40
Refutingthisviewofthehouseholdasegalitarian,Agarwalassertsthat:
…thereisconsiderableevidenceofintra‐householdgenderinequalities
inthesharingofbenefitsfromthehousehold’sresources.Forinstance,
inlargepartsofSouthAsiaasystematicbiasagainstwomenandfemale
childrenisfoundinintra‐householdaccesstobasicnecessitiessuchas
healthcare,andinsomedegreealsofood.41
AgarwalgoesontonotethatdifferenceshavebeenfoundinmanystatesinIndiain
thewaythat“menandwomenofpoorruralhouseholdsspendtheincomesunder
theircontrol…”withwomenspendingalmostalltheirincome“topurchasegoods
forthefamily’sgeneralconsumptionandforthechildren”whilemen“spenda
significantpartontheirpersonalneeds(tobacco,liquor,etc.).”42Thesegender
differentialsarereflectedin“researchfindingswhichsuggestthatchildren’s
nutritionalstatustendtobemuchmorepositivelylinkedtothemother’searnings
thanthefather’s”.43
40Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.3.41Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.28.42Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.28.43Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.29,citingKumar,S.K.“RoleoftheHouseholdEconomyinChildNutritionatLowIncomes”,OccasionalPaperNo.95,Dept.ofAgriculturalEconomics,CornellUniversity(1978);andGulati,L.,“ProfileofaFemaleAgriculturalLabourer”,EconomicandPoliticalWeekly(ReviewofAgriculture),13(12),25March,pp.A27‐A47(1978).
23
Similarly,theResearchDevelopmentInstituteinitsreporton“Women’s
AccessandRightstoLandinKarnataka”44listsfivereasonswhywomenshouldown
landasfollows:
1. Holdinglandinherownnameorjointlywithherhusbandgivesa
womanasecurerighttolandifsheseparatesfromherhusband,is
deserted,orwidowed.
2. Ownershipoflandgivesawomancontrolover,andacontinuingrightto,
amajorsourceofincome.45
3. Landownershipenhancesawoman’sabilitytoaccesscreditasitgives
heranassetthatcanbeusedascollateral.
4. Landownershipincreasesawoman’srespectandleveragewithinher
family.
5. Landownershipcanqualifywomenforbenefitsunderprogramsthat
requirebeneficiariestoownland.46
Althoughinheritanceisonlyoneofseveralmeansofacquiringlandfor
landlesswomen,itisoneofthemostcriticalavenuesasdiscussedbyBinaAgarwal47
44Brown,Jennifer,KripaAnanthpurandReneeGiovarelli,“Women’sAccessandRightstoLandinKarnataka”,RuralDevelopmentInstitute(RDI)ReportsonForeignAidandDevelopment(#114),(May2002).SeealsoBrown,JenniferandSujataDasChowdhury,“Women’sLandRightsinWestBengal:AFieldStudy”,RDIReportsonForeignAidandDevelopment(#116),(November2002).45Brown,Jenniferetal,“Women’sAccessandRightstoLandinKarnataka”,pg.14.46Brown,Jenniferetal,“Women’sAccessandRightstoLandinKarnataka”,pg.14.47Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,seeinparticularherchapterson“Customaryrightsandassociatedpractices”,pp.82‐152.
24
andasemphasizedintheRuralDevelopmentInstituteReports.48Thisisespecially
truegiventhedeclineincommunallandsothataccesstoprivatelandacquires
criticalimportance.Agarwalestimatesthatasof1987‐1988“about85.6percentof
arablelandislikelytobeinprivatehands.”49
Thus,havingestablishedtheimportanceofruralwomenacquiringeither
individualorjointtitletoproperty,especiallyrealproperty,theimportanceof
inheritanceasanavenuefortheacquisitionofsuchpropertylogicallyfollows,given
thatmostrealproperty,particularlyarableland,isalreadyinprivatehands.Ifan
agriculturalworkerdoesnotalreadyownland,thenacquiringthemeansto
purchaselandontheopenmarketisparticularlydifficult.Furthermore,mostofthe
fivereasonsadvancedforruralwomentoacquirerealpropertyalsoapplytothe
acquisitionofproperty,bothrealandpersonal,byurbanwomen.Aswithrural
women,oncetheadvantagesofpropertyownershipareestablished,theimportance
ofinheritanceasameansofacquiringthatpropertyisclearwhenassuminga
systemofprivatepropertyownership.
48SeeBrown,Jennifer,etal,“Women’sAccessandRightstoLandinKarnataka”,pp.24‐34;andBrown,Jennifer,etal,“Women’sLandRightsinWestBengal:AFieldStudy”,pp.20‐24.49Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.24.
25
CHAPTERTWO
THESTATUSOFWOMENUNDERTHEINHERITANCESYSTEMS
PRIORTOBRITISHCOLONIZATION
Priortocolonization,ofthethreeinheritancesystemstobeexaminedinthis
chapter,withtheexceptionofpocketsofmatrilinealityinsouthernIndiaandin
Malayaaswillbediscussedbelow,women’sinheritancerightswerestrongestunder
Shari’aLaw.Althoughthephilosophicalfoundationsandstructuralmanifestations
oftheinheritancesystemsunderHinduandChinesecustomarylawsdiverged
significantly,thesetwosystemswereneverthelessstrikinglysimilarinthe
prevalenceofpatrilinealityandendogamousmarriages,bothofwhichworkedto
deprivewomenofinheritancerightsinmostsituations.
A. HinduCustomaryLaw:OfDharmaandDiversity
ClassicalHindulawwasindistinguishablefromreligionandmorality;all
wereconsideredaspectsofdharmaandwereofdivineinspiration.Thethree
essentialsourcesofdharmaare:“Shruti(thedivinerevelationsorutterances,
primarilytheVedas),Smriti(thememorizedword–thedharmasutrasandthe
dharmashastras)andsadachara(goodcustom).”50Ofthesmritis,theManusmritiis
consideredthe“mostorthodox,andtheYajnavalkyasmritiamongthemoreliberal
50Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”,pg.12,Sec.2.1.
26
ingrantingwomenrights.”51Thisshastricliteratureisgenerallyrecognizedas
prescribingappropriatepractice,ratherthandescribingactualpractice.52Itis,
nevertheless,ausefulplacetostartbecauseoftheshastras“diddrawuponcustom
insomedegreeandintermshapedcustom.”53
AlthoughtheVedasandrelatedworksareconsideredthesourcesofHindu
law,itisthecommentariesontheseworkswhichwerewrittensomecenturieslater
thatservedasthefoundationforwhatcametobeknownasAnglo‐Hindulaw.54For
example,theMitakshara,arunningcommentaryontheCodeofYajnavalkya,was
writtenintheeleventhcenturybyVijnaneshwara.55TheDayabhagaof
Jimmutavahana,anotherimportantcommentaryrelieduponbytheBritish,was
writteninthetwelfthcentury.56
Asthepurposeofthissectionistoprovideathumbnailsketchofthe
parametersofwomen’sinheritancerightsinIndiaontheeveofcolonization,itis
imperativeheretoacknowledgeaconundrum.AlthoughtheBritishcolonizers
professedtobeapplying“thelaw”ofthecolonized,their(perhapsinevitably)
misguidedattemptstodefineandapplysuchalawnecessarilyalteredforevernot
onlythelaws,butalsothecustomsandpracticesofthepeoplestheywere
governing.
51Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.85.52Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.84.53Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.84.54Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Introduction,pg.51.55Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Introduction,pg.51.56Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”,pg.13,Sec.2.1.
27
TheerrorsoftheBritishintheirattemptstoapplyindigenouslawmaybe
tracedatleastasfarbackas1772‐1773whenWarrenHastingsfirstbecame
governorofBengal,thenGovernor‐GeneralofIndia.Hastingssetanenduring
precedentfortheBritishadministrationofIndiawhenhedeterminedinhisoft‐cited
statementthatin“’suitsregardinginheritance,marriage,casteandotherreligious
usagesandinstitutions,theLawsoftheKoranwithrespecttoMahometans,and
thoseoftheShasterwithrespecttotheGentoos(Hindus)shallinvariablybe
adheredto.’”57Theplethoraofassumptionsinherentinthisstatementregarding
thelegalorderingofthelivesofbothMuslimsandHinduswillbeexploredat
greaterlengthbelow.ForthemomentitissufficienttonotethattheBritishquest
forHindulawdisregardedthepredominantlycustomarynatureofthislawandhow
itwasalivingandevolvingordersetwithinaprimarilyoralculture.58Instead,the
essentialthrustoftheBritishprojecttoadministerindigenouslawtoHinduswas
textualandBrahminical.ThetranslationsofShastrictextsandSanskrit
commentariesformedafoundationfortheprodigiouscaselawthatBritishjurists
builtuponthemlikeaninvertedpyramid.Thiscircumstancerendersany
contemporaryexcavationoftraditionsandcustomsofthepast,especiallyonatopic
ascontestedaswomen’srights,ataskofgreatdifficulty.
57Fromthequoteappearingatpage26of“TheCommandofLanguageandtheLanguageofCommand”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge–TheBritishinIndiabyBernardS.Cohn,citingto“ReportsfromCommitteesoftheHouseofCommons…”1772‐17734:348‐50.58See“LawBooksinanOralCulture:TheIndian‘Dharmasastras’”byLudoRocherinProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety,Vol.137.No.2(June1993)pp.254‐267.
28
Havingacknowledgedthisproblem,thissection,nevertheless,attemptsto
setforthbrieflywhatcanbetoldaboutinheritancepracticesastheyrelateto
womenandtheirinterestsontheeveofcolonization.First,asimpliedabove,
diversityinthelawsandcustomsofthepeoplesknownasHindusmustbe
acknowledgedastheprimarytrait.ThoughtheoriginaltextswereAryaninorigin,
theirassimilation“betweenAryanandnon‐Aryantribesledtodiversecustomsand
practices.”59Diversityofpracticewaspresentduetocastedifferences,geographic
dispersion,aswellassectarianallegiances.Whilesomeofthemanyvariationsof
customarylawsandpracticeswillbediscussedbelow,readersshouldbearinmind
thatthisbird’seyeviewglossesovermuchofthisdiversityintheinterestsof
brevity.Inaddition,thoughwhatiswrittenbelowpurportstodiscussthestatusof
women’sinheritancerightsontheeveofBritishcolonization,itsanalysisand
structurebearstheindelibleprintofWarrenHastingsandthearmyoftranslators,
juristsandpunditsdispatchedtorealizehisvision.Morespecifically,thedivisionof
inheritancepracticesintotheDayabhagaandtheMitaksharasystems,togetherwith
thesubdivisionoftheMitaksharasystemintofourschools,hasbeenattributedto
theactiveimaginationofH.T.Colebrooke,anemployeeoftheEastIndiaCompany
withaknowledgeofSanskrit.60Bearinginmindthatthediscussionofthe
DayabhagaandMitaksharainheritancesystemsismostlikelyanoversystemization
59Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”,pg.12,Sec.2.1.60Seepages72‐74of“LawandtheColonialStateinIndia”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge–TheBritishinIndiabyBernardS.Cohen,citingtoLudoRocher,“SchoolsofHinduLaw,”inJ.EnsinkandP.Gaeffke,eds.,Maior:CongratulatoryVolumePresentedtoJ.Gonda(Leiden,1972),pp.168,170.
29
ofthevariouscustomswhichconfrontedCompanyofficials,thispaper,nevertheless,
proceedstousetheseanalyticaltoolsasamoreaccuratepictureoftheinheritance
systemsinuseontheeveofcolonizationappeartohavebeenlosttotime.
Traditionally,Hinduslivedinajointfamilysystem,whichwasjoint,notonly
inestate,butalsoinfoodandworship.61Withinthejointfamilysystem,therewere
severalsystemsofinheritance,twoofthemostprominentbeingtheMitakshara
systemandtheDayabhagasystem.TheDayabhagasystemprevailedintheregion
knownduringBritishruleasBengal,whichtodayiscomprisedofWestBengaland
Assam.62TheMitaksharasystemprevailedinmostoftherestofIndia.63
i)TheMitaksharaSystem
TherewereatleastfourrecognizedschoolsundertheMitaksharasystem,the
Bombay,Madras,BenaresandMithilaschools.64Whileadetaileddiscussionofthe
differencesbetweentheseschoolsisbeyondthescopeofthispaper,itisimportant
tonotethattherewasmuchvariationwithintheMitaksharasystem.Specificallyas
relatestowomen,“there[were]manywho[were]recognizedasheirsinthe
BombayandMadrasschoolsbut[were]notrecognizedassuchintheBenaresand
Mithilaschools.”65
61Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.21.62AlthoughtheperiodunderdiscussionpredatespartitionandthecreationofIndia’sstates,geographicalreferencesaregenerallytoregionsandstatesastheyexistwithincontemporaryIndiaonly,unlessotherwisenoted.63Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.22.64Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.33.65Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.33(2).
30
UndertheMitaksharasystemthereweretwo“modesofdevolutionof
property”,survivorshipandsuccession,66whichappliedtothetwoessentialtypes
ofproperty,jointfamilypropertyandseparateproperty.Jointfamilyproperty(also
referredtoascoparcenaryproperty)passedbysurvivorship.Separateproperty
passedtoadecedent’sheirsthroughsuccession.Coparcenarypropertyconsisted
“principallyofancestralproperty(thatis,propertyinheritedfromthefather,
paternalgrandfatherorpaternalgreat‐grandfather),plusanypropertythatwas
jointlyacquiredorwasacquiredseparatelybutmergedintothejointproperty.”67A
man’sseparatepropertyincludedself‐acquiredproperty(aslongassuchproperty
wasacquiredwithoutdetrimenttojointfamilyproperty),aswellasproperty
inheritedfromanyoneotherthanhisfather,hispaternalgrandfatherandhis
paternalgreat‐grandfather.68
Onlysonswerebornintothecoparcenarysystem;aHindumalebornintoa
Mitaksharacoparcenaryimmediatelytookaportionequaltothatofhisfather,thus
eachcoparcener’spropertyinterestdecreasedinthecaseofbirthsandincreased
uponadeathamongthecoparcenarymembers.69
The“Hindudaughterwasexcludedfromsuccessiontoherfather’sproperty
bythepresenceofason,ason’sson,ason’sson’sson,orawidow.Further,whena
womandidsucceedtoproperty,shehelditinlimited,asopposedtoabsolute,estate.
66Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.24.67Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.85.68Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.86.69Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.86.
31
Shewasentitledtopossess,use,andenjoytheproperty,butnottowasteoralienate
it,duringhertenure….”70Whenawoman’stenureoverthepropertycametoan
end,usuallybydeath,butalsosometimesbymarriageorremarriage,theproperty
“passednottoherheirs,buttotherelativesofthelastmaleholder….Thewoman’s
tenuremerelydelayedorpostponedsuccessionfromonemaleownertoanother
maleownerinthecontextofasystemofsuccessionwhichconfinedfullownership
rightstomen.”71
Ofcourse,asindicatedabove,therewereexceptionstoandvariationson
theseruleswithintheMitaksharasystem.Forexample,althoughadaughterunder
theBombayschoolcouldonlytakeintheabsenceofthreegenerationsofmalesand
ifherdeceasedfatherdidnotleaveawidow,ifshewasabletotake,shetookan
absoluteestate.72
ii)TheDayabhagaSystem
UnliketheMitaksharasystem,theDayabhagasystemdidnotrecognizethe
rightofsurvivorshipbetweencoparceners;instead,allpropertypassedby
succession.73Thus,amanwastheabsoluteownerofallofhisproperty,whether
self‐acquiredorancestral.Hecoulddisposeofthispropertyatwill,ashissonsdid
notacquireanautomaticinterestbybirthintheirfather’sancestralproperty.74
Propertydivisioncouldtakeplaceamongheirsonlyataman’sdeath;thefirstinthe
70Carroll,Lucy,“Daughter’sRightofInheritanceinIndia”,pp.791‐792.71Carroll,Lucy,“Daughter’sRightofInheritanceinIndia”,pg.792.72Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.87.73Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.78.74Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.88.
32
lineofsuccessionwereaman’ssonswhotookinequalshares.Ifanyofthesonshad
predeceasedthefatherleavingasonoragrandson,thenthatmaledescendantof
thepredeceasedsonwouldtaketheshareofthepredeceasedson.Onlyifthere
werenomaledescendantsforthreegenerationscouldachastewidowtakealimited
estate.Iftherewasnochastewidow,thenadaughtercouldtakealimitedestate,
withanunmarrieddaughtersuperiorinprioritytoamarrieddaughter.75
Forpurposesofassessingwomen’sinheritancerightsunderthesetwo
differentsystemsofinheritance,theprincipledifferencebetweentheDayabhaga
andtheMitaksharasystemswasthatthe“Dayabhagarecognizedthewidowand
(afterher)daughtersasheirsevenwhentheman’sancestralestatehadnotbeen
separatedbeforehisdeath.Hence,unlikeunderMitakshara,womeninheritedan
interestinallproperty,irrespectiveofwhetheritwasancestralorseparate.”76This
meantthatwomenundertheDayabhagasystemhadasomewhatgreaterlikelihood
ofinheritingsomepropertythanwomenundertheMitaksharasystem.77
iii)Stridhana
Thisdiscussionofthepre‐colonialinheritancerightsofwomeninIndia
wouldbeincompletewithoutintroducingtheconceptofstridhana.Theterm
“stridhana”literallytranslatesas“woman’sproperty”andhasbeenthesubjectof
extensiveanalysisfromantiquitytothepresent,includingthecommentariesinboth
75Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.88.76Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.88.77Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.88.
33
theMitaksharaandDayabhagasystems.78Despitethename,inmostschoolsnotall
propertyacquiredbyawomanwasconsideredherstridhana.Whetherproperty
constitutedawoman’sstridhana‐‐andthetypeofstridhanaitconstituted‐‐
dependedonthefollowingthreefactors:
(1)thesourcefromwhichthepropertywasacquired;
(2)herstatusatthetimeofacquisition,thatiswhethersheacquiredit
duringmaidenhood,coverture,orwidowhood;andlastly,
(3)theschooltowhichshebelong(ed).79
Generallyspeaking,whetherpropertywasconsideredstridhanaornot
determinedawoman’scapacitytodisposeofthepropertyatwillanddetermined
whoreceivedthepropertyatherdeath.Duringherlifetime,awomancoulddispose
ofherstridhanaatherpleasureandawoman’sstridhanapassedtoherheirsather
death,ratherthantoherhusband’sheirs,80ortotheheirsofthepersonfromwhom
sheinheritedtheproperty.81Forourpurposesitisimportanttonotethatifone
assumesthatcolonialjurisprudencecorrectlyascertainedtheparametersof
stridhanathatexistedpriortotheirarrival–averybigassumption–thenonlyin
oneschool,theBombayschool,couldpropertyinheritedbyawomanbeher
stridhana;eveninthislimitedcasethepropertyhadtohavebeeninheritedfrom
78Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.112.79Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.124.(Emphasisinoriginal)80Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.124.81Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.130.
34
anotherfemale.82Inallothercircumstancesawomanacquiredonlyalimitedestate
(oftenreferredtoasa“widow’sestate”ora“woman’sestate”)inpropertywhich
sheinherited,thatisshecouldnotalienatethepropertyexceptforverylimited
circumstances,and,asmentionedabove,thepropertydidnotpasstoherheirsat
herdeath.83
Havingsaidthismuch,itisneverthelessimportanttonotethatthis
discussiongreatlysimplifiestheconceptofstridhanaandthemultitudinous
interpretationsgivenitovertimeandacrossregions.Eventhebriefgeneralizations
givenherewillbefoundwantinguponclosescrutiny.Sufficeittosaythatthetopic
ofthescopeofwomen’spropertyrights–especiallypropertyoverwhichawoman
hadfreedomofdisposition‐‐producedacopiousvarietyofdisquisitions,whichasa
bodyserveasatestamenttothecontestednatureofwomen’spropertyinterests.
iv)OtherSystemsofSuccessioninPreColonialIndia84
Althoughthetwopatrilinealinheritancesystems,theMitaksharasystemand
itsvariousschools,togetherwiththeDayabhagasystem,accountedforthe
inheritancepracticesofthevastmajorityofHindusinIndia,therewereacoupleof
significantpocketsofmatrilinealandbilateralinheritanceamongHindusin
southernIndia.TheNangudiVellalarsofTamilNadupracticedbilateral
82Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.147.83Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.s168‐169.84ThedescriptionsandconclusionscontainedinthissectionaredrawnfromBinaAgarwal’swork,AFieldofOne’sOwn,particularlythesegmentson“Women’slandrightsintraditionallymatrilinealandbilateralcommunities”,pp.100‐133,andon“Women’slandrights,structuralconditionalities,andgenderrelations”,pp.133‐152.
35
inheritance,whilematrilinealinheritancewaspracticedbytheNayarsandTiyyars
ofKerala,theBantsofsouthCanara(nowinKarnatakastate),andthePhadiyasand
ChettisofWynaddistrict(borderingnorthernKeralaandTamilNadu).85
Thematrilinealdescentofancestralpropertyexistedwithinasystemof
collectivepropertyownershipaspartofamatrilinealjointfamily.Theattributesof
propertyownershipbymatrilinealcommunitieswerenotakintoafreeholdestate,
butratherlikeaninheritedrighttotenancy,whichoftenwassubletthenagainto
thosewhoworkedtheland.Typically,alloftheadultmembersofthematrilineal
jointfamilyneededtoconsentbeforetherecouldbeapartitionofthejointfamily’s
propertyinterest.
Theexistenceofthesecommunitiesinwhichlandpassedbymatrilinealand
bilateraldescent,asopposedtopatrilinealdescent,raisesthequestionofthedegree
towhichthesepatternsofinheritancecontributedtogreaterequalitybetweenthe
sexes.Indeed,itdoesappearthatcertainadvantagesaccruedtowomenandgirlsin
thesesocieties.First,girlchildrenwereparticularlydesiredinmatrilinealgroups
andtheeducationoffemaleswasmorelikelytobeacommunityvalue.
Furthermore,womeninthesecommunitieshadgreaterfreedomofmovementand
morepublicinteractionthanmanywomenincommunitieswherelandpassedby
patrilinealdescent.
85Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pp.83‐84.BinaAgarwalalsodiscussesthematrilinealpracticesofseveralothertribalgroupslocatedintheNortheastofIndia,includingtheKhasiandGarocommunities.TheyarenotincludedinthisdiscussionbecausetheyarenotconsideredHindu.
36
Yetdespitetheseclearadvantages,matrilinealitydidnotheraldgender
equalityaseventhesesocietiesexhibitedcertaincriticalpatriarchalcharacteristics.
Firstandforemost,inallofthesecommunitiesjuralauthority,thatistheauthority
tomakeandadjudicatetherulesgoverningsocietysuchasthepowerexercisedby
castecouncils,remainedentirelyinthehandsofmen.Thus,menwereabletouse
thesebodiesto“consolidatesocialprestigeandpoliticalpower.”86Neitherdid
matrilinealityalterthegenderdivisionoflabor.Domesticworkandchildcare
remainedwomen’sdomain;formalmanagerialauthorityofthejointfamilyassets,
particularlytheland,remainedprimarilywithmen.Finally,rightsinlanddidnot
guaranteeequalsexualfreedom.
B. ChineseCustomaryLaw:WomenattheMarginsofanEnduring
Patriliny
SingaporeandHongKong,thetwocity‐states87includedassubjectsofthis
study,areessentiallycolonialcreations.Assuchitispertinenttoquerywhatthe
legalandcustomaryinheritancesystemantecedentsareforthepeopleswhocame
toinhabitthem,aswellaswhetherandtowhatextentthesepre‐colonial
inheritancesystemsarerelevant.Hereitispositedthatthereareatleasttwo
reasonswhythepre‐colonialinheritancesystemsofthepeoplesofSingaporeand
86Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.151.87WhileacknowledgingthatHongKongisnowapartofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,asaSpecialAdministrativeRegion(SAR)itforthetimebeingpossessescertainautonomouspowersandsystems,includingaseparatelegalsystem,thatjustifyitsanalysisasanindependententity,evenifitisnolongeraseparatecity‐state–if,indeed,HongKongevercouldbeconsideredacity‐stateinthesenseofpossessingthesovereigntyofamodernstate.
37
HongKongarerelevanttochartingtransformationsinwomen’srightsto
inheritance.First,althoughtheBritishcolonizerssoughttogovernthosewhocame
toliveinSingaporeandHongKonginaccordancewiththelawsofEngland,theydid
seektomakeadjustmentsforlocalcustomarypracticessothattheEnglishlaws
wouldnotbetoooppressive.Asdiscussedinthechapteronthecolonialera,the
degreeofadjustmenttoaccommodateChinesecustomarypracticedifferedgreatly
betweenSingaporeandHongKong.Second,toassertthatthepre‐colonialpractices
ofthepeopleswhocametoinhabitSingaporeandHongKongareirrelevantisto
assertthattheyarriveddevoidofcultureorcommunity–akindofsocialtabula
rasa,anassertionthatthediscussionofthecolonialeraprovidedbelowwillreveal
asfalse.
WhilethefactthattheBritishsoughttoaccommodatetosomedegreethe
customarylawsandpracticesoftheChineseinSingaporeandHongKongis
importantinestablishingtherelevanceofChineseinheritancepractices,this
investigationintotheinheritancepracticesofHanChineseisdistinctfromthe
effortsofthecolonialrulerstodeterminesuchcustoms,asubjectwhichwillbe
discussedseparatelybelow.Thissummaryofpre‐colonialHanChineseinheritance
systemsisdistinguishablefromthecolonizerseffortstodeterminesuchcustomsin
fourways.First,thisinvestigationisfreeoftheomnipresentulteriormotiveofthe
colonizerstoeaseadministrationofthecolonies.Second,thisstudyisnot
compelledtofititsfindingswithintheconfinesofeitherBritishstatutorylaworthe
commonlawsystemofprecedents.Third,thisstudybenefitsfromrecent
38
scholarshiponthesubject,scholarshipwhichsharesthefirsttwobenefitsjustlisted.
Finally,thisstudyenjoysthebenefitofhindsight.
TheessentialcharacteristicsoftheHanChineseinheritancesystemwere
renderedindetailinanedictissuedduringtheTangdynasty(618‐906)andare
summarizedbyDavidWakefieldinhisworkFenjia:HouseholdDivisionand
InheritanceinQingandRepublicanChinaasfollows:
Theedictstatedthat,first,familypropertywastobedividedequally
amongbrothers.Second,ifabrotherdied,hissonorsonsinheritedthe
share.Third,unmarriedsonswereentitledtoextrapropertytopay
marriageexpenses.Fourth,asister‐in‐law’sdowrypropertywasnot
dividedwhenherhusbandandhisbrothersdividedtheirfather’s
property.And,fifth,awidowwithoutasonreceivedherhusband’sshare
ofproperty.Thispatternofpropertydivisionwouldremainlargely
intactdowntothetwentiethcenturyandtheRepublicanRevolution…88
Whilethesecontinuitiesarestriking–especiallytheprovisionthatson’s
inheritequallytotheexclusionofdaughters–thereweresomeimportantvariations
acrossdynastiesinwomen’sinheritancerights.Someofthesevariationsarethe
subjectofcontroversyamongscholarsofChina’simperialpast.Themorerecent
controversies,someofwhichwillbeexploredhere,aresuccessorstoadebate
88Wakefield,David,Fenjia:HouseholdDivisionandInheritanceinQingandRepublicanChina,pg.12.
39
“beguninthe1950sandledbytwoeminentJapanesesinologists,ShigaShuzo,and
thelateNiidaNoboru,overwhetherChinesewomencanbesaidtohaveinheritance
rights.”89AsdiscussedintheIntroduction,inheritancerightsareanimportant
elementofwomen’sempowerment,contributingastheydotowomen’sfinancial
securityandpersonalautonomy.
RecentiterationsofthedebateoverChinesewomen’shistoricalrightsto
inheritaddresssuchissuesas:
1)whetherdowriesshouldbeconsideredasignificantpartof
intergenerationaltransferandassuchpartoftheinheritancesystem;
2)whethertherewasaruleintheSongDynastythatdaughtersreceiveda
shareequaltoonehalfofherbrother’sshare;and
3)whetherwidowswithoutsonsintheSongDynastyinheritedtheir
husband’spropertyoutright,insteadofascustodiansforthenextmaleheir.
Howeverthesecontroversiesareresolved,aconsensuscanbeforgedamongthese
contemporaryscholarsofimperialChinathatwomen’spropertyrightsreached
theirzenithduringtheSongDynasty,onlytobeerodedduringYuanandMingrule
sothatontheeveoftheestablishmentoftheBritishcoloniesinSingaporeandHong
KongduringtheQingDynastyHanwomen’sinheritancerightshadreachedanadir.
KathrynBernhardtinherbookentitledWomenandPropertyinChina,960‐
1949discussestwotypesofpropertysuccessioncommoninimperialChina.One
89Birge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina”,pg.580.
40
was“householddivision”anditreferstothedivisionofafamily’spropertyinthe
presenceofsons.90Dependingonthelawsineffectatthetime,theproclivitiesof
thefamilyinvolved,andotherfactors,ahouseholddivisioncouldtakeplaceeither
beforeorafterthedeath–sometimeslongafterthedeath‐‐oftheheadofthe
family,butalwaysinvolvedtheequaldivisionofpropertyamonglivingsons,with
thesonsofadeceasedsontakinghisshare,perstirpes.91
Bernhardtreferstotheotherformofsuccessionas“patrilinealsuccession”
whichshedefinesas“thoseprinciplesandpracticesthatgovernedinheritancein
familieswheretherewerenobirthsons.”92Bernhardtarguesthatitwasinthe
absenceofbirthsonsthatwomen’spropertyrightsweremostlikelytocomeinto
playandwhere,incontrasttothecontinuityofthelawsandpracticesofequal
divisionamongbirthsons,lawandpracticevariedovertimeandtherightsof
womenasdaughtersandwidowswaxedandwaned.
BettineBirgedoesnotchallengeBernhardt’stypologyofsuccessionas
dividedintohouseholddivisionandpatrilinealsuccession.Nevertheless,she
disagreeswithBernhardtonatleastthreepointsregardingtheinheritancerightsof
Songwomen:theroleofdowryinthesuccessionscheme,whethertherewasahalf‐
sharerulefordaughtersduringtheSong,andwhetherwidowswerecustodiansor
moreautonomousinheritorsoftheirhusbands’sharesintheabsenceofsons.These
90Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.2.91Wakefield,David,Fenjia:HouseholdDivisionandInheritanceinQingandRepublicanChina,pg.40.92Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.47.
41
issuesareindicativeofthedegreeofvariabilityinwomen’sinheritancerightsin
ImperialChina.AtissueiswhetherChinaintheSongeverflirtedwithadoptinga
morebilateralmodeofsuccessionratherthanstrictlyadheringtotheparilineal
Confucianideal.TheexchangebetweenBernhardtandBirgeexploresthistristwith
femaleempowerment,butalsodocumentsChina’sreturnintheYuanandMingtoits
Confucianpassion,patrilineality,anardorwhichenduredthroughtheQing.
i) TheRoleofDowry
OntheissueofdowryBernhardtmaintainsthatinthepresenceofsons,a
daughter’sinterestinnatalfamilypropertywaslimitedtoadowry“atmost”;the
amountofthisdowrycouldbespecifiedinafather’swill,otherwisetheamountwas
lefttothedeterminationofherbrothers.93BettineBirgeinherreviewof
Bernhardt’sbookexplicitlyconfrontsBernhardt’sdismissiveattitudetoward
dowry;Birgeassertsthat“bothhouseholddivisionandpatrilinealsuccession
operatedasavehicleforthetransmissionofpropertytowomeninpartofthe
overalldowryregimeinpremodernChina.”94AccordingtoBirge,dowrywasan
importantpartofafamily’sintergenerationaltransferofwealth,particularlyduring
theSongDynasty,aperiodduringwhichdowryportionsforelitewomenincreased
insize95andgiftsofrealpropertywerenotuncommon.96
93Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.283.94Birge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina”,pg.580.95Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pp.214‐215.
42
ii) TheDaughter’sHalfShare
BernhardtandBirgealsodonotagreeonwhethertherewaseverahalf‐
sharerulefordaughtersduringtheSongDynasty.Bernhardtnotesthatthe
evidenceforthehalf‐sharelawcamefromonlytwocasesofasingleofficial97bothof
whichwerereportedintheCollectionofLucidDecisionsbyCelebratedJudges
(Minggongshupanqingmingji),acompendiumof473judgmentsfromtheSouthern
SonggenerallyreferredtoastheQingmingji.Inthecontextofalengthydiscussion
ofthesubstanceofthecasesthemselves,theirtreatmentwithintheQingmingji,and
thelikelyeffectsofsuchapracticeonthepoliticaleconomy,Bernhardtdismisses
themas“implausible,evenwithinthecontextoftheSouthernSong.”98Takinga
contraryview,Birgeassertsthatthehalf‐share“ruleisnotananomalywhenseenas
partofachangingdiscourseondowryintheSongandwithinlong‐term
developmentsinthedowryregimeinChina.”99
iii) TheWidow’sInheritanceRights
ThethirdareaofdisagreementbetweenBernhardtandBirgeiswhetherthe
sonlesswidowwasamerecustodianofherhusband’spropertyasBirgeasserts,ora
moreautonomousagentasmaintainedbyBernhardt.Thisportionofthedebate
96SeeBirge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina”,pg.596wheresheimpliesthatlandwascommonlyincludedinSongdowrieswiththestatementthat“DowriesaftertheSongrarelyincludedlandandwereneveragainaslargeonaverage.”97Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.281.98Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.290.99Birge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina”,pg.581.
43
focusesontheroleofwidowsinhouseholdsindangerofbecoming“extinct”.Ifthe
headsofthehouseholdbothdiedwithoutason,thenthehouseholdwouldbecome
anextincthousehold,ceasingtoexistasalineageandasataxunit.Generally
speaking,thisoutcomewasconsideredbothculturallyandadministratively
undesirable.Therewereanumberofoptionsopentohouseholdsatriskof
becomingextinct.Ahusbandcouldtakeonaconcubineinhopesthatshewould
producethedesiredson.(AmongHanChineseinimperialChinathesonsof
concubinesandthesonsofprincipalwivessharedequallyinfamilyproperty.)
Alternatively,thecouple(orthesurvivingspouseifonehaddied)couldadoptason
inwhatwillbereferredtoasapre‐mortemadoption.Finally,ifbothhusbandand
wifehaddiedwithoutason,ason’sson,orason’sson’sson,theclancouldadopta
sonontheirbehalfthroughwhatwillbereferredtoasapost‐mortemadoption.
Whethertheadoptionwaspre‐mortemorpost‐mortem,theadoptedsonhadtobe
oftheappropriategenerationandkinshipproximitytotheadoptingfather(whether
theadoptingfatherwaslivingordeceased)fortheadoptiontobeeffectivefor
inheritancepurposes.
DuringtheTangDynasty(618‐907CE)thestatemadenodistinction
betweenpre‐mortemandpost‐mortemadoptedsons;bothinheritedthesame
propertyinterestsasbiologicalsons,i.e.theentirefamilyestate.100TheSong
100Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.274.
44
Dynasty(960‐1279CE)createda“noveldistinction”101betweenpre‐mortemand
post‐mortemheirssuchthatonlythepre‐mortemheircouldinheritthefamily
estate.Thepost‐mortemheircouldonlyacquireafractionalinterestintheextinct
familyestate.Itisgenerallyagreedthatthepurposeofthisdistinctionbetweenpre‐
mortemandpost‐mortemheirswastoincreasethelikelihoodofstateconfiscation
oflandthatcouldberesoldorleasedinordertofeedthestatefisc,whichwas
continuallydrainedbyconflictandwar.AtissueisthedegreetowhichtheSong
state’sinterestinlandconfiscationtookpriorityoverthemoretraditionalConfucian
goaloftheChinesestatewhichwastoensurepatrilinealsuccession.Bernhardt
assertsthattheinterestinconfiscationcreatedaspaceforwidowstoinherittheir
husband’spropertyoutrightinconformitywiththestate’sgoalofultimately
confiscatingthepropertyandthatthis“expansioninthestate’sclaimonthe
propertyofextincthouseholds”wasthemostimportantchangeintheSong
Dynasty.102WhileBirgeagreesthatthe“hands‐offpolicyoftheSongstate
(comparedtolaterdynasties)gavewidowsconsiderablefreedom”,shedeniesthat
thisfreedomencompassedinheritanceoutrightorthatitwasamanifestationofa
lackofinterestinpatrilinealsuccessiononthepartofthestate.103Birgeconcludes
that“widowsweremeanttohavecustodialpowersoverfamilypropertytopreserve
itforapatrilinealheir.Thelogicofthelawmayhavebeenunchangedinimperial
times,butthislogicintersecteddifferentlywiththeprioritiesandpowerofeach
101Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.274.102Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.275.103Birge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina”,pg.590.
45
dynasticstate,Song,Yuan,Ming,andQing.”104Insum,whereBirgeseesconsistency
inSongpoliciesinsupportofthepatrilineallineagesystemincomparisonwith
precedingandsucceedingdynasties,Bernhardtseedifferentiationbasedonthe
specificfiscalneedsoftheSongstate.
*‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐*
NotsubjecttocontestationbyBirgeisBernhardt’spositionthatthe
reductionintherightsofthepost‐mortemheircameasabenefitnotonlytothe
state,butalsotoanydaughtersleftintheextincthousehold.Thefractiontobe
receivedbythepost‐mortemheirdependedonwhetherthereweredaughters
presentandwhetherthosedaughterswereunmarried,marriedor“returned”.105
Forexample,iftherewereapost‐mortemheirandoneormoreunmarried
daughter(s),theunmarrieddaughter(s)wouldtake¾oftheestate,whilethepost‐
mortemheirreceived1/4.Inthissituationthestatereceivednothing.Iftherewere
apost‐mortemheirincombinationwithoneormoremarrieddaughter(s),the
daughter(s)wouldreceive1/3,thepost‐mortemheir1/3andthestate1/3;this
wasthegreatestportionapost‐mortemheircouldreceive,anditwastheamounthe
receivedwheneithertherewerenodaughters,ortheonlydaughtersinexistence
weremarried.(Iftherewereonlyunmarrieddaughter(s)(oracombinationof
104Birge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina”,pg.590.105Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.274.OnthispageBernhardtpresentsaninterestingchartonthe“DistributionofExtinctHouseholdPropertyintheSouthernSong”.
46
unmarriedandreturneddaughters)ofanextincthousehold,thesedaughterswere
entitledtoallofthepropertybelongingtotheextincthousehold.106)
Differentiatingbetweendaughtersbasedontheirmaritalstatuswasanother
SongDynastyinnovation.DuringtheTangDynastythepresenceofdaughters,
whethermarriedorunmarried,preventedpropertyfrombeingconfiscatedbythe
state.Whilethepositionofalldaughterswasstrengthenedvisavisthepost‐
mortemheirundertheSongDynasty,thepositionofmarriedandreturned
daughterserodedvisavisthestate.
BernhardtandBirgealsoagreethatwidowshadgreatlatitudeinselectingan
heir,107thoughasdiscussedaboveBernhardtseesthisaspartofamuchgreater
autonomyaccordedawidowoverherhusband’sestateduringtheSong.108But
whetherornotBirge’saccountoftheimportanceofdowryinSongDynasty
successionsisaccepted,whetherornotSongdaughtersenjoyedashareofthe
familyestateequalto½oftheirbrothers’sharesasBirgemaintains,andwhetheror
notwidowsinheritedtheirhusband’ssharesoutrightasopposedtoascustodians
forthenextmalesuccessorasarguedbyBernhardt,itseemsclearfromboth
106Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.274.107Birge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina”,pg.590.108Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.48.
47
scholars’accountsoftheYuan‐Mingtransitionthatnoneoftheseadvantagesto
womensurvivedthechangeswroughtbytheYuanandMingDynasties.109
TheYuanDynasty(1271‐1368),foundedbytheMongolsoffthenorthern
steppes,wasaforeigndynastyadministeredinaccordancewithmanycustomsand
practicesalientotraditionalChinesecultureandsocietyassuchcustomsand
practiceshadexistedduringtheTangandSong.110Birge’sdiscussionofthe
changeswroughtbyYuanruledemonstrateshowthepriorityoftheYuan
government,i.e.“topreserveeveryhouseholdintactinordertomobilizesufficient
numbersofmenformilitaryandothercorveeservice”,resultedinadeteriorationof
thepositionofwomeninrelationtotheiropportunitiestosucceedtoandcontrol
property.111
Adaughter’sinheritancerightswerediminishedbyatleastthree
developmentsduringtheYuanDynasty.First,thedistinctionbetweenpre‐mortem
andpost‐mortemheirsdidnotsurvivetheSongDynasty,112sothatapost‐mortem
heir,i.e.anheirselectedbytheclanafterthepassingoftheheadofthehousehold
andhiswife,succeededtothefamilyestateratherthananysurvivingdaughters,
whethermarriedorunmarried.Iftheclandidnotappointapost‐mortemheirfor
109SeeBirge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pp.218‐219;andKathrynBernhardt,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.297.110Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pp.218‐221.111Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.218.112Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”,pg.297.
48
anextincthousehold,daughtersstillhaddifficultyclaimingtheestateduetothe
seconddevelopmentwhichwasthatforthefirsttimeinthehistoryofimperial
Chinadaughtersinextincthouseholdscouldnotinherittheirfather’sestatesunless
they“invitedinauxorilocalhusbandwhocouldrescuethehouseholdfrom
extinctionandassumeitsexistingmilitaryserviceandothertaxandcorvee
obligations.”113Evenwhenadaughterinvitedinahusbandtopreservethefamily
estate,thepropertydidnotgotothedaughter,buttotheuxorilocalhusband.114
Finally,thereisnoevidencethatanyrulewhichgaveadaughterashareofthe
familyestateequalto½thatofherbrothersurvivedintotheYuanDynasty.115
Thepositionofwidowssufferedasimilardeteriorationwith,forexample,the
introductionoftheMongolcustomofleviratemarriage,acustomthathadbeen
anathematotheChinesepriortotheYuan.Inaleviratemarriageaspracticedby
theMongolsayoungermalerelativeofawidow’sdeceasedhusbandinheritedthe
widow.116ThispracticebecamelegalforChinesepursuanttoadeclarationby
KhubilaiKhaninJanuary1272.Thelegalizationoftheleviratemarriageenabledan
eligiblelevirto“takeoverawidow’sestateandusurpherauthoritybymarrying
113Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.218.114Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.218.115Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.219.116Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.225.
49
her.”117Althoughtheplightofthewidoweasedsomewhatin1276whenYuanlaw
wasrevisedtoallow“widowstoresistlevirateunionsbystayingchasteandnot
marryingatall”,118andagainin1330whentheYuanoutlawedthelevirateforall
Chinese,119accordingtoBirge’snarrativethedamagetothewidow’sauthorityhad
beendone.
Thesubordinationofwomen’ssuccessionrightsduringtheYuancreatedan
opportunityforadvocatesofConfucianism.InthewaningdaysoftheYuanandthe
riseoftheMing,Neo‐Confucianistsinvokedamythicalpast,atimeofapure
patrilinealsuccession.Capitalizingonwomen’ssubordinatedstatusundertheYuan,
proponentsofConfucianismduringthelateYuanandearlyMingsuccessfully
advocatedfortheinstitutionofanewlegalregime,onewhichassertedthelegaland
culturalauthorityofpatrilinealdescentinlinewithConfucianidealssothat"in
mattersofinheritance,MinglawcanbeseentofollowneatlyfromYuanprecedent
whilealsoconspicuouslyincorporatingDaoxueidealsandsupportforlineages.”120
Someaspectsofthisnewlegalregime,suchastherestorationofthestatusof
thepost‐mortemheir,canbeseenasareturntoTanglaw.Otheraspectswere
unprecedented,suchasthetransformationfromamoralobligationtoalegal
117Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.227.118Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.227.119Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.229.120Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.220.
50
obligationofthenecessityofappointinganheirforahouseholdindangerof
becomingextinct.Thislatterdevelopmentcoupledwiththeadoptionof“mandatory
nephewsuccession”121notonlymadeitunlikelyforadaughtertoinheritthefamily
estate,italsoseverelycurtailedthewidow’sdiscretionontheselectionofanheir.
“Thisshifttowardpatrilinealityandthelossofpropertyrightsforwomencontinued
intotheQing.”122
Inthecontextofthisascendantpatrilinealitythereweretwobrightspotsfor
thewomenoflateMingandQingChina.Onewastheimprovementinthestatusof
theconcubine.Bernhardtdescribestheconcubine’stransformationasoneinwhich
sheiselevatedfrom“littlemorethanasexualservanttoakindofminorwife.”123
AlthoughtheconcubineremainedsubservienttothewifethroughouttheQing,ifthe
wifepredeceasedherhusband,thenuponthehusband’sdeathifhediedwithout
sons,itbecamepossibleforaconcubinetoobtaincustodyofhispropertyandto
designatehisheir.124
Theotherbrightspotwastheincreaseinthepowerofthechastewidowto
selecttheheirofherchoiceafteraperiodofrestrictedauthorityintheearlyMing.
WhereSonglawhadpermittedawidowwithoutsonssomuchlatitudeinhandling
thefamilyestatethatshecouldbequeathpropertytoothersthroughawillsolong
121Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.47.122Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”,pg.221.123Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.161.124Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.161.
51
asthebeneficiarieswereabovethefifthdegreeofmourning,125in1369anearly
Minglawdecreedthatawidowwasobligatedtoselectanephewoftheappropriate
generationasheir.Furthermore,inselectingthisheirshewasrequiredtoobtain
theconsentofthelineagehead,thusseverelycurtailingthewidow’sdiscretionin
theselection.126Theordinancewentsofarastocreateinthenephewsmostclosely
relatedtothedeceasedalegalclaimtothesuccession,andthroughittothe
underlyingproperty.127Itwasthisregimeofcompulsorynephewadoptionthatthe
cultofthechastewidowalteredbyreturningsomediscretiontowidowswho
agreedtoremainchasteafterthedeathoftheirhusbands.Initially,themoveto
providechastewidowswithmoreauthorityintheselectionofanheircamethrough
legalpracticeasreflectedinjudicialdigests,asopposedtothroughchangesto
codifiedlaw.Onlyinthe1770’swascodifiedlawchangedtogivetosuccession
basedonaffectionthesamelegalstandingaccordedtosuccessionbasedonlineage
order.128
Thus,ontheeveoftheestablishmentoftheBritishcoloniesofSingaporeand
HongKongintheNineteenthCentury,amongHanChinesetheessentialfeaturesof
theTangDynastyinheritancesystemremainedintact:129
1. Familypropertywasinheritedequallyamongbrothers;
125Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.17.126Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pp.62‐63.127Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.64.128Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.71.129Wakefield,David,Fenjia:HouseholdDivisionandInheritanceinQingandRepublicanChina,pg.12.
52
2. Ifonebrotherdiedbeforethehouseholddivision,hissonstookhis
sharetobedividedequallyamongthemselves,i.e.perstirpes;
3. Sonswhowereunmarriedatthetimeofhouseholddivisionreceived
extrapropertytocovertheirmarriageexpenses;
4. Thedowrypropertyofasister‐in‐lawwasnotincludedinthe
propertytobedividedamongthebrothers;and
5. Awidowwithoutasonreceivedherhusband’sshareoftheproperty.
Aspertainstotheinheritancerightsofwomen,variationsintheChinese
inheritancesystemoccurredovertimewithintheparametersofthesebasicrules,so
thatbytheNineteenthCenturythefollowingadditionalattributeswereaddedto
thislistofHanChineseinheritancepractices:
1. Awidowwithoutsonswasrequiredtoadoptanheiroftheappropriate
generationandlineage,thoughshehadsomediscretionintheselection
ofthisheir;
2. Thesurvivingconcubineofamanwithoutsonswhodiedhavingbeen
predeceasedbyhiswife,ifsheremainedchaste,couldreceivethefamily
estateincustodyforthenextmaleheir,andwithsuchpropertythe
discretiontoselecttheheir,aslongasherselectionwasofthe
appropriategenerationandlineage;and
3. Ifbothhusbandandwifediedwithoutasonandtherewasnoeligible
concubine,thelineagewouldselectanheiroftheappropriategeneration
53
andlineage;thisheir,thoughadoptedpost‐mortem,hadthesamerights
tothefamilyestateasabiologicalsonorasonwhowasadoptedpre‐
mortem.
InthisConfucianpatrilinealschemeadaughterhadlittlechanceofinheritingany
familyproperty,thoughshemayhavereceivedadowryatthediscretionofhermale
kin.Insum,women’spropertyinterestsinthelateQingDynastyexistedonlyinthe
intersticesofafirmlypatrilineal/patriarchalsystemofsuccession.
C. TheInheritanceRightsofWomenunderShari’aLaw
TheIslamiclawofinheritanceisoftenthoughtofinitsnarrowsensewhichis
tothinkofitasthe“scienceoftheshares”or‘ilmalfara’id.Thisistheintricatelaw
whichdeterminesthedistributionofapropositus’propertyatdeath.Althoughthis
lawisfoundeduponanumberofQur’anicverses,ithasevolved,nevertheless,into
substantivelyseparatebodiesoflawfortheSunniandtheShi’i,withfurther
divisionswithineachsect.130Ascomprehensiveasthesebodiesoflaware,theyare
butpartoftheIslamicinheritancesystem.
i)TheScienceoftheShares
Thejurisprudenceofthescienceoftheshares,likealloftheShari’a,evolved
througha“processofdiscoveryofAllah’slaw”131,aprocesswhichrequired
“speculativereasoningonthepartofscholar‐jurists.”132Buildinguponthedivine
130Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pp.4‐5.131Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pg.4.132Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pg.4.
54
revelationembodiedintheQur’an,andtheSunnaoftheProphetMuhammad,yet
dividedbyfundamentaltheologicaldifferencesandapluralityoflocalsocial
standardsandpractices,thescholar‐juristsproducedwhathavecometobe
recognizedasatleasteightseparateversionsoftheShari’a.133Thesedivisionsare
reflectedinthescienceofthesharessothatinordertoascertainthedistributionof
apropositus’propertyatdeathonemustknowwhethertheproposituswasaSunni
oraShi’iandifaSunniwhetherheorshewasafolloweroftheHanafi,Maliki,Shafi’i
orHanbaliSchool.Shi’iaredividedintothreedistinctbranches,theIthna‘Asharis,
Isma’ilisandZaidis.134Asreflectedinthesedivisions,“diversityofdoctrineisthe
essenceoftraditionalShari’alaw.”135
Traditionally,theShari’a“representedacomplexsetofsocial,economic,
cultural,andmoralrelationsthatpermeatedtheepistemicstructuresofthesocial
andpoliticalorders”136inawayalientoamodernaudience.Unlikemodernlaw
whichisimposedonapopulationbyacentralized,bureaucratized,homogenized
state,theShari’a“originatedfrom,andcultivateditselfwithin,theverysocialorder
whichitcametoserveinthefirstplace.”137Cultivatedwithinthesocialorderby
respectedjurists,theShari’adevelopedanauthorityautonomousfromthe
“political‐executive”powersofthestate.138
133Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pg.4.134Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pg.5.135Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pg.5.136Hallaq,“WhatisShari’a?”,pg.155.137Hallaq,“WhatisShari’a?”,pg.156.138Hallaq,“JuristicAuthorityvs.StatePower”,pg.251.
55
ThisdescriptionofasociallyandculturallyembeddedShari’aaptlycaptures
thestatusofShari’alawinSouthandSouth‐EastAsiapriortocolonization.Ineach
regionfollowersoftheMuslimfaithhadintegratedthisfaithwithlocaltraditions
andcustoms.Theinfluenceofthesedisparatelocalcustomsontheimplementation
ofShari’alawineachlocaleresultedinapluralityofinheritancepractices.These
inheritancepractices,whichincludedmatrilinealandpatrilineal,aswellasbilateral
succession,meantthatthestatusofMuslimwomenacrossSouthandSouth‐East
Asiavariedbyregion.Thus,whilethissectioncommenceswithageneraldiscussion
oftheprinciplesofIslamicsuccession,itwillconcludewithanexaminationofhow
theseprinciplesweremanifestwithinthesocietiesofSouthandSouth‐EastAsia.
GiventheorganiccontextualizingoftheShari’aineachlocality,thediversity
ofschools,andtheexquisitedetailwithwhichthescienceoftheshareshasbeen
workedoutineach,acomprehensiveelaborationonthisjurisprudenceiswell
beyondthescopeofthiswork.Nevertheless,asmallsamplingofthefundamental
rulesisnecessarytoappreciatethebasicattributesofthisjurisprudence.Asthe
SunniHanafiSchoolismostprevalentinSouthAsia,139andtheSunniShafi’imost
prevalentamongtheMalayofSouth‐EastAsia,140preferenceisgiventothese
interpretations.
139Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pg.5.140Hooker,M.B.,IslamicLawinSouth‐EastAsia,pg.3.
56
ThetestamentaryfreedomaffordedaMuslimtestatorisgenerallylimitedto
1/3ofhisorherestate,thoughthisrule,likemostrules,ismodulatedby
contingenciesandexceptions:
Sunni(HanafiandShafi’i)Rule:abequestwhichdistributesgreaterthan1/3of
thenetestateisultraviresandthereforerequiresagreementtothedistribution
bytheheirsafterthedeathofthepropositus.141
Shi’i(Ithna‘Ashari)Rule:adistributionofgreaterthan1/3ofthenetestateis
similarlyultravires,howeverconsentoftheheirscanbeobtainedeitherbefore
orafterthedeathofthepropositus.142
Sunni(HanafiandShafi’i)Rule:abequest(withinthebequeathable1/3)toan
heirisultraviresandthereforeineffectivewithoutthepost‐mortemconsentof
theotherheirs.143
Shi’i(Ithna‘Ashari)Rule:abequest(withinthebequeathable1/3)canbemade
toanheir.144
141RegardingHanafilawseePearl,ATextbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,pp.142‐146;regardingShafi’IlawseeAhmadIbrahim,TheDistributionofEstatesAccordingtoShafi’iLaw,pg.15.142Pearl,ATextbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,pp.145‐146.143FortheHanafiruleseePearl,ATextbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,pp.145‐146;fortheShafi’IruleseeAhmadIbrahim,TheDistributionofEstatesAccordingtoShafi’iLaw,pg.19.
57
Theremaining2/3oftheestateofthepropositus(orallifheorshedied
intestate)istobedividedintofixedfractionalpartsamonghisorherheirs.Coulson
dividestheseheirsintotwocategories,the“innerfamily”andthe“outerfamily”,the
innerfamilybeingallthemaleagnatesandalltherelativesspecificallynominated
bytheQur’an(i.e.theQur’anicheirs),the“outerfamily”beingeveryoneelse.145
UnderSunnilawtherearetwelveQur’anicheirs:146
(1) Husband.
(2) Wife.
(3) Father.
(4) TrueGrandfather[amaleancestorbetweenwhomandthepropositusno
femaleintervenes,i.e.apaternalgrandfather]
(5) Mother.
(6) TrueGrandmother[afemaleancestorbetweenwhomandthepropositus
nofalsegrandfatherintervenes–notethatboththematernaland
paternalgrandmothercaninheritunderthisdefinition]
(7) Daughter.
(8) Son’sdaughter(howeverlow)147.
(9) Fullsister..
144Pearl,ATextbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,pp.145‐146.145Coulson,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,pg.31.146Pearl,ATexbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,pp.149‐150.147Notethattheson’sdaughterisaQur’anicheir,i.e.innerfamily,whereasthedaughter’sdaughterisouterfamily.
58
(10) Consanguinesister.(childrenofthesamefather,butdifferent
mothers)
(11) Uterinebrother.(childrenofthesamemother,butdifferentfathers)
(12) Uterinesister.
Qur’anicheirsmayreceiveafractionoftheestatedependinguponwhat
otherrelationshavesurvivedthepropositus.Onegeneralruleisthatthenearer
excludesthemoreremote.148Anothergeneralrule,theonemostpertinenttothis
project,isthattoamalegoesaportionequaltotwofemaleswhenthepartiesare
similarlysituatedinrelationtothepropositus.149Thus,ifamandiesintestate
leavingawife,asonandadaughter,thewifewillreceive1/8oftheestate,theson
7/12andthedaughter7/24.Ifthismanhaddiedleavingmorethanonewife,the
survivingwiveswouldhavesharedthe1/8.150However,ifawomandiesintestate
survivedbyherhusband,asonandadaughter,thehusbandreceives¼,theson½,
andthedaughter¼.151Thesespecificproportionsarecontingentonthespecific
constellationofsurvivors,butthetwotooneprinciple,especiallyasrelatesto
brothersandsisters,remainsthesame.
Asimpliedabove,thescienceofthesharesinvolvesthecompulsorydivision
ofthepropositus’property,bothrealandpersonal,immovableandmovable,into
148Carroll,“OrphanedGrandchildreninIslamicLawofSuccession,”pg.415.149Pearl,ATextbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,pg.149.150SeeWithers‐Payne,C.H.,TheMahomedanLawofInheritanceAccordingtotheSchoolofShafi’i,AppendixI,footnote(a).151Thesesharesarecalculatedinaccordancewiththe“TableofSuccessionAccordingtotheShafi’iSchoolofLaw”providedinTheDistributionofEstatesAccordingtoShafi’iLawbyProfessorAhmadIbrahim.
59
whatmaybenumerousfractionalparts.Thisisthesystemthatwasinplacefrom
aroundthesecondcenturyA.H.Thus,inPower’swordsMuslims“foundthemselves
burdenedbyasystemofinheritancethatnotonlyseverelyconstrainedthefreedom
oftheindividualtodeterminetheultimatedevolutionofhisproperty,butalso
resultedintheinevitablefragmentationofproperty.”152
ii)GiftsandEndowments
Intothisrestrictivesystemofinheritancethejurists,throughinterpretations
oftheHadith,153introducedthedoctrineofhibaorgift,andthedoctrineofwaqfor
endowment.154Whileaproposituswaslimitedtothetestamentary(includingdeath
bed)dispositionofonly1/3ofhisorherestate,theproposituswasand
(generally)155is“legallyfreetodisposeofhispropertyinanywayheseesfitpriorto
hisfinaldeathsickness.Islamiclawplacesnolimitationswhatsoeveruponthe
amountofpropertythatapersonmayalienateduringhislifetime,whetherinfavor
ofhiseventualheirsoranyoneelse.”156
Awaqf,likeagift,requiresthepermanentandirrevocablededicationofthe
subjectproperty.157Amongtheessentialrequirementsofawaqfarethefollowing:
152Powers,TheIslamicInheritanceSystem,pg.21.153Pearl,ATextonMuslimPersonalLaw,pg.189.154Powers,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem”,pg.21.155Thisqualificationreflectsthediminishedavailabilityorutilityofgiftstoawaqfasisdiscussedbelow.156Powers,“TheIslamicinheritanceSystem”,pg.21;onpage22Powersqualifiesthisbystatingthatthedonormaynotfavoronechildoveranother.157ThatawaqfisirrevocablefromthemomentofdeclarationisthemajorityviewwithinHanafilaw.MalikijuristsandaminoritywithintheHanafischoolpermit
60
• Thatthesubjectoftheendowmentbeofapermanentandtangiblenature
andyieldausufruct;
• ThattheobjectofthewaqfbepleasingtoAllah;
• Thatthewaqfbecreatedinperpetuity;and
• Thatthewaqfbeinalienable.158
FulfillmentoftherequirementthatthewaqfbepleasingtoAllahdidnot
requirethattheimmediatebeneficiaryofthewaqfbeapubliccharity;rather,the
waqiforsettlorcouldmakehisorherfamily,childrenordescendantstheinitial
beneficiariesofthewaqf,withthecharityasasecondaryorremainder
beneficiary.159Theadvantageofthiskindoffamilyendowmentisthatit“provideda
proprietorwithalegalmeanstoremoveallorpartofthepatrimonyfromtheeffects
oftheIslamiclawofinheritance…andenabledtheproprietortoestablishalineal
descentgroupwithexclusiveusufructoryrightstotheendowmentrevenues…”160
Powersnotesthatthiscircumventionoftherequirementsofthescienceofthe
shareswascontroversialamongearlyMuslimjurists,butfindsthatthiscontroversy
wasresolvedinfavorofthewaqf.161Powersconcludesthat“whateverthe
argumentsforandagainsttheinstitution,therecanbenodenyingthefactthatthe
revocationuntilthewaqfisconfirmedbyaqadi.SeePearl,ATextonMuslimPersonalLaw,pg.197.158Pearl,ATextonMuslimPersonalLaw,pp.195‐197.159Pearl,ATextonMuslimPersonalLaw,pg.195.160Powers,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem”,pg.23.161Powers,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem”,pg.23.
61
overwhelmingmajorityofMuslimjuristsbelongingtoallfourschoolsoflaw
approvedoftheinstitution,whichbecameanintegralpartofIslamicLaw.”162
Kozlowskialsodemonstratesthatawqaf(pluralofwaqf)wereusedpriorto
thenineteenthcenturyC.E.tofulfillbothpersonalandpublicobjectives.Henotes
thatMuslimsfoundthepromiseofstabilityandcontinuityofferedbythewaqf
(howeverephemeral)tobeattractivefordealingwithland.163Morespecifically,
KozlowskifindswaqftobeafavoredpoliticalandreligioustoolamongMuslim
rulersinIndiadatingfromthetwelfthcenturyA.D.on.164
Thus,themodusoperandiforthetransmissionofpropertyatasuccession
“throughouttheMuslimworld…fromtheninthtothenineteenthcenturiesA.D.”165
wasthroughanIslamicInheritanceSystemembeddedwithinanorganically
cultivated,discursiveShari’a;thissociallyengagedSystemwasonewherebya
proposituscouldtransferhisorherpropertybyintervivosgifttoindividuals,could
transferrevenue‐producingpropertytoawaqfforthebenefitoffamilyorcharity,
andcouldmakeatestamentarytransferofupto1/3ofthebalanceoftheestate,if
any,tothebeneficiariesofhisorherchoice(solongassuchbeneficiarieswerenot
heirs).Everythingelse–whichmayhavebeennothing–waslefttopostmortem
divisionthroughthescienceoftheshares.
iii)MuslimInheritanceSystemsinCulturalContext:OfIslamandAdat
162Powers,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem”,pg.24.163Kozlowski,MuslimEndowmentsandSocietyinBritishIndia,pg.17.164Kozlowski,MuslimEndowmentsandSocietyinBritishIndia,pg.22.165Powers,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem”,pg.25.
62
SocialengagementinSouthandSouth‐EastAsiaoftenmeantincorporating
someoftheattributesofthelocalculturesintothefabricofIslamiclawandpractice.
Intherealmofinheritancelawtheseincorporationssometimesworkedtothe
benefitandsometimestothedetrimentofwomen,dependingontheattributesof
theculturesaroundthem.Thus,throughoutmuchofIndiaMuslimsadoptedthe
patrilinealcustomsofthelocalHindus,restrictingwomen’sinheritancerightsso
that,forexample,“widowscouldonlyinheritthehusband’sancestrallanded
propertyintheabsenceofsons,andonlyasalifeinterest.”166However,inpartsof
southwestIndiawheresomeofthelocalHinducommunitiespracticedmatrilineal
descent,localMuslimsadoptedthispracticeaswellsothatinthosecommunities
women“inheritedlandedpropertytowhichmenhaduserights.”167
AsimilarprocessofadaptationtranspiredinSouth‐EastAsiawhereIslam
becameentwinedwithlocalcustomsor“adat”.Theword“adat”comesfromthe
Arabword‘adat,“meaningculture,refinement,propriety,humanity”;it“refersto
thetotalconstellationofconcepts,rulesandcodesofbehaviorwhichareconceived
aslegitimateorright,appropriateornecessary”.168IntheMalaycontext“adat
prescribescodesofethicsandbehaviorinarangeofdifferentsocialcircumstances
orsituationsaffectingindividualsorgroups.”169
166Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.98.167Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.98.168Karim,WazirJahan,WomenandCulture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslam,pg.14.169Karim,WazirJahan,WomenandCulture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslam,pg.14.
63
Astheintentofthissectionistoassesstheinheritancerightsofwomenin
pre‐colonialsocietyamongtheIslamicpopulationofSingapore,itisimportantto
notethatasoftheyear200013.9percentofthepopulationofSingaporewere
Malay;170oftheseMalay,99.6percentwerefollowersofIslam.171Thetotal
percentageofMuslimsinSingaporein2000was14.9percent.172Fromthese
statisticsitisclearthatthevastmajorityofMuslimsinSingaporeareMalay.Thus,
thefollowingdiscussionfocusesontheMalayheritageofthispopulation.
InthecontextofMalayinheritancepracticespriortocolonizationbythe
British,“whohadimposedtheircolonialpresenceinNegeriSembilanand
neighboringMalaystatesbythefinalquarterofthenineteenthcentrury”,173there
wasnounifiedadatorcustomarypractice.Instead,byregionandovertimethe
Malayadatincludedpatrilineal,matrilinealandbilateralpractices,174allofwhich
co‐existedwiththeIslamicfaithofthemajorityoftheMalaypeoples.Generally,
scholarsofMalayadathavedividedadatsystemsintotwotypes,theadatperpateh
andtheadattemenggong.M.B.Hookerdefinesadatperpatehas“thesystemoflaw
foundprimarilyinNegriSembilanandpartsofMalaccawhichassumesa(kinship)
principleofmatriliny.”175Hookergoesontostatethattheadatperpatehis“now
170SawSwee‐Hock,ThePopulationofSingapore,pg.29.171SawSwee‐Hock,ThePopulationofSingapore,pg.42.172SawSwee‐Hock,ThePopulationofSingapore,pg.42.173Peletz,MichaelG.,SocialHistoryandEvolutionintheInterrelationshipofAdatandIslaminRembau,NegeriSembilan,pg.1.174Karim,WazirJahan,WomenandCulture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslam,pg.12.175Hooker,M.B.,“GlossaryofMalayTerms”,ReadingsinMalayAdatLaws,pg.xi.
64
confinedtofamilylawandthelawrelatingtolandownershipanddevolution.”176
Whileadatperpatehwasamorecomprehensivelegalsystempriortocolonization
afterwhichcertainaspectsofitsdomainweresupplantedbyforeignlaw,itis
interestingtonotethatitsinheritancepracticessurvivedintothemodernera.
Evidencesuggeststhatsometimearoundthe1500sIndonesianimmigrants
whoweremostlyfromtheMinangkabauclanfromcentralSumatranavigatedacross
theStraitsofMalaccaanduptheLinggiandRembauriverstofoundnew
settlements.177Withthemtheybroughttheirmatrilinealsociety,whichhascometo
beknownasadatperpateh.AccordingtoAzizahKassimtherearesixbasic
principlesofadatperpateh.Thesebasicprinciplesareasfollows:1)thatdescentis
tracedthroughthefemaleline;2)thatthesocietyisdividedintotwelveclanseach
ofwhichisfurtherdividedintolineages;3)thatancestrallandisregisteredtoand
transmittedthroughitsfemalememberswithmalemembershavingusufructory
rightsovertheland;4)thateachclanandlineagepracticesexogamy;5)that
transmissionoftitlesandstatusisthroughthefemaleline;and6)thatresidenceis
matrilocaloruxorilocal.178AswiththematrilinealsystemsinSouthAsia,
matrilinealitydidnotmeangender‐equalityassupra‐householdactivitiesinthe
176Hooker,M.B.,“GlossaryofMalayTerms”,ReadingsinMalayAdatLaws,pg.xi.177SeeMichaelG.Peltz,SocialHistoryandEvolutionintheInterrelationshipofAdatandIslaminRembau,NegeriSembilan,pg.4;andAbdullaAzmibinAbdulKhalid,“HistoricalDevelopmentoftheMatrilinealStateofNegeriSembilan”inAdatPerpatih:AMatrilinealSysteminNegeriSembilan,MalaysiaandOtherMatrilinealKinshipSystemsThroughouttheWorld,editedbyNellieS.L.Tan‐WongandVipinPatel,pg.5.178Kassim,Azizah,“WomeninAdatPerpatihSociety”,inAdatPerpatih:AMatrilinealSysteminNegeriSembilan,MalaysiaandOtherMatrilinealKinshipSystemsThroughouttheWorld,editedbyNellieS.L.Tan‐WongandVipinPatel,pg.28.
65
politicalrealmremainedthedomainofmen,whilehouseholdeconomicactivities
remainedthedomainofwomen.179Nevertheless,thematrilinealsystemmeant
greateconomicautonomyforwomen.Althoughtechnicalownershipofthe
propertywasvestedintheclan,womenwerethedefactoownersandprincipal
cultivatorsofhomesteadplotsandricefields.“Sinceadultwomenobtainedgoods
andservicesfromtheirbrothersandfemalekinandusuallyheldenoughcultivable
ricelandtosatisfytheirhouseholds’subsistenceneeds,theirhusbands’
contributionstothedomesticcoffers–forestproduce,commercialitems,and/or
cash–werenotusuallyofvitaleconomicimportance.”180Thiseconomicautonomy
meantthatwomenintheadatperpatehsystemwerelessvulnerableintheeventof
deathordivorce.
Hookerdefinesadattemenggongas“atermusedtodescribeanyadatwhich
isnotadatperpateh”andheassertsthatit“impliestheexistenceofabilateral
kinshipsystem.”181Ontheotherhand,NoorAishaAbdulRahmanstatesthatthe
termisusedtodesignatethecustomsofMalaystatesotherthanNegriSimbilanand
thattheseMalaystateswereorganizedonpatrilineallines.182Incombinationthese
definitionssuggestthatadattemenggongincludedbothbilateralandpatrilineal
succession.
179Kassim,Azizah,“WomeninAdatPerpatihSociety”,inAdatPerpatih:AMatrilinealSysteminNegeriSembilan,MalaysiaandOtherMatrilinealKinshipSystemsThroughouttheWorld,editedbyNellieS.L.Tan‐WongandVipinPatel,pg.29.180Peltz,MichaelG.,SocialHistoryandEvolutionintheInterrelationshipofAdatandIslaminRembau,NegeriSembilan,pg.4181Hooker,M.B.,“GlossaryofMalayTerms”,ReadingsinMalayAdatLaws,pg.xi.182Rahman,NoorAishaAbdul,ColonialImageofMalayAdatLaws,pg.12.
66
Theeaseoftheco‐existenceofIslamandMalayadat,bothhistoricallyandin
thepresent,hasbeenandremainsacontroversialtopic.Forexample,Rahman
devotesherbookontheColonialImageofMalayAdatLaws:ACriticalAppraisalof
StudiesonAdatLawsintheMalayPeninsuladuringtheColonialEraandSome
Continuitiestoacritiqueofcolonialwriters;asignificantportionofhercriticismis
leveledagainstthose,suchasR.J.WilkinsonandE.N.Taylor,whopositedthatthere
wasconflictbetweenadatandIslam.ShequotesWilkinsonascallingthetwo
“absolutelyirreconcilable”.183ShedenouncesTaylor,whomsheidentifiesas“one
ofthemainexponentsofadatlawoninheritance”anda“prominentmemberofthe
coloniallegalservice”forarguingthatadatprinciplesgoverninginheritance
accordedwithpracticalwisdomandweremoresuitabletotheconditionofMalays.
RahmandisagreeswithTaylor’sassertionthatIslamiclaw,havingoriginatedfroma
differentsocialcontext,couldnotpracticallyservetheneedsoftheMalays.184
RahmanchargestheBritishcolonialwritersonMalayaofOrientalism,bias
againstIslam,aswellasignoranceifitslaws,historyandcustoms.More
contemporarywritersofMalayhistoriesandethnographies,suchasJosselinde
Jong,M.B.HookerandMichaelG.Peletz,aresimilarlycriticizedforholdingastatic
viewofIslam,forperceivingitasamonolithicfaithincapableofincorporatinglocal
adatwithoutviolatingitsownintegrity.Doubtless,manyofRahman’scriticismsare
183Rahman,NoorAishaAbdul,ColonialImageofMalayAdatLaws,pg.15,quotingR.J.Wilkinson’s“MohammedanLawinMalaya”,inPapersonMalaySubjects,Vol2,Pt.1,FMS,KualaLumpur:GovernmentPress,1908,pg.7.184Rahman,NoorAishaAbdul,ColonialImageofMalayAdatLaws,pg.17,citingE.N.Taylor,“MalayFamilyLaw”inJournalofMalayanBranch,RoyalAsiaticSociety,Vol.VX,Pt.1,1937,pp.4‐5.
67
wellplaced.HerpositionisthattheconflictisnotbetweenadatandIslam,but
betweendifferentvisionsofIslamitself,i.e.,that“Islamisunderstooddifferentlyby
differentgroupsofMalayMuslims.”185
ButwhereRahmanseesaharmonizationofadatandIslam,WazirJahan
Karim,anotherMalaywriterseekingtodispelthemisconceptionsofOrientalism
andEurocentrism,seesaninherenttensionbetweenIslamandadat;Karimseesthis
tensionasprovidingroomfortheleveragingofgenderpower.Accordingtoher
viewthegenderroleinterplaybetweenIslamandadatrendersthesociety
essentiallybilateral.Thus,intheintroductiontoherbookentitledWomenand
Culture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslamshestates:
ThewayinwhichadatandIslamintegrateandseparateoverdifferent
epochsinhistoryappearedtoexpressdifferencesinMalayconstructsof
gender.Generallyapatternseemedtoemerge.Inasmuchasthepower
ofMalaymenliesinIslamandlocalarticulationsofIslamandIslamic
thoughtvis‐à‐visadat,Malaywomen’shistoricalandcontemporaryvalue
islocatedinthebilateralityofadatwhich,withitsemphasisonseniority,
parenthood,reciprocityandproductivity,givesthemafairshareof
humanritualandresourcestoworkon.186
Affirmingthisinterplaylaterinthetext,shestates:
185Rahman,NoorAishaAbdul,ColonialImageofMalayAdatLaws,pp.111‐112.186Karim,WazirJahan,WomenandCulture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslam,pg.xiii.
68
Islamicritualizationandpublicpolicygenerallyenablementocommand
morepowerinformaldecision‐making,atthelevelofthevillageorstate.
However,theirabilitytodominatetheformaldomainsofsocialactivity
doesnotentirelysuggestsignificantorradicalseparationofpowers
betweenmenandwomen.Thisismainlybecauseawoman’srelative
inaccessibilitytorolesintheformalorpublicdomainsofactivityin
Islamicritualdoesnotnecessarilymakeher‘invisible’or‘marginal’.She
hasaccessofarangeofpublicroleswhichareimportantlyupheldby
adat.187
ThepresenceoftheadatalternativeintraditionalMalaysocietymeantthatthe
devolutionoflandandpropertydidnotautomaticallyfollowthescienceofthe
sharesprescribedbyIslamiclaw.Rather,underadatperpatah,property,
particularlyrealproperty,passedmatrilineallyandunderadattemenggong
propertydevolutionwasoftenbilateralasfinaldecisionswerefrequentlybasedon
customarynotionsofagreementresultinginequalopportunitiesforwomenand
mentoinheritproperty.188
D. Hindu,ChineseandIslamicCustomaryInheritanceSystemson
theEveofColonization
187Karim,WazirJahan,WomenandCulture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslam,pp.12‐13.188Karim,WazirJahan,WomenandCulture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslam,pg.5.
69
Ontheeveofcolonizationpatrilinealdevolutionofpropertywastheorderof
thedayformostHindusandHanChinese.Realproperty,i.e.themostvaluable
propertyintheselargelyagrariansocieties,generallybelongedtoafamilyunitwith
ownershipvestedinoneormoreofitsmalemembers.Thispropertywasdivided
equallyamongsonsatasuccessionwhichmayhavebeenbefore,atorlongafterthe
deathofthepatriarch.
Bilateralwithamalebias,theIslamicinheritancesystemwasmorefavorable
towardwomenthantheHinduandHanChineseinheritancesystems.Nevertheless,
theIslamicinheritancesystemoftenadapteditselftolocalcustoms;theresulting
customarypracticesfavoredwomeninplacessuchassouthwestIndiaandMalaya
whereeithermatrilinealorbilateralsuccessionwasthenorm,butdisfavored
womeninmuchoftherestofIndiawherethepatrilinealdevolutionofrealproperty
wasthedominantmodeformanyMuslims,aswellasformostHindus.
70
CHAPTERTHREE
BRITISHCOLONIALISMANDITSIMPACT
ONTHESTATUSOFWOMENUNDERTHEINHERITANCESYSTEMS
Stabilitythroughthepreservationofthestatusquowastheprimarygoalof
theBritishcolonizersintheiradministrationofthepersonallaws,i.e.thelaws
concerningmarriage,divorce,guardianship,adoptionandinheritance(alsoreferred
toassuccession).Stabilitythroughthepreservationofthecustomsofthe
inhabitantswastheprimarygoaleveninSingaporewheretheBritishsawfitto
imposeEnglishlawonalltheinhabitants,whetherEuropeanornot,“sofarasthe
severalreligions,mannersandcustomsoftheinhabitantswilladmit.”Yet,the
introductionofcommonlawjurisprudenceintoIndia,SingaporeandHongKong,
systemsofjusticewhichareusuallyadministeredbyEnglishjudges,renderedwhat
wasintendedasaconservativestructureintooneofprofoundchange.Thischapter
examinestheeffectsontheinheritancerightsofwomenoftheintroductionofthe
BritishCommonLawintojudicialspacesformerlyoccupiedbyindigenouslegal
systemswhichborefewsimilaritiestothejurisprudenceofthecolonizers.
A. Culture,CaseLawandtheQuestfortheAuthentic:TheBritish
LegacyinIndia
i) TheBritishDecisiontoAdministerIndigenousLaw
In1757theBritishEastIndiaCompanydefeatedtheforcesoftheNawabof
BengalattheBattleofPlassey.Withthisvictorycametherighttocollectrevenues
71
inBengal,BiharandOrissaonbehalfoftheMughalEmperor.Unfortunately,the
venalityofCompanyofficialsoncegiventhislicenseatleastexacerbated,ifitdidnot
infactcause,Bengal’sfamineof1769‐1770,acalamitywhichisestimatedtohave
ledtothedeathsofupto1/3ofthepopulationofBengal.189Notonlydidthe
corruptionofCompanyofficialswreakhavoconthepeoplesofBengal,theCompany
itselfwasonthevergeofruinwhentheBritishstateintervenedwiththeRegulating
Actof1773.ThisActprovidedforgreaterparliamentarycontrolovertheCompany
andplacedtheCompanyundertheruleofaGovernor‐General.WarrenHastings
becamethefirstGovernor‐GeneralofIndiapursuanttothepassageofthisAct.One
ofHastings’firstactswastoissuethedirectivequotedaboveinChapterTwo.This
directiverequiredthat:
Inallsuitsregardinginheritance,marriage,casteandotherreligious
usagesorinstitutions,thelawsoftheKoranwithrespecttothe
MohamedansandthoseoftheShasterwithrespecttotheGentoos
[Hindus]shallinvariablybeadheredto.190
Thisdirective,apparentlyintendedtopreservethestatusquoatleastinthe
substanceofthedesignatedareasofthelaw,insteadledtoprofoundsocial,political,
economicandreligious,aswellaslegalchanges,manyofwhichenduretothisday.
Hastings’directiveisthefoundationforwhathavebecomeknownasthe“personal
189Cohn,BernardS.,“LawandtheColonialStateinIndia”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge–TheBritishinIndia,pp.59‐60.190Fromthequoteappearingatpage26of“TheCommandofLanguageandtheLanguageofCommand”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge–TheBritishinIndiabyBernardS.Cohn,citingto“ReportsfromCommitteesoftheHouseofCommons…”1772‐17734:348‐50.
72
laws”,anareaofthelawmarkedasprivate,domesticandfamilialwhichthroughthe
directivebecamedesignatedasthebastionsofindigenoustraditionasdefinedby
HinduandMuslimreligiousauthorities.Itisthereforeunsurprisingthatsucha
pivotaldirectivehasbeenthesubjectofmuchscholarlyanalysis.BecauseHastings
andotherBritishcolonizersconsideredinheritancelawanimportanttopicintheir
plantoenforceindigenouslaw,thissectiontapsintothisscholarlydiscourseto
evaluatetheaccuracyandimpactofHastings’assumptionsinlightofcurrent
scholarship.
BeforecommencingtheanalysisofHastings’directivethatfollows,thereare
twoimportantpointstobearinmindregardingitsimplementation.First,the
preservationofthesubstanceoftheseareasoflawdidnotatthetimeofthe
directiveconceiveofthepreservationoftheprocedurefordeterminingthelaw.
Sincesubstanceandprocedurearelinkedinextricablyinlaw,theirseparationalone
usheredinvastchangestoboththenatureofIndianjurisprudence,aswellasthe
substanceofthelawasitappliedtoIndia’scolonizedpeoples.Thesecondpoint
regardingtheimplementationofHastings’directiveisthatthecolonizersdidnot,in
fact,alwaysadheretothelawsoftheQur’anandthe“Shasters”,evenastheyin
conjunctionwiththeselectedMuslimmaulavis/qadisandtheHindupundits
definedthoselaws.Effortsweremadeatsocialreform;intheearlyyearsof
Companyadministrationtheseeffortsfocusedonsatiandfemaleinfanticide,but
cameintimetoinclude,throughtheinterconnectionoftheseissues,actsthat
affectedtheinheritancerightsofwomen.Theeffectsoftheseforaysintothesocial
73
realmwerebynomeansuniformlypositiveforwomen,norweretheyintendedto
be,aswillbediscussedbelow.191
OneofthefirstquestionsraisedinareadingofHasting’sdirectiveishowhe
selectedthetopicstobegovernedbyHinduandMuslimlaw.Whywere
“inheritance,marriage,caste,andotherreligioususagesorinstitutions”tobe
governedbyindigenoussectarianlawswhileothertopicswereleftopentothe
implementationofforeignlaws?Derrettseestwoforcesatworkinthisdecision:
“theinfluenceofthelocaljuristsontheCompany’srepresentatives,andthe
predispositionsorprejudicesofthelatter”.192Localjuristsbelievedthatonmatters
ofcasteandotherreligioustopicspunditsandmaulaviswouldneedtobeconsulted.
Furthermore,thisarrayoftopicsinEnglandwas“withintheexclusivejurisdictionof
theBishops’courts,andthelawwasecclesiasticallaw.”193Thus,thejurisdictional
equivalentofcanonlawwasintroducedonthesubcontinentpursuanttoHastings’
directive.
Theimportationofthejurisdictionalequivalentofcanonlawintroduced
modernistbinaries–secular/religious–public/private–civil/criminal–into
worldswheresuchdistinctionswereunknown.BothdharmaandtheShari’awere
comprehensivelifesystemsinwhichvirtuallyallbehavioralconsiderations,from
whattoeatandwhomtomarry,totheconsequencesoftheftandmurder–all
implicateddharmaforHindusandtheShari’aforMuslimswiththeirattendant
191ForacomprehensivesocialhistoryoftheimpactofcoloniallawonthewomenofIndiaseeJanakiNair’sWomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory.192Derrett,J.DuncanM.,Religion,LawandtheStateinIndia,pg.233.193Derrett,J.DuncanM.,Religion,LawandtheStateinIndia,pg.233.
74
moral,ethical,religious,aswellas“legal”ramifications.194Thisisnottosaythat
HindusandMuslimswerepartofsomeundifferentiated“Tradition”;thedistinct
epistemologicalrootsofeachbeliefsystemyieldedseparatepathsofappropriate
action.Moreimportantly,forourpurposes,pureformsofthesebeliefsystemsdid
notexist,except,perhaps,inthemindsofthecolonizersandtheirOrientalists.
Furtherconfoundingthecolonizers,thesecomprehensivelifesystemswerenot
unitaryindoctrineorpractice,butvariedbylocationandsect.
ThenextportionofHastings’directiveinstructedthat“thelawsoftheKoran”
and“those(i.e.thelaws)oftheShaster”weretobeappliedtotheirrespective
communities.195TheBritishviewthatthewholeofIslamiclawwasacode196was
implicitinthisstatement.Theparallelconstructionregardingthe“Shaster”
indicatesthattheyheldthesameviewofHindulaw,i.e.thatitwasacodeoflaw
requiringonlytranslationandapplication.197Closelyalliedwiththeconceptthat
MuslimsandHinduseachpossessedestablishedcodesoflawwasthenotionthat
MuslimsandHinduswereatalltimesandthroughoutIndiadistinctandseparate
communities.InKugle’swords,theBritish“assumedthatIndiawasinhabitedby
communitieswhichwereancientanddiscrete;furthermore,thesediscrete
194SeeLudoRocher’s“HinduConceptionsofLaw”foradiscussionofthebreadthoftheterm“dharma”;WaelHallaq’s“WhatisShari’a?”presentsathoroughdiscussionoftheproblemswithequatinglawandShari’a.195Emphasisadded.196Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.270.197Cohn,BernardS.,“TheCommandofLanguageandtheLanguageofCommand”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge:TheBritishinIndia,pg.29.
75
communitiesrigidlyandritualisticallyfollowedtheirownlawinallmattersofsocial
custom,religiousduty,andcommercialtransaction.”198
RealityonthegroundinIndiawasfarmorecomplex.ChapterTwodiscussed
howMusliminheritancepracticescouldbeinfluencedbypracticesofsurrounding
communities,becomingmatrilinealinsouthwestIndia,butmorestrictlypatrilineal
inotherregions,bothofwhichpracticesareatvariancewitharigidapplicationof
thescienceoftheshares.AnotherexampleofthecomplexityintheMuslim‐Hindu
dividecomesfromthe1911CensusinwhichsomeindividualsinGujaratidentified
themselvesas“MohammedanHindus”.199ThoughtheconflationoftheHindu‐
Muslimidentityundoubtedlywastheexception,ratherthanthenorm,therewas
amplediversitywithinthesecommunitiestorenderasproblematicHastings’
proclamationregardingtheapplicationof“thelawsoftheKoran”and“thoseofthe
Shaster”.
ThetopicofhowMuslimlawinIndiawasadministeredbeforecolonization,
i.e.beforeitbecameAnglo‐MohamedanLaw,issovastthatitisnotonlybeyondthe
scopeofthispaper,butalsomaybebeyondthecomprehensionofthemodernmind.
InthewordsofWaelHallaq:
198Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.270.199Seepage32ofGauriViswanathan’spaperon“ColonialismandtheConstructionofHinduism”whereshereferstoworkbyAshisNandyentitled“ThePoliticsofSecularismandtheRecoveryofReligiousTolerance”inVeenaDas,ed.,MirrorsofViolence,Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress(1993).
76
…westandbeforethewideexpanseoftheShari’aanditshistoryisnearly
helpless.Ourlanguagefailsusinourendeavourtoproducea
representationofthathistory,whichnotonlyspokedifferentlanguages
noneofwhichwasEnglish(noteveninBritishIndia),butalsoarticulated
itselfconceptually,epistemically,morally,socially,culturally,and
institutionallyinmannersandwaysutterlydifferentfromthosematerial
andnon‐materialculturesthatproducedmodernityanditsWestern
linguisticcultures.200
ForourpurposeswecanmerelynotethattheMughalsadministeredwhatKugle
callsa“substantivelyrationalsystemoflaw”201whichprovidedforadistinction
between“extraordinaryjustice”and“ordinaryjustice”.202AsKugledescribesit:
“Day‐to‐dayaffairswereguidedbycustomandgovernmentprocedure;however,for
certainoffences,theshari’ahwasinvokedtoguidedecisions…Mostimportantly,
thisdualsystemallowedroomforthejuriststocontinuallyaddressnewsituations
accordingtothepracticeoffiqh.”203FiqhistheformofIslamicjurisprudence
wherebyamuftiseeksfromtheQur’anandtheSunnahoftheProphetreligiously
appropriatemodesofbehavior.Kuglegoesontostatethat:
200Hallaq,WaelB.,“WhatisShari’a?”,pg.151.201Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.279.202Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.279.203Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.279.
77
Traditionally,shari’ahissubstantivelyrationalbecausethelawisfound:
individualrulingsareextractedfromasacredsource.Shari’ahhasaset
sourceandasingletelos,bothunifiedbyreligiousbelief.Thissourceand
telosencapsulateandunitealltheconflictinganddivergentopinions
extractedbytraditionalIslamicjuriststhroughthelegitimateoperations
ofusulalfiqh.‘Islamiclaw,asthelawofjurists,hasbeeninitsformative
andlaterperiodsaneclecticbodyofrulings,respondingtoitsimmediate
socialcontext…therationalityoftheShari’ahwassubstantiverather
thanformal.’204
Thus,IslamicjurisprudenceinSouthAsia,aselsewhere,transpiredwithinvarious
culturalmilieustowhichitwasabletorespondwiththeflexibleapplicationoffiqh.
Aneclecticbodyofrulingsgiveninresponsetotheirimmediatesocial
contextmaywelldescribepre‐colonialHindulawaswellaspre‐colonialMuslim
law.However,therelationshipbetweenHindujudicialrulingsandSanskrittextsis
moreproblematicthantherelationshipbetweenMuslimfiqhandtheQur’an.The
connectionbetweenHindujurisprudenceandscripturessuchastheManusmritior
LawsofManuasitissometimescalledhaslongbeenthesubjectofdispute.Sir
WilliamJoneswhotranslatedandpublishedtheManusmritiin1794wasconvinced
thatinthistexthehadaccesstothelawsapplicabletoHindusnotonlyin1794,but
204Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.274,withinternalquotescitingtoBryanTurner,WeberandIslam:ACriticalStudy(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1974),pg.119.
78
alsosincethedaysofantiquity.205However,by1861SirHenrySumnerMaine
disputedthisproposition,proclaimingoftheLawsofManuthat:“…itdoesnot,asa
whole,representasetofruleseveractivelyadministeredinHindustan.Itis,in
greatpart,anidealpictureofthatwhich,intheviewoftheBrahmins,oughttobe
thelaw.”206Maine’sviewresonatedwellwithJamesHenryNelson,aBritish
administratorinSouthIndiawhoqueried:“Hassuchathingas‘HinduLaw’atany
timeexistedintheworld?Orisitthat‘HinduLaw’isamerephantomofthebrain,
imaginedbySanskritistswithoutlawandlawyerswithoutSanskrit?”207
LudoRocherpositsthatthesetwopositions,i.e.thatofSirWilliamJones
thattheManusmritiwasthelawofthelandandthatofSirHenrySumnerMaine,
thattheManusmritiwasaworkofBrahminicalfantasy,canbereconciledwiththe
knowledgethatpre‐colonialHindujurisprudencewaspredominantlyanoral
practice.InRocher’sviewtheDharmasastrasareneitherfactnorfantasybut
collectionsoflegalmaximsthatweretruefromtimetotimeandfromplacetoplace,
butneveruniversallyapplicabletoallHindusinIndia.208
205Rocher,Ludo,“LawBooksinanOralCulture:TheIndian‘Dharmasastras’”,pg.255.206Rocher,Ludo,“LawBooksinanOralCulture:TheIndian‘Dharmasastras’”,pg.258,citingtoSirHenrySumnerMaine’sAncientLaw(London,Routledge),pg.14.207Rocher,Ludo,“LawBooksinanOralCulture:TheIndian‘Dharmasastras’”,pg.258,citingtoJamesHenryNelson’sAViewoftheHinduLawasAdministeredbytheHighCourtofJudicatureatMadras(Madras:Higginbotham,1877),pg.2.208Rocher,Ludo,“LawBooksinanOralCulture:TheIndian‘Dharmasastras’”,pg.267.
79
PerhapsthestatusoftheDharmasastrasasabstractcollectionsofcustomary
lawswithoutgeneralapplicabilitywasnotasecret.AccordingtoAlanGledhill
writingin1954thepunditsknewthisallalong:
ThepanditknewthatthelawoftheSanskrittextswasanideallaw,never
susceptibleofcompleteandidenticalapplication,butsubjectto
modificationbycustom,whichvariedfromtimetotime,placetoplace,
familytofamily,andcastetocaste,buttheEnglishlawyerandthejudge
oftheAnglo‐Indiancourtwastoooftendisposedtoregardthetextsin
thesamelightasanEnglishstatute.209
Gledhillgoesontonotethatthe“systemdevelopedfrom1773imposeda
degreeofrigidityanduniformityupontheHindulawwhichithadnotknown
earlier,andapplieditsrulestomanypersonswhohadnotbeenawarethatitwas
bindingonthem.”210EmbeddedinthislastphraseistheissueofwhetherHinduism
itselfwasacolonialconstruct,acollectiveidentitywhichBritishcolonizers,
especiallyWarrenHastings,foistedondisparategroupsofpeoplelivingonthe
Indiansubcontinent.RobertFrykenbergtakesthisposition,statingashiscentral
argumentinapieceonthissubjectthat“unlessby‘Hindu’onemeansnothingmore
norlessthan‘Indian’(somethingnativeto,pertainingto,orfoundwithinthe
209Gledhill,Alan,“TheInfluenceofCommonLawandEquityonHinduLawsince1800”,TheInternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly,Vol.3,No.4(Oct.,1954),pg.577.210Gledhill,Alan,“TheInfluenceofCommonLawandEquityonHinduLawsince1800”,TheInternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly,Vol.3,No.4(Oct.,1954),pg.578.
80
continentofIndia),therehasneverbeenanysuchathingasasingle‘Hinduism’or
anysingle‘Hinducommunity’forallofIndia…Furthermore,therehasneverbeen
anyonereligion211–norevenonesystemofreligions–towhichtheterm‘Hindu’
canaccuratelybeapplied.”212
Referringtothispositionasthe“’constructionofHinduism’theory”,Gauri
Viswanathannotesthat:
…thetendencytointerpretmodernHinduismastheunificationofaloose
conglomerationofdifferentbeliefsystemsremainstrappedwithina
monotheisticconceptionofreligion,whichconstitutesthefinalreference
pointforjudgingwhetherreligionsarecoherentornot…Thenotionthat
modernHinduismrepresentsafalseunityimposedondiversetraditions
replaysawesternfascinationwith–andrepulsionfrom–Indian
polytheism.213
AlthoughnotinagreementonHinduismasasinglereligion,both
ViswanathanandFrykenbergwouldlikelyrecognizeaserroneousHastings’
assumptionofhomogeneitywithintheworkingsofHindujurisprudence. Thislack
ofhomogeneitywasmanifestinthediversecustomsofHindusthroughoutIndia.
Nor,assuggestedabove,wasMuslimfiqhasuniformasHastings’averred.
211Frykenbergnoteshereviaanendnotethat:“WilfredCantwellSmith1964,arguesthattheveryterm‘religion’isitselfnolesserroneousordangerous.Itistheinventionofmoderntimes,arisingandbeingapplied,forthemostpart,inthe19thand20thcenturies.”212Frykenberg,RobertEric,“TheEmergenceofModern‘Hinduism’asaConceptandasanInstitution:AReappraisalwithSpecialReferencetoSouthIndia”,pg.29.213Viswanathan,Gauri,“ColonialismandtheConstructionofHinduism”,pp.27‐28.
81
Nevertheless,thedirectivehadbeenissued;compliancewasrequired.
Unsurprisingly,thefollowingexaminationoftheimplementationofHastings’
directiverevealsthatexecutionwasnolessproblematicthanthetermsofthe
directiveitself.
ii) TheImplementationofHastings’Directive
Kugledescribesjurisprudenceas“thenexuswhereauthoritativetexts,
culturalassumptions,andpoliticalexpediencycometogetherduringacrisis.”214
Thesecometogethertocreatean“interpretiveexperience”,butitisaninterpretive
experiencedistinctfromothers“becauseitisalsoanexertionofpower.”215The
Britishexerciseofpowerthroughthejurisprudentialnexuswrought
“epistemologicalviolence”216onthepeoplesofthesubcontinent,forasBarneyCohn
states:“IncomingtoIndia,theyunknowinglyandunwittinglyinvadedand
conquerednotonlyaterritorybutanepistemologicalspaceaswell.”217
Epistemologicalviolenceis,perhaps,nowhereasevidentasintheimplementation
ofHastings’directive.
Butbeforedelvingintothedetailsofthedirective’simplementation,citation
toCohn’sstatementthatthecolonizerswere“unknowing”and“unwitting”presents
anopportunitytodiscussbrieflyissuessurroundingthecolonizers’intentionsand
214Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.257.215Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.257.216Dirks,NicholasB.,“Foreword”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge:TheBritishinIndiabyBernardS.Cohn,pg.xii.217Cohn,BernardS,ColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge:TheBritishinIndia,pg.4.
82
culpability.IsCohntoocharitableinassertingtheywereignorantoftheirinvasion
ofaseparate“epistemologicalspace”?Doesitmatterwhetherornottheywere
cognizantoftheconsequencesoftheiractions?Isitevenpossibletoascribeintent
tothecolonialendeavor?AsDirksstatesinhisForewardtoCohn’sbook:“Any
attempttomakeasystematicstatementaboutthe‘colonialproject’inIndiarunsthe
riskofconflatingcausewitheffect,orascribingintentionaswellassystemtoa
congeriesofactivitiesandaconjunctionofoutcomeswhich,thoughrelatedandat
timescoordinated,wereusuallydiffuse,disorganizedandevencontradictory.”218
TothequestionofwhetherCohnistoocharitable,Dirkswouldlikelyrespondinthe
negativeashestatesinhisForwardthat:“althoughtheBritishinIndiawerealways
awarethattheirpowerwasdependentontheirknowledge,theywereneveraware
ofallthewaysinwhichknowledgewas,inanydirectorstrategicsense,power.”219
Doesthisignoranceofallofthemanifestationsoftheirownpowermakethemless
culpableascolonizers,oristhewilltopowersufficienttoimplicatethecolonizersin
theirviolence–epistemologicalandotherwise?
Hastingscertainlyhadawilltopower,seekingashedidcontroloverthe
judicialprocessesoftheoccupiedterritoriesofIndia,amongotherexercisesof
authorityasthefirstgovernor‐general.Washisexerciseofpowerrenderedmore
benevolentbyvirtueofhisseeingIndiaasarule‐governedsociety–atheocracy–as
218Dirks,NicholasB.,“Forward”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge:TheBritishinIndiabyBernardS.Cohn,pg.xvi.219Dirks,NicholasB.,“Foreword”inColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge:TheBritishinIndiabyBernardS.Cohn,pg.xvii.
83
opposedtoadespoticsociety,aspresumedbysome?220Hastings’determination
thattherulesgoverningIndiansocietyweredeterminedbyMuslimmaulavis/qadis
andHindupunditswithreferencetocodesbasedinscriptureopenedthedoortothe
Orientalists.TheseOrientalistssetaboutlearningPersianandSanskritinorderto
translatethesetextsperceivedaspivotaltothelegalorder.WasOrientalism,“the
phaseofwesternscholarlyengagementwitheasternreligions”,221aphasedescribed
bysomeas“lesshostiletoIndianculturethantheAnglicismthatsupersededit”,222
preferabletothatAnglicism?Viswanathandoesnotthinkso:“colonialperceptions
ofHinduismshouldnotbedividedalongthelinesofthosewhowerepositively
inclinedandthosewhowereopposed,sincethisassumeshostilereactionsare
producedbytheintrusionofawesternframeworkofreferenceandbenevolentones
byitssuspension,whereasitisclearthesameframepersistsregardlessofwhether
theattitudeispositiveornegative.”223InasimilarveinViswanathanrejectsany
distinctionbetweenaffirmativeandnegativeOrientalism.224Inthisviewthereisa
uniformculpabilityamongallcolonizersthroughouttheperiodofBritish
colonialism.Theseissuesofintentandculpabilityarerelevantastheanalysis
proceedstotheeffectsoftheimplementationofHastings’directive,aswellasto
220SeeBernardS.Cohn’sdiscussionofthe“DespoticModel”versus“Theocracy”in“LawandtheColonialState”,ColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge:TheBritishinIndia,pp.62‐72.221Viswanathan,Gauri,“ColonialismandtheConstructionofHinduism”,pg.25.222Viswanathan,Gauri,“ColonialismandtheConstructionofHinduism”,pg.25.223Viswanathan,Gauri,“ColonialismandtheConstructionofHinduism”,pg.25.224SeeEndnote1inGauriViswanathan’s“ColonialismandtheConstructionofHinduism”,pg.41.
84
consequencesofeffortsat“socialreform”,bothofwhichfrequentlyproduced
unintendedresults.
Oneoftheprinciplefeaturesofimplementationwastheseparationofthe
substanceofthelawsfromtheproceduresusedtoadministerthem.Ostensiblythe
lawswereindigenous,buttheprocedureswereexpresslythoseoftheBritish
CommonLaw.Thus,bothHinduandMuslimjurisprudenceweresubjectedtothe
followingmethodsofadjudication,allofwhichhadbeenalientothempriorto
colonization:
1. Aseparationbetweentheprocessesofthedeterminationofthe
relevantfactsandtheapplicationofthelaw;
2. Thedecontextualizationofjudicialconflictssothattherewasno
weighingofcommunityinterest;
3. Codification;
4. Theresolutionofconflictsthroughanadversarialsystemof“win–
lose”justice;and
5. Thecumulativeeffectsofprecedent/staredecisis.
ToimplementhisdirectiveHastingsestablishedadualcourtsystem.This
systemconsistedoftheSupremeCourtsinthePresidencytownswhichwere
presidedoverbyEnglishjudgeswithcasespresentedbyEnglishlawyers,andthe
districtmofussilcourtspresidedoverbyaBritishEastIndiaCompanyofficerknown
85
asthecollectorwhoheardcasespresentedbyIndianplaintiffs.225Inthecollector
“HastingshadinventedtheemblematicfigureofBritishimperialismwhowasto
appearinAfrica,SoutheastAsia,andthesouthwestPacific,themanonthespotwho
knew‘thenatives,’whowastorepresenttheforceof‘lawandorder’”.226The
collectorhadbothjudicialandexecutivepowerswithinhisdistrict,theboundaries
ofwhichgenerally“followedpreexistingMughalrevenueunits”.227Inhisjudicial,as
opposedtoexecutive,capacitythecollectorpresidedovertwotypesofcases:
“dewanicasesrelatingtorevenueandcivillitigation,andthefaujdaricasesrelating
tothecriminalandinternallegalaffairs.”228ThecourtofappealfortheCompany’s
mofussilcourtsforthefirsteighty‐eightyearsoftheirexistence,i.e.from1773‐1861,
weretheSudderDiwaniAdalats,bodiesstaffedbyEastIndiaCompanypersonnel.229
In1861theSupremeCourtsandtheSudderDiwaniAdalatswereamalgamatedinto
thesystemofHighCourts.230AllthewhiletheultimateappealwastothePrivy
CouncilbackinLondon,howevertheoreticalthismighthavebeentomostlitigants.
ThisalienjudicialstructurewasgraftedontoIndia’ssystemofdispute
resolutionwiththehelpofthepunditsandqadis.Althoughthepunditsandqadis
wereinitiallyperceivedbythecolonizersascriticalforbothcreatingtheperception
oflegitimacyandprovidinglegalinsightsinaccordancewithHastings’directive,
225Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,pg.23.226Cohn,BernardS.,“LawandtheColonialStateinIndia”,pg.60.227Cohn,BernardS.,“LawandtheColonialStateinIndia”,pg.60.228Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,pg.23.229Gledhill,Alan,“TheInfluenceofCommonLawandEquityonHinduLawsince1800”,pg.578.230Gledhill,Alan,“TheInfluenceofCommonLawandEquityonHinduLawsince1800”,pg.578.
86
theirroleswereneverthelessquitecircumscribed.TheBritishjudgewouldhear
thedispute,determinewhichfactswererelevanttothecase,thenpresentthis
packagedcasetothepunditsorqadisfortheapplicationoftherelevantlaw.231But
eveninthedeterminationoftherelevantlaw,thediscretionofthepunditsandqadis
waslimited.
Thedeterminationoftherelevantlawwasconfinedtospecifictextsor
scripturesdeterminedbytheBritishinconsultationwithlocalreligiousauthorities
tobethefoundationsofHinduandMuslimjurisprudence.Forexample,oneofthe
earlytextsauthorizedforusebyHindupunditsinBritishcourtsinIndiawasadigest
comprisedoftopicsselectedbyHastings.“The”Hindulawontopicssuchasdebt,
inheritance,partnership,slavery,masterandservantand“dutiesofwomen”among
othertopicswascompiledbyelevenpunditsinCalcutta.232Theiroriginal
compilationappearedinSanskritfirst,butthenwastranslatedintoPersiansothatit
couldberenderedintoEnglishbyN.B.Halhed.233
HastingssoughtasimilarcodificationofIslamiclaw,initiallyselectingatext
calledtheHedayafortranslation.Thistext,whichcametoserveasoneofthe
foundationsofAnglo‐Muhammadanlaw,wentthroughasimilarlytortuousseriesof
translationsrenderedasitwasfromArabictoPersiantoEnglish.AsKugle
describestheprocess“contradictionsandsubtletieswereexcisedfromtheoriginal
231Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pp.284‐285.232Derrett,J.DuncanM.,Religion,LawandtheStateinIndia,pp.239‐241.233Derrett,J.DuncanM.,Religion,LawandtheStateinIndia,pp.239‐240.
87
text”sothatitmustbesaidthat“Hastingsdidnotjustfindatext.Hecreated
one.”234
WiththecreationandEnglishtranslationoftheseandothertextsand
scriptures,eventheroleofdeterminingtheapplicablelawwasappropriated
graduallybyBritishjudges.Finally,in1864thepostsofcourt‐appointedpunditand
qadiwereabolished,theBritishhavingdeterminedthattheyhadsufficient
knowledgeoftherelevantlawsandthattherewassufficientcaselawtoeliminate
theseroles.235
Indigenousformsofdisputeresolutionsuchascastecouncilsandvillage
assembliesknownaspanchayatscontinuedtofunctionthroughoutthecolonial
period,howevertheireffectivenessandautonomywereseverelyunderminedbythe
Britishcourtsystem.236LitigantsweredrawntothecolonialcourtsbywhatDerrett
describedasthe“immediacyandviolenceoftheremediesoffered”.237Derrett
elaboratedontheattractionoftheBritishcourts:“Thechancesoflosingagoodcase
werehigh,butifonewon,theprizeswerelargerthanwouldbeavailableunderthe
nativesystem.”238Disputesrelatingtolandwereparticularlylikelytofindtheir
wayintothecolonialcourts.239
234Kugle,ScottAlan,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pp.272.235Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,pg.24.236Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,pg.23.237Derrett,J.DuncanM.,Religion,LawandtheStateinIndia,pg.279.238Derrett,J.DuncanM.,Religion,LawandtheStateinIndia,pg.279.239Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,pg.25.
88
ThevalueofajudgmentawardedaprevailingpartyundertheBritishsystem
wasenhancedbythewinner‐take‐allnatureoftheproceedings,asopposedtothe
compromisesandconsensusbuildingmorecommoninindigenousdispute
settlements.Compromiseandconsensusbuildingasdisputeresolutionmechanisms
weremorelikelytotakeintoconsiderationthejudgment’simpactonthe
community,considerationsnotapartoftheBritishcommonlawadversarial
process.240
iii) WomenandtheColonialLegalSystem
Womendidnotbecomejuristsinanyofthesejudicialhierarchies,whether
Hindu,Muslim,orcolonial,untilthecolonialerahadpassedintohistory.
Nevertheless,theyweresubjecttothem,werenotinfrequentlitigantsinthecourts
administeredbythem,andtheirinterestsweredeterminedbytheirjudgments.
Patriarchalpowerwastheorderofthedayreigningsupremethroughbothmale
and,inmostinstances,femalevisionsofthenaturalorderofthings.Thisisnotto
saythattherewerenoconflictsorissuesbetweenthecolonizersandthecolonized
regardingthestatusofIndianwomen.Indeed,therewasmuchdebateregardingthe
practiceofsati,and,toalesserextent,femaleinfanticide.Itistosaythatthese
conflictsandissuestranspiredwithinthenarrowconfinesofadiscourseofwoman’s
properplacewithintradition–i.e.notwhetherwomenshouldbesubordinated,but
howsubordinatedshouldtheybe?
240SeeScottAlanKugle,“Framed,BlamedandRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia”,pg.285.
89
LataManiexplorestheboundariesofcolonialeradiscourseonwomenand
traditionthroughananalysisofthediscourseonsati,theimmolationofwidowson
theirhusband’sfuneralpiers.Throughherclosescrutinyofpositionstakenby
WalterEwer,acolonialofficialinfavoroftheabolitionofsati,andthoseespoused
byrenownedIndianreformer,RammohunRoy,whowasalsoinfavorofabolition,
Manishowshow“theequationofscripture,lawandtradition,andthe
representationofwomenastraditionproducedaspecificmatrixofconstraints
withinwhichthequestionofsatiwasdebated.”241Manigoesontoassertthat:
Whatevertheirstandsontheprohibitionofsati,colonialofficialsandthe
indigenousmaleeliteagreedthatscriptureoverrodecustom,that
explicitscripturalevidencehadgreaterweightthanevidencebasedon
inferenceandthat,ingeneral,theolderthetextthegreateritsvalue.
Thisprivilegingofthemoreancienttextswastiedtoanotherdiscursive
feature:thebeliefthatHindusocietyhadfallenfromapriorGolden
Age.242
AsthediscussionofHastings’directiveabovesuggests,thismatrixofconstraints
wasadirectconsequenceofthetheocraticviewofIndiansocietyespousedby
Hastingsandimplementedthroughhisdirective.
241Mani,Lata,“ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSatiinColonialIndia”,pg.123(emphasisinoriginal).242Mani,Lata,“ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSatiinColonialIndia”,pg.145.
90
Inheranalysisofthedebateoversati,Manipositsa“woman/tradition/law
/scripturenexus”;243itisaplacewherequestionsof“scripturalinterpretation,the
relationbetweenscriptureandsociety,theroleofprotectivelegislationforwomen,”
andthetensionbetweenwomenasindividualsandwomenasmembersof
communitiesareraised.244ThroughherscrutinyofthedebateoversatiManishows
thatwomenwereneitherthesubjectsnortheobjectsinthatdiscourse,butrather
the“groundofthediscourseonsati.”245Insteadoffocusingonwomen,thesati
debaterevolvedaroundwhetherthepracticewasendorsedbytheBrahminic
scripturesdeemedtobethefoundationofallHindulaw.246
WhilethediscourseofthedebateovertheHindupracticeofsati,whichwas
abolishedbytheBritishin1829,istheprimaryfocusofMani’sarticle,sheaffirms
thecontemporaryrelevanceofthisnexus,aswellasitsrelevancetotheMuslim
community,throughreferencetothecaseofMohammedAhmedKhanvs.Shahbano
Begum.247Soalthoughsatihasbeenoutlawedandisanextremelyrareoccurrence
243Mani,Lata,“ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSatiinColonialIndia”,pg.154.244Mani,Lata,“ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSatiinColonialIndia”,pg.154.245Mani,Lata,“ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSatiinColonialIndia”,pg.152.246Mani,Lata,“ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSatiinColonialIndia”,pp.143‐145.247IntheShahbanocasetheSupremeCourtofIndiadecidedonApril23,1985thatadivorcedMuslimwoman,ShahbanoBegum,wasentitledtolifelongmaintenance.HerhusbandhadarguedthatunderMuslimpersonallawhisonlyobligationwastosupportherforthreemonthsafterthedivorce,whichhehaddone.ThedecisionignitedaheateddebatethroughoutIndiaontherightsofMuslimwomeninrelationtoMuslimpersonallaw,aconflictwhichculminatedinthepassageoftheMuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightsonDivorce)Act,1986.Despitethename,thisActwas
91
today(unlikesomeotheroutlawedpracticessuchasdowrythepracticeofwhichis
rampant),thewoman/tradition/law/scripturenexushasremainedrelevantup
tothepresentthroughthe“personallaws”.
iv) AngloHinduLaw:ConservatismintheWoman/Tradition/Law
/Scripture/PropertyNexus
Womenastheembodimentoftraditionremainedthegroundforthe
discussionofthecontoursofthelifeofthedevoutHinduthroughoutthecolonialera
andbeyond.Havingdeterminedthatsatiwasnotrequiredbythescriptures,the
discussionmovedontowhetheritwouldbepermissibleforaHinduwidowto
remarry.UnderAnglo‐HindulawasadministeredbytheBritishcourtsinIndiathe
remarriageofhighercasteHinduwidowswasprohibitedandanychildrenofsuch
unionswereconsideredillegitimate.Theissueofwidowremarriage,likesati,
concernedarelativelysmallminorityofHindus.248LowercasteHindusandDalits
(formerlyknownasUntouchablesorHarijans),groupsestimatedtocomprise80
percentoftheHindupopulation,didnotprohibitwidowremarriage.249
avictoryforthosewhoopposedtherighttolife‐longmaintenancefordivorcedMuslimwomenasawardedbyIndia’sSupremeCourt.
248SeeJanakiNair,WomenandLawinColonialIndia,atpage55wheresheindicatestherarityofwidowimmolation:“TheincidenceofwidowimmolationintheHughlidistrict,whichconsistentlyshowedhigherreturnsthananyotherpartofIndia,amountedto1.2percentoftheoverallnumberofwidows;in1824theaveragenumberofimmolationsamountedtoamere0.2%ofthetotalnumberofwidows.(NaircitestoAnandYang(1990),“WhoseSati?WidowBurninginEarlyNineteenthCenturyIndia”inJournalofWomen’sHistory1.2,pg.22.)249Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidows’RemarriageActof1856”,pg.2.
92
RespondingtopressuresforsocialreformadvocatedbyPanditVidyasagar250
andothers,theBritish‐IndiangovernmentenactedtheHinduWidows’Remarriage
Actof1856(ActXVof1856).Despiteconfinementoftheproblemtouppercaste
Hindus,thelegislationwasinterpretedbymostHighCourtsasbeingcomprehensive
sothatthelegislationcametohaveanimpact–anegativeone–onthelarger
portionofthepopulationofHinduwidowswhichhadneverexperiencedthe
prohibitioninthefirstplace.
AsdiscussedinChapter2,priortoanylegislationalteringwhatwasthrough
theconjoinedeffectsofscriptureandcaselawconsideredtobeHindulaw,awidow
underbothDayabhagaandMitaksharalawwouldnotinheritanyinterestinher
husband’sestate,exceptarighttomaintenance,unlessthehusbanddiedwithouta
son,ason’sson,orason’sson’sson.Eventhen,underMitaksharalaw,shecould
onlyinheritaninterestinherhusband’sestateifhewasnotatthetimeofhisdeath
partofajointfamilycoparcenary;ifhewaspartofsuchacoparcenarythensheonly
hadarighttomaintenance.UndertheDayabhagasystemthewidowcouldinherit
aninterestinherhusband’sestateregardlessoftheexistenceofanyjointfamily
ownership.
Nevertheless,whenawidowdidinheritaninterestundereithersystem,she
didnotinheritthepropertyoutright,butreceivedaninterestknownasawidows’
estateor(moreaccurately)awoman’sestate,asdaughterssometimestookthis
250Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidows’RemarriageActof1856”,pg.2.
93
limitedestateaswell.WhiletheparametersoftheHinduwoman’sestateas
developedunderAnglo‐Hindulawwillbeexploredbelowasanexampleofcolonial
conservatisminthewoman/tradition/law/scripture/propertynexus,hereitis
sufficienttonotethatthewoman’sestateentitledawomantoincomefromthe
propertyduringherlifetime,butdidnotgrantherthepowerofalienationexceptfor
“legalnecessity”,i.e.“incaseofneedorforthebenefitoftheestate”orforreligious
purposesthatwereforthedeceasedowner’sspiritualbenefit.251Whenthe
woman’sestatecametoanend,itdidnotpasstoherheirs,buttotheheirsofthe
lastmaleholder.Inthewordsofthecourts,thewomandidnotbecomea“fresh
stockofdescent”.252
AsdeterminedunderAnglo‐Hindulaw,awoman’sestateterminatedather
deathor,undertheHinduWidows’RemarriageActof1856(ActXVof1856),upon
herremarriage.GiventhatuppercasteHinduwidowstraditionallywereforbidden
toremarryandthatlowercasteHinduwidowsweregenerallynotrestrictedin
eithertheirabilitytoremarryor,inmanyinstances,intheirabilitytotakethe
propertyinheritedbythemfromtheirdeceasedhusbandsintotheirnew
marriage,253theincorporationoftheprovisionterminatingthewoman’sestate
uponremarriageiscurious.
251Gupte,S.V.HinduLawofSuccession,Art.43(2)(C).252Gupte,S.V.HinduLawofSuccession,Art.43,para.10.253Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,pg.9.
94
“Thepreambleandsections1,2,5,and6oftheHinduWidows’Remarriage
Actareasfollows:
“Whereasitisknownthat,bythelawasadministeredintheCivil
Courtsestablishedintheterritoriesinthepossessionandunderthe
GovernmentoftheEastIndiaCompany,Hinduwidowswithcertain
exceptionsareheldtobe,byreasonoftheirhavingbeenoncemarried,
incapableofcontractingasecondvalidmarriage,andtheoffspringofsuch
widowsbyanysecondmarriageareheldtobeillegitimateandincapableof
inheritingproperty;and
WhereasmanyHindusbelievethatthisimputedlegalincapacity,
althoughitisinaccordancewithestablishedcustom,isnotinaccordance
withatrueinterpretationofthepreceptsoftheirreligion,anddesirethat
thecivillawadministeredbytheCourtsofJusticeshallnolongerprevent
thoseHinduswhomaybesomindedfromadoptingadifferentcustom,in
accordancewiththedictatesoftheirownconscience;and
WhereasitisjusttorelieveallsuchHindusfromthislegalincapacity
ofwhichtheycomplain,andtheremovalofalllegalobstaclestothe
marriageofHinduwidowswilltendtothepromotionofgoodmoralsandto
thepublicwelfare;
Itisenactedasfollows:
95
1. NomarriagecontractedbetweenHindusshallbeinvalid,and
theissueofnosuchmarriageshallbeillegitimate,byreasonofthewoman
havingbeenpreviouslymarriedorbetrothedtoanotherpersonwhowas
deadatthetimeofsuchmarriage,anycustomandanyinterpretationof
HinduLawtothecontrarynotwithstanding.
2. Allrightsandinterestswhichanywidowmayhaveinher
deceasedhusband’spropertybywayofmaintenance,orbyinheritanceto
herhusbandortohislinealsuccessors,orbyvirtueofanywillor
testamentarydispositionconferringuponher,withoutexpresspermission
toremarry,onlyalimitedinterestinsuchproperty,withnopowerof
alienatingthesame,shalluponherre‐marriageceaseanddetermineasif
shehadthendied;andthenextheirsofherdeceasedhusbandorother
personsentitledtothepropertyonherdeath,shallthereuponsucceedto
thesame…
5. Exceptasinthethreeprecedingsectionsisprovided,awidow
shallnotbereasonofherre‐marriageforfeitanypropertyoranyrightto
whichshewouldotherwisebeentitled;andeverywidowwhohasre‐
marriedshallhavethesamerightsofinheritanceasshewouldhavehad,
hadsuchmarriagebeenherfirstmarriage.
6. Whateverwordsspoken,ceremoniesperformedor
engagementsmadeonthemarriageofaHindufemalewhohasnotbeen
previouslymarried,aresufficienttoconstituteavalidmarriage,shallhave
96
thesameeffect,ifspoken,performedormadeonthemarriageofaHindu
widow;andnomarriageshallbedeclaredinvalidonthegroundthatsuch
words,ceremoniesorengagementsareinapplicabletothecaseofa
widow.”254
Section2oftheActexpresslydeprivesHinduwidowswhoremarryofany
interestintheirdeceasedhusbands’estates.Whatwasthejustificationforthisinan
Actthepurposeofwhichwastofacilitatewidowremarriage?Theprovisionwas
allegedtobebasedonHinduLaw,apassagefromVrihaspatiwherehestates:“’Of
himwhosewifeisnotdeceasedhalfthebodysurvives.Howthenshouldanother
takehispropertywhilehalfhispersonisalive?’”255Thispassage,whichcould
logicallybeinterpretedasajustificationforawidowtotakeaninterestinher
husband’sestate,wasthenturnedaroundtomeanthatifawidowremarriedshe
ceasedtobehalfthebodyofherdeceasedhusband,sothatthesuccessorsshould
taketheestate.Carrollnotestheironyofthemajorityofjusticesrelyingonthis
“quaintlegalfiction”256insteadofthemoredirectstatementofthelawfoundinthe
YajnayavalkyaSmriti:
Wife(widow),daughter,father,mother,brother,theirsons,gotraja(of
thesamefamily),bandhus,discipleandBrahmachariasofthesame
254AsreprintedinLucyCarroll,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,pp.3‐4.255AsstatedinLucyCarroll,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,pp.3‐4.256Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,pg.9.
97
school,eachsucceedingoneisheirintheabsenceoftheperson
immediatelyprecedinghimintheorderofenumeration–thisisthelaw
inrespectoftheinheritancetothepropertyofasonlessdeceasedperson
ofwhatevercaste.257
LucyCarrollinheranalysisoftheeffectsofthisstatuteuponimplementation
andinterpretationbythecourtsfindsthat:
…althoughtheceremoniessoprescribeddifferedsignificantlyfromthose
observedamongcasteswhichhadacustomofwidowremarriage,theHigh
CourtsofBengal,BombayandMadrasheldthatsection2,involving
forfeitureofthedeceasedhusband’sestateonremarriage,appliedtoall
Hinduwidows,whetherornotthevalidityoftheirremarriagederivedfrom
theAct,andwhetherornottheirmarriagesweresolemnizedbythe
ceremoniesprescribedinsection6;or,alternatively,thatifsection2didnot
apply,thesameforfeiturewasenjoinedbyHinduLaw.Theexceptionto
thisjudicialtrendwastheHighCourtofAllahabad,whichheldconsistently
–andinthefaceofcontraryrulingsandopencriticismfromtheotherHigh
Courts–thattheActof1856wasinapplicabletoindividualswhowere,
priortothepassingoftheAct,permittedbyCustomaryLawtoremarry.258
257Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,pg.10,citingaquotebySeshagiriAiyar,J.,dissentingopinion,VittaTayrammav.ChatakonduSivayya,ILR41Mad.1078,pp.1095‐1096.258Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,pg.5.
98
Inthefinalanalysis,fewuppercastewomenavailedoftherightto
remarry259sothatthegreatestimpactoftheActwasvisiteduponthosewho
customarilyhadbeenpermittedbothtoremarryandtokeeptheirinheritances,but
whobecamesubjecttotheforfeitureprovisioninsection2undertheAct.260Thus,
thisprogressivesociallegislationwasunderminedbythepervasiveconservatismin
thewoman/tradition/law/scripture/propertynexusandbythecolonial
administrators’failuretoacknowledgethevarietyofinheritancepracticesamong
Hindusonthesubcontinent.
Therearemultiplenodesatthenexuswherewoman/tradition/law/
scripture/propertyintersectincolonialIndia.Womenareperceivedasthe
embodimentoftradition;traditionisdefinedbythescriptures;thescriptures
determinethelaws;andthelawsdefinepropertyrights,whichinturndetermine
women’sinterestsinthematerialworld.Inheritancelawasaspeciesofproperty
lawisimplicatedinthisnexus,beingdefinedbythescripturesanddefining
women’smaterialinterestsinaspheregovernedbytradition.
PriortotheenactmentoftheHinduWomen’sRightstoPropertyActof1937
alteringwhatwasthroughtheconjoinedeffectsofShatricscripturesandcaselaw
consideredtobeHindulaw,awidowunderbothDayabhagaandMitaksharalaw
259Dasgupta,IndraneelandDigantaMukherjee,“ARevisionistAnalysisoftheFailureoftheWidowRemarriageActof1856”,pg.1.ThisarticleprovidesaninterestingargumentthatthefailureoftheActwasanexampleofaninformationalmarketfailure,ratherthanfailureduetoprevailingsocialprejudices.260Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,pp.24‐25.
99
wouldnotinheritanyinterestinherhusband’sestate,exceptarightto
maintenance,unlessthehusbanddiedwithoutason,ason’sson,orason’sson’s
son.Eventhen,underMitaksharalaw,shecouldonlyinheritaninterestinher
husband’sestateifhewasnotatthetimeofhisdeathpartofajointfamily
coparcenary;ifhewaspartofsuchacoparcenarythensheonlyhadarightto
maintenance.UndertheDayabhagasystemthewidowcouldinheritaninterestin
herhusband’sestateregardlessoftheexistenceofanyjointfamilyownership.
Enactment of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act gave the Hindu
widow“a right to intestate successionequal toa son’s share in separateproperty
amongthosegovernedbyMitakshara,andinallpropertyamongthosegovernedby
Dayabhaga. It also gave her the same interest as her deceased husband in the
undividedMitaksharacoparcenary,withthesamerighttoclaimpartitionasamale
coparcener…”261Theenactmentcreatedtheserightsforthewidowoftheintestate
decedent, thewidowof apredeceased son, and thewidowofapredeceasedson’s
predeceasedson.However,therewerethreesubstantialconstraintsontheserights
as granted: 1) the enactment did not apply to agricultural land; 2) the inherited
interestwasforfeitedonremarriage;and3)thewidowdidnotinherittheproperty
outright,262butreceivedaninterestsometimesknownasawidows’estateor(more
accurately)awoman’sestate,asdaughtersandsisterssometimestookthislimited
estateaswell.
261Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.206.262Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn,pg.206.
100
v) TheHinduWoman’sEstate
Thewoman’sestateentitledawomantoincomefromthepropertyduring
herlifetime,butdidnotgrantherthepowerofalienationexceptfor“legal
necessity”,i.e.“incaseofneedorforthebenefitoftheestate”orforreligious
purposesthatwereforthedeceasedowner’sspiritualbenefit.263Whenthe
woman’sestatecametoanend,itdidnotpasstoherheirs,buttotheheirsofthe
lastmaleholder.Inthewordsofthecourts,thewomandidnotbecomea“fresh
stockofdescent”.264ThefollowingexaminationoftheparametersoftheHindu
woman’sestateasdevelopedunderAnglo‐Hindulawisanotherexampleofthe
colonizer’sconservatisminthewoman/tradition/law/scripturenexuswhen
propertyrightsareaddedtothemix.Thewoman’sestatealsoillustratesthe
homogenizingeffectofthecolonialjudicialapparatus.
Colonialjuristsandcontemporaryscholarshavegrappledwiththe
relationshipbetweenthesmritiscripturesandtheircommentariesandlocalusage
andpractice,tryingtodeterminewhichprecededwhich.Whilethemore
contemporaryviewwouldseemtoassertthatthesmriticommentatorshadto
accommodatelocalpracticetoalargeextent,265thePrivyCouncilexpressedthe
viewmostprevalentthroughoutthecolonialerawhichwasthatthetextwas
primary:“TheCommentatorputshisownglossontheancienttext;andhis
263Gupte,S.V.HinduLawofSuccession,Art.43(2)(C).264Gupte,S.V.HinduLawofSuccession,Art.43,para.10.265 Seeforexamplepg.29ofLudoRocher’sintroductiontohiseditedandtranslatedtextofJimutavahana’sDayabhagaand§262oftheEleventhEdition(1953)ofMayne’sTreatiseonHinduLawandUsage.
101
authorityhavingbeenreceivedinoneandrejectedinanotherpartofIndia,Schools
withconflictingdoctrinesarose”.266
Theprimacyofthetextsuitedcolonialjuristswellwhenitcameto
determiningtheextentofawidow’sauthorityoverpropertyinheritedfromher
husbandwhenhediedwithoutasonundertheDayabhagaschoolofBengaland
Assam.Underthesecircumstancesunderthisschooltherewasexpressauthorityin
Jimutavahana’sDayabhaga,thecommentarygenerallyconsideredtobethe
foremostauthorityinBengalandAssam,thatthewidowtookallthehusband’s
interest,butasarestrictedestate.267Thispositionsuitedcolonialjuristsown
perceptionsofthenaturalorderofthesubordinationoffemaleseverywhere–
especiallywhenpropertyrightswereconcerned‐‐andthescripturallymandated
submissivenessoftheHinduwoman.
However,thetextoftheMitaksharawaslessobliging.AsthePrivyCouncil
lamentedinMussumatThakoorDeyheev.RaiBalukRamandothers:
Thetextiswhollysilentastothedisabilitiesofthewoman,orthe
natureoftheinterestwhichshetakesinherhusband’sestate.Itmay
alsobeconcededthatnothingonthesepointsistobefoundintherest
266CollectorofMaduraV.MootooRamalinga[1868]12M.I.A.397,435.267SeeChapterEleven,SectionOne,Paragraph56ofJimutavahana’sDayabhagaaseditedandtranslatedbyLudoRocherwhereinitstates:“Notethattheonlyrightthewidowhasistheusufructofherhusband’sproperty;shemaynotgift,mortgage,orsellit.Indeed,[A]Katyayanasays:“Ifawidowwhohasnomaleoffspringremainsfaithfultoherhusbandandcontinuestolivewithoneoftheelders,shemay,withinreason,enjoytheusufructofhispropertytillshedies;afterthatitgoestoherhusband’sheirs.”
102
ofthatportionoftheMitacsharawhichhasbeentranslatedbyMr.
Colebrooke,andpublishedunderthetitleof“TheLawofInheritance
fromtheMitacshara”.268
WhiletheMitaksharatextwassilentontheimpositionofthewoman’sestate,the
localHinduLawOfficerorpunditconsultedbythelowerSudderDewannyCourt
tookacompromiseposition,indicatingthatancestralrealpropertywassubjectto
thewoman’sestate,butthatthewidowcouldgiveaway“toanyoneshelikes”real
propertyacquiredwiththeproceedsofthecouple’sshareoftheancestralestate.269
DespitethisabsenceofscripturalauthorityintheMitaksharaandintheface
ofthemorenuancedrecommendationsofanindigenousreligiousauthority,the
PrivyCouncilwentontoholdthatthedeceasedwidow“hadnopowerofdisposition
overtheimmovablepropertyinheritedfromherhusband,whetherancestralor
acquired.”270WiththisholdingthePrivyCouncildeterminedthatthediminished
propertyrightsknownasthewoman’sestatereachedbeyondBengalinto
Mitaksharaterritories,applyingittowidowswhoinheritedintheBenaresSchool.
Thedeterminationofwhethertheserestrictionsappliedtomoveable
propertyaswellasimmovable(real)propertywasleftforanotherday,however,
268MussumatThakoorDeyheev.RaiBalukRamandothers,11M.I.A.139(1866).269MussumatThakoorDeyheev.RaiBalukRamandothers,11M.I.A.139,150(1866).270MussumatThakoorDeyheev.RaiBalukRamandothers,11M.I.A.139,176(1866).
103
thatdaywasnotlongincoming.In1867inthecaseofBhugwandeenDoobeyv.
MynaBeethePrivyCouncilcametotheconclusionthat:
AccordingtothelawoftheBenaresSchool,notwithstandingthe
ambiguouspassageintheMitacshara,nopartofherHusband’sestate,
whethermoveableorimmoveable,towhichaHindoowoman
succeedsbyinheritance,formspartofherstridhun,orparticular
property;…271
ThelogicbehindthisPrivyCouncildecisiontoapplytherestrictionsto
movableaswellasimmovablepropertyrevealshowmuchtherestrictionsattached
tothewomen’sestate,albeitattributedtoHindulaw,accordedwiththeirLordships’
senseofthenaturalorderofthings:
ThereasonsfortherestrictionswhichtheHindoolawimposesonthe
Widow’sdominionoverherinheritancefromherHusband,whether
foundedonhernaturaldependenceonothers,herdutytoleadan
asceticlife,orontheimpolicyofallowingthewealthofonefamilyto
passtoanother,areasapplicabletopersonalpropertyinvestedsoas
toyieldanincomeastheyaretoland.272
FurtherdecisionsofthePrivyCouncilextendedthereachofthewoman’s
estatenotonlygeographicallyandtoalltypesofproperty,butalsofromwidowto
woman.Forexample,inChotayLallv.ChunnooLallandothersthePrivyCouncil
271BhugwandeenDoobeyv.MynaBee,11M.I.A.487,513‐514(1867).272BhugwandeenDoobeyv.MynaBee,11M.I.A.487,513(1867).
104
heldthatunderallMitaksharaschoolsexcepttheBombaySchooladaughter
inheritingfromherfatherintheabsenceofmaleheirsorawidowalsotooka
limitedestate.273AgainrejectinginterpretationsoftheMitaksharamorefavorableto
women,andalthoughtheirLordshipshadnotdecidedtheissuebefore,thePrivy
Councildecidedtodefertothedecisionsofthelowercourts,saying:
TheirLordshipsthinkthataftertheseriesofdecisionswhichhas
occurredinBengalandMadras,itwouldbeunsafetoopenthemby
givingeffecttoargumentsfoundedondifferentinterpretationsofold
andobscuretexts;andtheyagreeintheobservationswhicharetobe
foundattheendofthejudgmentoftheHighCourt,thatCourtsought
nottounsettlearuleofinheritanceaffirmedbyalongcourseof
decisions,unless,indeeditismanifestlyopposedtolawandreason.
Theydonotthinkthisruleisopposedtothespiritandprinciplesof
thelawoftheMitakshara;onthecontrary,itappearstothemtobein
accordancewiththem.274
YetdespitethePrivyCouncil’scitationtotheweightofdecisionsinBengal
(theheartoftheexpresslymorerestrictiveDayabhagaSchool)andMadras,itwas
notuntil1881inthecaseofMuttuVaduganadhaTevarv.DoraSinghaTevarthatthe
PrivyCouncildeterminedthattherestrictedwoman’sestatewasapplicableinthe
273ChotayLallv.ChunnooLallandothers,4Cal.744or6I.A.15(1878).274 ChotayLallv.ChunnooLallandothers,4Cal.744@755‐756.
105
Carnatic.Inthisdecisionitbecomesclearthatbythistimethemomentumofprior
decisionshadobviatedreason:
They[theappellants]relymainlyonthemuch‐discussedpassagein
theMitakshara(Cap.II,Sec.XI,Verse2)whereitsauthorVijnanesvara
addstothetextofYajnavalkyabydeclaringthatthecharacterof
stridhanattachesnotonlytotheacquisitionsbyawomanwhichthe
textspecifiesassuch,butalsotopropertywhichsheacquiresby
inheritance,orinfactbyanyothermode.Itisnotnecessarynowto
stateinanydetailhowimpossibleitis,whetherwithregardtothe
authorityofothercommentatorsortootherpartsoftheMitakshara
itself,toconstruethispassageasconferringuponawomantakingby
inheritancefromamaleastridhanestatetransmissibletoherown
heirs.Thepointisnowcompletelycoveredbyauthority.Inthecase
ofMussamatThakoorDeyeev.RaiBalukRam(11M.I.A.,139)suchan
interestwasclaimedonbehalfofawidowinherhusband’s
immovableproperty.InthecaseofBhugwandeenDoobeyv.Myna
Baee(11M.I.A.,487)suchaninterestwasclaimedonbehalfofa
widowinherhusband’smovableproperty.InthecaseofChotaiLallv.
ChunnooLall(L.R.,6I.A.,15;I.L.R.,4Cal.,744.)suchaninterestwas
claimedonbehalfofadaughterinherfather’sproperty.Allthese
caseswerecoveredbyMitaksharalaw.Andinallitwasheldthatthe
106
womantookonlyarestrictedinterestandthatonherdeaththe
propertydevolvedonthelineofthelastmaleowner.275
Inthisdecisionthetextualuncertaintiesandthecontraryadviceofpunditsinthe
priorcasescitedaresweptasideintherisingtideofprecedent.
ToreiterateapointmadeinChapterTwo,whetherpropertywasconsidered
stridhanaornotdeterminedawoman’scapacitytodisposeofthepropertyatwill
anddeterminedwhoreceivedthepropertyatherdeath.Duringherlifetime,a
womancoulddisposeofherstridhanaatherpleasureandawoman’sstridhana
passedtoherheirsatherdeath,ratherthantoherhusband’sheirs,276ortotheheirs
ofthepersonfromwhomsheinheritedtheproperty.277Ultimately,asthecaselaw
suggests,itcametobesettledAnglo‐Hindulawundermostschoolsgroundedinthe
Mitaksharathatanytimeawomaninheritedpropertyitdidnotbecomeher
stridhana,butalimitedestate;sheinheritedthisrestrictedestateregardlessof
whethersheinheritedthepropertyfromamaleorafemale,whethersheinherited
thepropertyduringmaidenhood,covertureorwidowhood,orwhetherthat
propertywasmoveableorimmoveable.278
Intheoryitwaspossibletoestablishthatonewasamemberofacommunity
whosecustomsvariedfromthatoftheMitaksharaasinterpretedbythecourts.
However,legaldoctrinemadethesecustomsverydifficulttoprove.Theburdenwas
275MuttuVaduganadhaTevarv.DoraSinghaTevar,3I.L.R.‐M.290@301.276Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.124.277Desai,SunderlalT.,MullaPrinciplesofHinduLaw,Sec.130.278Gupte,S.V.,HinduLawinBritishIndia,ChapterXVIII,Art.157,¶37.
107
onthepersontryingtoestablishthevariationfromthe“ordinarylaw”;sucha
variationhadtobeprovedbyclearandunambiguousevidence.279Furthermore,in
allegedvariationsinvolvingsuccessionlaw,suchcustomshadtobe“ancientand
invariable”.280
OnlytheBombaySchoolsucceededinmaintainingatextualinterpretation
morebeneficialtoatleastsomewomen.ThejuristsoftheBombayPresidency
determinedthattheBombaySchoolwasgovernedbytheMitaksharaasmodifiedin
certainrespectsbytheMayukha,anothercommentaryontheDharmashastras.
UndertheMayukhaasinterpretedbytheBombayHighCourt,thegeneralrulewas
that“propertyinheritedbyawoman(whetherfromamaleorfemale)is
stridhan.”281Womentakingarestrictedestatewereconsideredexceptionstothis
generalrule.Thus,“accordingtotheBombayschoolpropertyinheritedbyawoman
fromafemaleisstridhanainallcaseswithoutexception.”282
Propertyinheritedbyadaughterfromherfatheralsowasheldtofallunder
thegeneralruleoftheBombaySchoolandthereforebethedaughter’sstridhan.283
ThecaseofBalwantRaoandOthersv.BajiRaoandothersisaninteresting
279BhikubaiChunilalAmbaidasv.ManilalBhagchandRaychand,A.I.R.1930Bom517,(1930)32BOMLR1217@¶21.280BhikubaiChunilalAmbaidasv.ManilalBhagchandRaychand,A.I.R.1930Bom517,(1930)32BOMLR1217@¶21citingtoRarnalakshmiAmmalv.SivananthaPerumalSethwayar(1872)14M.I.A.570.281GandhiMaganlalMotichandv.BaidJadabandothers,1899I.L.R.24Bom192@217F.B.282Gupte,S.V.,HinduLawinBritishIndia,ChapterXVIII,Art.157,¶36.(A)(italicsinoriginal).283BalwantRaoandOthersv.BajiRaoandothers,(1920)57Ind.Cas.545,MANU/PR/0041/1920.
108
illustrationofthisprincipleinseveralrespects.First,itisinterestingbecauseitisan
exampleofthePrivyCouncilaffirmingthealternativeinterpretationoffemale
inheritancerightsintheBombayPresidencyundertheMitaksharaasmodifiedby
theMayukha:
Thequalityoftherightwhichadaughtertakes,whoinherits
immoveablepropertyfromherfather,hasbeendifferently
determinedindifferentpartsofIndia.Theabsoluterighthasbeen
affirmedbytheCourtsofWesternIndia,accordingtotheviewofthe
HighCourtofBombay.Thelimitedrighthasbeenaffirmedbyother
Courts,andthisBoardhasupheldtheruleasdeterminedineachcase
asapplicabletothepersonswhoselawisthelawofwesternorof
otherpartsofIndia.284
BalwantRaoandOthersv.BajiRaoandothersisalsointerestingbecauseneitherthe
realpropertyunderdisputenorthedeceasedfatheroftheinheritingdaughter
residedintheBombayPresidency;ratheritwasthateitherheorhisancestors(the
courtdidnotknowwhich)hadmigratedfromtheregionoftheBombayPresidency
toCentralIndia.Nevertheless,thecourtdeterminedthatthedecedentfatherwasa
MaharashtraBrahminandthereforethatthelawoftheBombayPresidencyapplied:
Nowitisabsolutelysettledthatthelawofsuccessionisinanygiven
casetobedeterminedaccordingtothepersonallawoftheindividual
284BalwantRaoandOthersv.BajiRaoandothers,(1920)57Ind.Cas.545,MANU/PR/0041/1920.
109
whosesuccessionisinquestion.ItiswellputbyMr.Maynein
paragraph48,whereheBays(sic):
‘Primafacie,anyHinduresidinginaparticularprovinceof
IndiaisheldtobesubjecttotheparticulardoctrinesofHindu
Lawrecognizedinthatprovince…Butthislawisnotmerelya
locallaw.Itbecomesthepersonallaw,andapartofthestatus
ofeveryfamilywhichisgovernedbyit.Consequently,where
anysuchfamilymigratestoanotherprovince,governedby
anotherlaw,itcarriesitsownlawwithit.’285
Thus,underAnglo‐Hindulawthepersonallawsattachedtoanindividualnotonly
basedonreligion,butalsobasedonjurisdictionalorigins.
However,liketheotherschoolsgovernedbytheMitakshara,awidow
inheritingfromherhusbandtookarestrictedestateandsowasanexceptiontothe
generalruleintheBombayPresidency.Evenso,someBombayjuristsseemedto
havetakenthispositionreluctantly,notingthattherestrictionsonthewidow’s
estatehadbeen“imposedagainstthegeneralopinionofthenativelawyers.”286
Thebroadanduniformimpositionofthewoman’sestateacrossgeographic,
doctrinalandsectarianboundariesexemplifiestheconservatismoftheBritish
colonialjuristsintheirinterventionsinthewoman/tradition/law/scripture/
285BalwantRaoandOthersv.BajiRaoandothers,(1920)57Ind.Cas.545,MANU/PR/0041/1920.286GandhiMaganlalMotichandv.BaidJadabandothers,1899I.L.R.24Bom192@201F.B.
110
propertynexus,aswellasthehomogenizingtendencyofcolonialjurisprudence.It
isunnecessarytoventureintothemorassthatisthecontroversyoverthe“correct”
interpretationoftheMitakshara–towhateverextentthiswasandisrelevanttothe
practicesofanyparticularcommunityofHindus.Itissufficienttonotethatthere
weremultipleinterpretationsoftheMitaksharaasitrelatedtowomen’sinheritance
availabletobeembracedbycolonialjuristsasrevealedbythevariedopinionsof
courtpundits.Indeed,colonialauthoritiesrepeatedlybemoanedthelackof
uniformityintheadviceofthepundits.287Yetinadjudicatingfemaleinheritance
rightsthemostconservativepositionwastakeninalljurisdictionsexceptthatofthe
BombayPresidency.
Thestiflinguniformityofthedecisionsonwomen’sinheritancerightsbegs
thequestionwhy.WhydidtheBritishcolonizerstakethisconservative,ratherthan
themoreprogressivepaththeyhadtakenwithseveralsocialissues?Theposition
thatthemalecolonialjuriststookthemoreconservativepathbecauseitaccorded
withtheirownviewofgenderrolesisimpliedinthenarrativeabove.Other
probablefactorsincludetheneedtoalignthemselveswithexistingpatriarchal
powersintheinterestofstabilityandthelikelihoodthatthemorepatrilineal
propertydevolutionfavoredbycolonialjuristsfacilitatedthecollectionofrevenues
andthuswasmorealignedwiththeimperativesoftheadministrationandfinancing
ofempire.Furtherresearchneedstobeconductedinthisareatoassessthe
relevanceofthesefactors.
287SeeSheoShankarLalandAnr.V.DebiSahai,(1903)L.R.30I.A.202,MANU/PR/0028/1903.
111
vi) AngloMuhammadanLawandtheInheritanceRightsofMuslim
WomeninIndia:AMixedLegacy
SimilartotheexperienceoftheirHinducounterpartsinthecaseofwidow‐
remarriage,MuslimwomenfoundthatwhattheBritishmightgivewithonehand
theymighttakewiththeother.InthewordsofGregoryKozlowski,“…thepresence
ofalienlawsandinstitutionsaddednewopportunitiesatthesametimeasthey
eliminatedanumberofoldones.”288
Infavorofwomen’sinheritanceofpropertyandtheircontrolthereoverwas
thetendencyofAnglo‐Indiancourtsto“applyatext‐bookversionofIslamicsocial
dogmas.”289Inpracticethismeantarigidapplicationofwhatwasreferredtoin
ChapterTwoasthe“scienceoftheshares”.Althoughawoman’sportionunderthe
“scienceoftheshares”wastypicallyhalfthatofasimilarlysituatedmale,receiptof
somepropertyoutrightwasoftenanimprovementoverMughalEradistribution
practicesandwascertainlypreferabletotherestrictionsimposedonthe“woman’s
estate”inheritedbyherHindusisters.
AnotherexampleofarigidapplicationofIslamiclawbyAnglo‐Indiancourts
thatredoundedtothebenefitofsomeMuslimwomenwastheenforcementofthe
husband’sprovisionofmehr,thebridalgift.Althoughnotaformofinheritance,its
enforcementusuallyoccurredasaresultoflitigationafterthehusband’sdeath.
288Kozlowski,GregoryC.,“MuslimWomenandControlofPropertyinNorthIndia”,pg.116.289Kozlowski,GregoryC.,“MuslimWomenandControlofPropertyinNorthIndia”,pg.117.
112
DuringthelateMughalErathepracticeofinflatingthemehrhadarisenasameans
ofacquiringgreaterprestige.However,onlyasmallfractionofthissumwas
generallygivenatmarriage,withtheexpectationthatthewifewouldultimately
renounceherrightstothebalanceofthepayment.“However,theliteralistbentof
theBritishcourtsmeantthatjudgesusuallyorderedthatthemoneypromisedbe
paid.”290“Becausesuchgreatsumshadbeenpledged,thecourtsgavewomenwhat
wasineffectlifetimecontroloftheproperty.”291
Atleasttwodevelopmentsbelongonthedeficitsideoftheledgerinthis
calculationoftheimpactofAnglo‐MuhammadanLawontheinheritancerightsof
Muslimwomen.Onewasthedetermination,particularlyafterthe1857Rebellion,
thattheinterestsoftheRajrequiredstabilityinagriculturalholdings.“Thus,the
governmenttoleratedtheexclusionoffemaleheirssolongasitpacifiedthepillars
oftheimperialsocialandeconomicorder.”292
Theseconddevelopmentbestplacedonthedeficitsideoftheledgerwasthe
BritishtreatmentoftheIslamicEndowmentorwaqf.293ThereasonsfortheBritish
dislikeofthewaqfwereatleastthree‐fold.First,thecolonizersneededtosupport
theirgovernmentadministration;whenregulartaxreceiptswereinsufficient,they
examinedtax‐exemptpropertiesmorecarefully.Inthiscontexttheydetermined
290Kozlowski,GregoryC.,“MuslimWomenandControlofPropertyinNorthIndia”,pg.130.291Kozlowski,GregoryC.,“MuslimWomenandControlofPropertyinNorthIndia”,pg.130.292Kozlowski,GregoryC.,“MuslimWomenandControlofPropertyinNorthIndia”,pg.127.293SeeChapterTwoforabriefdiscussionoftheattributesofawaqf.
113
thatawqafestablishedforthebenefitofindividuals,suchasthewaqif’sfamily
membersweretaxdodges.294Second,theBritishOrientalistscholarswhostudied
andwroteonAnglo‐MuhammadanlawonbehalfoftheRajweregreatadmirersof
thescienceoftheshares,anattitudewhichwascommunicatedtoBritish
magistrateswho,perhapsbecauseofthisendorsement,rigorouslyenforcedthis
aspectofthelawattheexpenseofthewaqf.295Finally,thedivisionofproperty
upondeathinaccordancewiththescienceofthesharesaccordedwiththeBritish
viewofrealpropertyasprivatelyheldandinheritable.
Althoughthefamilywaqfhadbeenaroundaslongasthewaqfitself,ithad
notbeenprevalentinpre‐BritishIndia,ifithadbeenpresentatall.296However,the
desiretocreatesuchawqafonthesubcontinentwasbornofthetwo‐fold
phenomenonunderBritishcolonialrule:first,thatunderBritishtreatmentof
propertylawlandbecameworthowning,andsecond,thestrictenforcementofthe
scienceofthesharesbyBritishcourtsmeantthefragmentationofthislandonce
acquired.297MuslimsinIndiaunderBritishcolonialruleperceivedtheseactionsas
athreattotheirwelfaresothatthestatusofthewaqfbecamea“hotlydebated
politicalissue.”298
Thisdebatefoundexpressionthroughlitigation.Atleastonejusticeheld,in
conformitywithmuchofIslamicLaw,infavoroffamilywaqfsolongasacharitable
294Koslowski,MuslimEndowmentsandSocietyinBritishIndia,pg.39.295Powers,“Orientalism,Colonialism,andLegalHistory”,pg.556.296Koslowski,MuslimEndowmentsandSocietyinBritishIndia,pg.40.297Koslowski,MuslimEndowmentsandSocietyinBritishIndia,pg.40.298Powers,“Orientalism,Colonialism,andLegalHistory”,pg.557.
114
orapublicinstitutionwastheultimatebeneficiary.ThecasewasFatimaBibiversus
TheAdvocateGeneralofBombayanditwasdecidedbyJusticeRaymondWestin
1882.299Sevenyearslaterthisrecognitionofthevalidityofthewaqfwasrejected
byLordHobhouseofthePrivyCounselinLondon,thesupremeauthorityinthe
Britishempire,inShaikhMahomedAhsanullaCowdhryversusAmarchandKundu
(andothers).Holdingthattheendowmentwas“illusory”andforthe“self‐
aggrandizementofthefounder’sfamily”,LordHobhouseruledinfavorofthe
endowment’sHinducreditor,AmarchandKundu.However,thisrulingwaslimited
totheendowmentinquestion,leavingforanotherdaythedeterminationofthe
validityoffamilyendowmentsgenerally.300Thatdaycamein1894inthecaseof
AbdulFataMahommedIshak(andothers)versusRussomoyDhurChowdhry(and
others).InthiscaseLordHobhouse,writingonbehalfofthePrivyCounsel,asserted
thatfamilyendowmentswerecreatedtoavoidthelawofinheritance.Basedonthis
beliefHobhousefurtherstipulatedthatwaqfshouldbesubjecttothesame
limitationsasprovidedunderthescienceoftheshares,thatisthatonlyamaximum
of1/3ofthenetestatecouldbesubjecttoawaqfandthatthebeneficiariesofthe
waqfcouldnotbepersonswhowouldinheritaportionoftheestate.301Inso
holdingLordHobhousere‐wrotethehistoryofthewaqfandfundamentallyaltered
theIslamicInheritanceSystem.
299Powers,“Orientalism,Colonialism,andLegalHistory”,pp.557‐558.300Powers,“Orientalism,Colonialism,andLegalHistory”,pg.558.301Powers,“Orientalism,Colonialism,andLegalHistory”,pp.559‐560.
115
Thedemiseofthewaqfhasbeenplacedonthedeficitsideoftheledger
becauseofitsnegativeeffectsonwomen’saccesstoinheritedproperty.
Nevertheless,asnotedbyKozlowski,theeffectsofthedemiseofthewaqfon
women’sinheritancerightswas,infact,somewhatambivalent:“Forwomen,
endowmentsweresomethingofatwo‐edgedswordwhichcouldcutoffmale
cousins,but,iftheyhadbrothers,itcouldalsobeusedtocutoffdaughters.”302
Insum,liketheinheritancerightsoftheirHindusisters,theinheritance
rightsofMuslimwomenbecameentwinedinthecolonizer’squestforstabilityand
authenticity,withafirmemphasisontheformer,particularlyaftertheRebellionof
1857.Therewasnoprogressiveagendawherewomen’srightstopropertywere
concerned.AlthoughMuslimwomenbenefitedsomefromtheenforcementofthe
scienceofthesharesandmehr,thesebenefitswereincidentaltotheBritishquest
forstabilitythroughauthenticityintheirenforcementofIslamicpersonallaw.
B.ChineseandMuslimSuccessionLawinSingaporeunderBritish
ColonialRule:TheQuestionofAccommodation
i)TheReceptionofEnglishLawintotheStraitsSettlements
SirStamfordRafflesfoundedSingaporeonFebruary6,1819throughatreaty
signedbyRaffles,SultanHusseinandTemenggongAbdulRahman,theleaderofthe
smallMalaycommunitypresentatthattime.303Thetreatyformalizedprior
302Kozlowski,GregoryC.,“MuslimWomenandControlofPropertyinNorthIndia”,pg.129.303Saw,Swee‐Hock,ThePopulationofSingapore,pg.3.
116
arrangementspermittingRafflestoestablishaBritishfactoryontheisland.304
ThroughsubsequenttreatiesandpaymentstheBritishwereallowedfinallyto
alienatethewholeislandinAugust1824.305
AlthoughtheseeventsmarkthebeginningofcolonialruleinSingapore,they
donotmarkthecommencementofthestoryofwomen’sinheritancerightsthere.
AsindicatedinChapterTwo,whichexploresthepre‐colonialinheritancesystemsof
thepeopleswhocametoinhabitSingapore,insomerespectsthisstorybegins
earlier.However,intermsoflawsconcerningwomen’sinheritancerights
promulgatedandadministeredbytheBritishcolonizersinSingapore,thestory
beginslaterforthevariousprerequisitesforthedeterminationofsuchrightswere
notinplaceatthattime.Theseprerequisitesincludetheestablishmentofalegal
system,theaccumulationofprivatecapitalamongstasignificantportionofthe
populationandthepresenceofwomen.AlthoughSingapore’spopulationgrew
rapidlyafterthecolonywasestablished,306evidenceindicatesthatmanyofthemale
laborersandtraderscamewithouttheirfamilies.MauriceFreedmanreportsthatin
the1881censustherewere“4,513‘Straits‐born’meninatotalChinesemale
populationof72,571,and5,014‘Straits‐born’womeninatotalChinesefemale
populationof14,195.”307
304Tan,KevinY.L.,“AShortLegalandConstitutionalHistoryofSingapore”,pp.28‐29.305Saw,Swee‐Hock,ThePopulationofSingapore,pg.3.306Saw,Swee‐Hock,ThePopulationofSingapore,pg.10.307Freedman,Maurice,“ChineseKinshipandMarriageinSingapore”,pg.66,footnote3.
117
Thequestionofthelegalsystem,althoughtechnicallyresolvedfairly
expeditiouslywiththereceptionofEnglishlaw,neverthelesspresented
administratorsandjudgeswithanumberofissuesregardingthedegreeof
applicabilityofthatlaw.AstheRecorder,Maxwell,musesinReginav.Willans:
Havingregardtothecircumstancesunderwhichthisplacebecamea
Britishpossession,itmaybedoubtedwhetherany,orifany,thenwhat
bodyoflawoughtdejuretohavebeenconsideredatthetimeofthe
establishmentoftheColony,asitslexloci,thatis,astheterritoriallaw
applyingtoallclassesofitsinhabitantsindiscriminately,without
distinctionofrace,creedornationality.Thegeneralruleoflaw
determiningwhatisthelawofaterritoryis,thatifthenewacquisition
beanuninhabitedcountryfoundoutbyBritishsubjectsandoccupied,
thelawofEngland,sofarasitisapplicable[1Bl.Com.107],becomes,on
thefoundationoftheSettlement,thelawoftheland[2P.Wms.75],that
ifitbeaninhabitedcountryobtainbyconquestorcession,thelawin
existenceatthetimeofitsacquisition,continuesinforce,untilchanged
bythenewSovereign.Intheonecasethesettlerscarrywiththemto
theirnewhomes,theirlaws,usagesandliberties,astheirbirthright.In
theother,theconqueredorcededinhabitantsareallowedtheanalogous,
thoughmoreprecariousprivilegeofpreservingtheirs,subjecttothewill
118
oftheconqueror.ThisSettlementhowever,didnotfallexactlyunder
eitherbranchoftheaboverule.308
PerceivingtheStraitsSettlementstobeneitheruninhabitedlandstobepopulated
withBritishsubjects,norlandspopulatedbyindigenoussubjectswithone
establishedlegalsystem,theBritishfacedaconundrumintheirdeterminationofan
appropriatelegalsystemfortheStraitsSettlements.Whattheysettleduponwas
Englishlawwithaccommodations;thenatureandextentoftheseaccommodations
infamilyandsuccessionlawvexedStraitsSettlementscourtsforoveracentury.
TheFirstCharterofJusticehadbeenissuedin1807therebyestablishinga
“CourtofRecordforthePrinceofWales’Island309withthejurisdictionandpowers
ofthesuperiorcourtsofEngland.”310TheCourtofRecordestablishedbytheFirst
CharterofJusticewascalledtheCourtofJudicature;thiscourtwasendowedwith
thejurisdictionofanecclesiasticalcourt“’sofarastheseveralreligions,mannersand
customsoftheinhabitantswilladmit.’”311TheSecondCharterofJustice,issuedin
1826,extendedthejurisdictionoftheCourtofJudicaturetoSingaporeandMalacca,
therebycoveringallofthethreeterritoriesthatcametobeknownastheStraits
Settlements.312EchoingthelanguageoftheFirstCharter,theSecondCharterof
Justicestatedthatthecourts“’…shallhaveandexerciseJurisdictionasan
308Reginav.Willans,[1808‐1884]03Ky16;[1858]Ky4.309PrinceofWales’IslandistodayknownasPenang.310Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg5.311Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg5(emphasisadded).312Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg5.
119
EcclesiasticalCourt,sofarastheseveralReligions,Manners,andCustomsofthesaid
SettlementandPlaceswilladmit.’”313
AThirdCharterofJusticewasissuedin1855.Acknowledgingthegrowing
populationandcommerceofSingapore,thisCharterreorganizedthecourtsystemof
theStraitsSettlementsintotwodivisions,oneforPenang,andanotherforSingapore
andMalacca.OneRecorder(judge)wasappointedforeachdivision.Againthe
courtsreceivedthesamemandateregardingtheexerciseofecclesiastical
jurisdiction.314
Before1858theEnglishecclesiasticalcourtsadministeredthelawofprobate
andadministration,315aswellasmarriagelaw,316sothatoneoftheeffectsofthe
SecondCharterofJusticewastocommencethedevelopmentoftwolinesoffamily
law:“First,commonlawrulesandequitableprinciplesconcerningthefamilyand
existingEnglishlegislationwerereceived”asthebasiclawoftheStraits
Settlements.317Second,thesecommonlawrulesandstatutesweretooperateonly
totheextentthattheresultswerenotunjust.318ThecaseofChoaChoonNeohv.
Spottiswoode319,acasecitedwithapprovalbythePrivyCouncil,320iswidely
313Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg5(emphasisadded).314Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg6.315Raman,G.,ProbateandAdministrationinSingaporeandMalaysia,pg.2.3162LawMagazineQuarterlyReviewofJurisprudencen.s.1(1845).317Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg.20.318Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg.20.319[1808‐1884]01KY216;[1869]KY1.320SeeYeapCheahNeoandOthersv.OngChengNeo,6P.C.381(1875).
120
recognizedasthemostaccuratestatementofthemeaningofthissecondprinciple.
ThecourtinSpottiswoodefoundthat:
InthisColony,somuchofthelawofEnglandaswasinexistencewhenit
wasimportedhere,andasisofgeneral[andnotmerelylocal]policy,and
adaptedtotheconditionandwantsoftheinhabitants,isthelawofthe
land;andfurther,thatlawissubject,initsapplicationtothealienraces
establishedhere,tosuchmodificationsasarenecessarytopreventit
fromoperatingunjustlyandoppressivelyonthem.321
Guidedbytheseambiguousprinciples,theexpatriateEnglishjudgesproceededto
imposetheirdistortedinterpretationsofthecustomsoftheinhabitantsofthe
StraitsSettlementsonthosepeoples.Oftenthesedistortedperceptionsweremade
manifestthroughsuccessionlitigation.
ii)TheWidows’Might:TheFateofChineseCustomaryPracticesUnder
EnglishLaw
Ifasingularverdictweretoberenderedwithregardtotheinheritancerights
ofChinesewomenduringSingapore’scolonialera,thatverdictmustbethatwomen
werethebeneficiariesofthereceptionofEnglishlawintotheStraitsSettlements,
especiallyincasesofintestacy.Underthe(English)StatuteofDistributions1670in
casesofintestacywivesbecamebeneficiariesofatleastone‐third,ifnothalfoftheir
husbands’estatesanddaughterswereentitledtosharesequaltothoseoftheir
321ChoaChoonNeohv.Spottiswoode,(1808‐1884)01KY216;(1869)KY1.
121
brothers.However,aswiththebenefitsofcolonialismbestowedonMuslimwomen
inIndia,theinheritancerightsgrantedtoChinesewomenwereincidental–inthe
caseoftheChinesewomenofSingapore,itwasaconsequenceofthedecisionto
governtheStraitsSettlementsColonybyEnglishlaw.Itwasnotaresultofany
Enlightenmentmovementtowardgenderequality.
Initially,theBritishruledtheChinesesettlersinSingaporeonlyindirectly
through“asystemofheadmanshipbyCapitansChina.Underthisformofloose
supervisiontheonlylegalrulesandmechanismappliedtotheChinesewereoftheir
ownchoiceanddevising.”322Legally,thissituationbegantochangein1826with
theBritishCrown’sissuanceoftheSecondCharterofJustice,heraldingtheformal
establishmentofthejudicialsystemofSingapore;nevertheless,itwasnotuntil“the
lastquarterofthenineteenthcenturythatgovernmentinterventioninChinese
affairshadanygreatinfluence….LegallyandpoliticallytheChinesecontrivedto
maintaintheirownworld.”323
Someareasoflawatleastintheorywereoutsidethejurisdictionofthe
Englishcourts.AsstatedinSpottiswoode:
Thusinquestionsofmarriageanddivorce,itwouldbeimpossibleto
applyourlawtoMahomedans,Hindoos,andBuddhists,withoutthemost
322Freedman,M.,“ColonialLawandChineseSociety”,pg.97(italicsinoriginal).323Freedman,M.,“ColonialLawandChineseSociety”,pg.98.
122
absurdandintolerableconsequences,anditisthereforeheld
inapplicabletothem.324
Indeed,thecourtsintheStraitsSettlementsheldthattheEnglishlawofmarriage
wassoinapplicabletothealieninhabitantsofthecolonythatthecourtswouldnot
acceptjurisdictionofacaseinvolvingawomanmarriedinaccordancewithChinese
customwhosoughtfromthecourtsrestorationofherconjugalrights.325Norwould
StraitsSettlementcourtsmakeadeterminationregardingthemaritalstatusofa
Jewishwomanwhocametothecourtsseekingsuchadetermination,aswellasa
decreefortherestitutionofherconjugalrights.326
Thiscircumspectionintheareaofmarriagelawwasnotfollowedin
interpretingtheapplicabilityofthe(English)StatuteofDistributions1670,which
wasoneofonlytwopiecesof“significantEnglishlegislationonthefamilyreceived
intotheterritories”,327theotherbeingthe(English)StatuteofFrauds.328The
Englishlawofsuccessionasreceivedintothecoloniespermittedallsubjects
testamentarydispositionbywill.However,iftherewasnowill,thentheproperty
passedbyintestacyinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheStatuteofDistributions.
UndertheStatuteofDistributionsawidowreceivedone‐thirdoftheestateifher
324ChoaChoonNeohv.Spottiswoode,(1808‐1884)01KY216;(1869)Ky1.325Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,citingLimChyePeowv.WeeBoonTek[1808‐1884]01KY236;[1871]KY2,pg5.326Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,citingFlorenceMozelleMeyerv.IsaacManassehMeyer,(1927)S.S.L.R.1.327Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg21.328Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg.21.
123
husbanddiedwithissueandone‐halfifhediedwithoutissue.329Ifamaledecedent
hadbothawidowandissuesurvivinghim,thenthosesurvivingdescendantstook
theremainingtwo‐thirdsoftheestate,perstirpes,i.e.byrightofrepresentation.
Eachsurvivingdescendanttookhisorhershareregardlessofgender.Ontheother
hand,ifawomandiedsurvivedbyherhusband,thenhewasentitledtoherentire
estate.
Butwhowasentitledtoreceivethewidow’sportionunderChinesecustom?
TherewereseveralcasesofintestatesuccessionbyChinesemalesubjectsofthe
StraitsSettlementsinwhichamandiedsurvivedbyawomanreferredtoasat’sai330
or“principalwife”andoneormoret’sipor“secondarywives”or,dependingon
one’spositiononthesubject,“concubines”.331Thus,oneofthegreatsuccession
controversiesarose:Whoqualifiedasawidowcapableoftakingthewidow’sshare
inthepresenceofa“principalwife”andoneormore“secondarywives”?Resolution
ofthisquestionrequiredthecourtstodeterminethedecedent’smaritalstatusin
relationtooneormorewomenwithclaimstothewidow’sportionoftheestate.
Whilethecourtshadrefusedtodeterminethemaritalstatusesofthewomeninthe
casescitedaboveinwhichthewomenhadcometothecourtsseekingrestorationof
theirconjugalrights,theStraitsSettlementcourtsintheirdeterminationofthe
appropriateapplicationoftheStatuteofDistributionstotheChinesesubjectsofthe
329McGovern,WilliamM.Jr.,SheldonF.KurtzandJanEllenRein,Wills,TrustsandEstates–IncludingTaxationandFutureInterests,§1.2,pg.3.330TheRomanizationofChinesecharactersemployedhereisthesameasthatusedbythecourtsatthetime.331SeeInTheGoodsofLaoLeongAn,(1893)1SSLR1andTheKingv.SimBoonLip,(1902‐3)VIISSLR4.
124
territoriesdeterminedthemaritalstatusesofinnumerableChinese.Theydidthis
throughthedeterminationthattheChinesewerepolygamous.TheStraits
SettlementsCourtofAppealreachedthisdecisionafteranextensivereviewof
evidencepresentedbeforethelowercourtinthefamouscaseofIntheMatterofthe
EstateofChooEngChoon,Deceased,ChooAngCheev.NeoChanNeo,TanSeokYang,
CheangChengKim,LimCheokNeo,MahImmNeo,andNeoSooNeo,332generally
referredtoastheSixWidowsCase.
InChapterTwoKathrynBernhardtwasquotedasdescribingtheimproving
statusoftheconcubine.AccordingtoBernhard,theconcubine’sstatusduringthe
QingDynastyprogressedfrombeing“littlemorethanasexualservanttoakindof
minorwife.”333InthiscontextthedecisionoftheBritishjudgesthattheChinese
werepolygamouscanbeseenasthenextlogicalstepinthisgradualelevationofthe
statusoftheconcubine.Nevertheless,thedecisionintheSixWidowscasethatthe
Chinesewerepolygamouswascontrarytothetestimonyofseveralexpertsof
Chineseancestry,allofwhomassertedthattheChineseweremonogamous.The
judgmentwrittenbyHyndman‐JonesintheSixWidowscasejustifiesthisdisregard
withthefollowingstatement:
Isayhowevergreattherespectwemayentertainfortheviewsofthese
gentlemen,wecannotallowthemtodecidethisquestionforus.Onthe
contraryitisourdutytoconsiderthepositionwhichthelawofChinahas
332[1911]XIISSLR120;[1908]SSLR2.333Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.161.
125
giventothesewomensofaraswecangatheritfromallthesources
aboveindicated,andinthelightofthatlawandhavingregardtothe
positionandbeingaidedbutnotrestrictedbytheevidencetowhichI
havereferred,decideforourselvesthequestionwhethertheChineseasa
nationaremonogamousorpolygamous.334
Thisstatementofjudicialautonomyalsomakesclearthattherewasno
specialinterestinthestatusofwomenorinimprovingthatstatus.Thecourtwas
simplyconcernedwithmarryingthecorrectcustomarypracticewiththeStatuteof
Distributionsasreceivedintothecolony.Theproblemwasinthequestionwhich
wasoneofinaccuratebinaries‐‐“widow”/“not‐widow”or“polygamous”/
“monogamous”withoutanyallowanceforpositionsonaspectrumbetweenthese
concepts.Apparentlytheaccommodationsthecolonialjudicialauthoritieswere
willingtomaketopreventoppressionandinjusticecouldnotencompassthe
distinctivefamilysystemprevalentamongtheChineseoftheStraitsSettlements.
OncethecourtsdeterminedthatChinesewerepolygamous,litigationfocused
ondeterminingwhoqualifiedasat’saiorat’sipsothattheyortheiroffspringcould
shareinthedecedent’sestate.Thusbegantheprocessof“’wateringdown’the
requirementofprovingsolemnizationofmarriage.”335Thecourtsmovedfrom
requiringextensiveproofofceremonies,withthoseallegingtobeprincipalwives
334IntheMatteroftheEstateofChooEngChoon,Deceased,ChooAngCheev.NeoChanNeo,TanSeokYang,CheangChengKim,LimCheokNeo,MahImmNeo,andNeoSooNeo,[1911]XIISSLR120.335LeongWaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg.90.
126
bearingthegreaterburdensincesuchastatuswasheldtorequireamoreelaborate
ceremonythanthatrequiredtotakeasecondarywife/concubine/t’sip.However,
thevarietyofceremonies,orinsomecasestheabsencethereof,graduallyledthe
courtstolooktothedurationofcohabitationandtopublicreputetodeterminea
validmarriage.Eventhisstandardunderwentfurtherdilutionuntilallthatwas
requiredwasamutualintentiontobecomemanandwife.Thecourtsfirstapplied
theselowerstandardstoconcubines,butgiventhattheprincipalwife’ssharewas
nogreaterthanthatofaconcubine,thecourtssubsequentlydeterminedthatit
wouldbeunjusttoholdaprincipalwifeandheroffspringtoahigherstandard.As
LeongWaiKumstates:
Thestagewasthussetfortheultimatedevelopment,viz.,toextendthe
latestliberalization,decidedregardingclaimsofhavingbeenmarriedas
concubine,totheprincipalwife.Astherewasnodifferenceinthestatus
oftheconcubineandtheprincipalwife,therewasnoreasontowithhold
theextension.Notonlywasitnaturaltosoextend,tofailtodosowould,
withirony,punishtheprincipalwife.Shewouldbeheldtostricterproof
thantheconcubine.Thecourts,havingdonetheprincipalwifethe
injusticeofequatingtheconcubinewithher,wouldnotcompoundthat
byrequiringofherstricterprooftonohigherstatus.336
336LeongWaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,pg.102.Foradetaileddiscussionoftheevolutionofthelawofmarriageandtheshiftingstandardsofproofforthepurposesofsuccession,seepages87‐105ofthiswork.
127
Thecourts’holdingsregardingthepolygamousnatureoftheChineseandthe
devaluationofthestatusoftheprincipalwifewhichresultedtherefromrevealthe
challengesofdiscussingtheinheritancerightsofwomenasaunitarygroup.Surely
principalwivesort’saiwouldhavepreferredthatthecourtsdetermineChineseto
bemonogamoussoastobeentitledtotheentirewidow’sshare.Nevertheless,a
goodcasecanbemadethatpartofashareisbetterthannoshareorthe
vulnerabilityofamaintenanceright,theprincipalwife’sentitlementsinatraditional
Chinesesuccession.
Theaccommodationthatwasmade,i.e.thatoftheallegedpolygamyofthe
Chinese,wasnotthekindofaccommodationofChinesecustomdesiredbythe
(presumablymale)leadersofChinesesociety.Indeed,MauriceFreedmancitesW.J.
Napier’s“TheApplicationofEnglishLawtoAsiaticRaces”,337fortheproposition
thattherewere“threemainpointsonwhich‘thewhole‐saleintroductionofEnglish
lawhasdisappointedChineseexpectationsandideas.’”338Thethreepointswereas
follows:
1) “Thenon‐recognitionofadoption”339particularlyofmalechildrenforsuccessionpurposes;
2) “’Givingthewifeandthedaughteralarge,andinthecaseofthelatteranequalsharewiththatofthesons;and
3) …Theimpossibilityoftyinguppropertyforseveralgenerations’”340forthepurposeofancestralworship.
337InNoctesOrientales.ASelectionofEssaysreadbeforetheStraitsSettlementsPhilos.Soc.,1893‐1910.Singapore.338Freedman,M.,“ColonialLawandChineseSociety”,pg.98.339Freedman,M.,“ColonialLawandChineseSociety”,pg.98.340Freedman,M.,“ColonialLawandChineseSociety”,pg.98,quotingfromW.J.Napier’s“TheApplicationofEnglishLawtoAsiaticRaces”pg.146.
128
Womenaswidowsanddaughterswerethedirectbeneficiariesofthesecondpoint,
and,inmanyrespects,theindirectbeneficiariesofthefirstandthirdpoints.
Daughtersbornintofamilieswithoutasonincasesofintestacydidnothaveto
sharetheirfather’sestatewithanadoptedson,letalonelosetheentireestatetohim
assuchdaughterswouldhaveundercustomaryChineserulesofsuccession.
Furthermore,itislikelythatsomewidows’anddaughters’shareswereenhancedby
theinabilityofadecedenttoleaveaportionofhisestateinperpetuityforthe
performanceofancestralworship.
Nevertheless,thenon‐recognitionofadoptionandthesharestowivesand
daughterswerelimitedtocasesofintestacy;itisimportanttorememberthat
Englishsuccessionlawpermittedtestamentaryfreedomthroughtheexecutionofa
will.ItisunclearhowmanypotentialChinesetestatorsavailedofthisopportunity
oncethedegreetowhichthelocalapplicationoftheEnglishStatuteofDistributions
differedfromcustomaryChinesesuccessionbecameevident.Whiletestamentary
freedomwouldnothavepermittedapatriarchtodevotefundstoperpetual
ancestralworship,itwouldhaveenabledhimtodisinherithiswidow(s)and
daughter(s)infavorofhisson(s).
iii)MuslimSuccessioninColonialSingapore:OftheWillandtheWaqf
TheimpactthereceptionofEnglishlawhadontheinheritancerightsof
Muslimwomenismoredifficulttoascertainthanthatlaw’simpactonChinese
women.AlthoughtheportionsallottedMuslimwidowsanddaughtersinintestacy
underEnglishlawwouldcomparefavorablywiththeportionsallottedtothem
129
underIslam’sscienceoftheshares,traditionalMuslimsuccessionpracticeswould
nothavepermittedtheseportionstobewilledaway.NotsowithEnglishsuccession
lawinwhichitwaspossibleforatestatortodisinherithiswivesanddaughters.
StraitsSettlementscourtsdeterminedthatthetestamentaryfreedom
availableunderEnglishlawappliedtoStraitsSettlementMuslimsinthecaseknown
asInTheGoodsofAbdullahdecidedin1835.341Inthiscasetherewas‐‐
…anapplicationtosetasidetheadministrationgrantedtothewidowof
thedeceased,aMahometan,andtoadmitanallegedWilltoprobate.
TherewasnodisputeastotheexecutionofthepapertreatedasaWill;
butitwasurgedonthepartofthewidowthattheWillwasinoperative,
asnotbeingconformabletotherulesoftheMahometanlaw:thefact
thatiswasnotsoconformableisadmitted,andtheonlyquestionis,
whetherforthatreason,theWilloughtnottobeadmittedtoprobate.
ThecourtheldthatEnglishlaw,includingthepowertomakeawilltodisposeofthe
entiretyofone’sproperty,appliedtoalloftheinhabitantsoftheStraitsSettlements,
regardlessofreligionorrace.Indeed,thejudgeinthiscase,RecorderMalkin,
believedthattestamentaryfreedombestowedbytheEnglishofferedallofthe
inhabitantstheopportunitytofollowtheirownsuccessionpracticesbysimply
incorporatingtheprovisionsofsuchpracticesintheirwills:
341InTheGoodsofAbdullah,[1808‐1884]02KY8;[1835]KY1.
130
Itmaybedesirabletocalltonotice,thatitisthefaultofnativeholdersof
propertyifanyinconvenienceresultsfromthepresentdecision,
supposingittobeestablishedaslaw.ThelawtowhichIconsiderthem
assubject,givesthemostunlimitedfreedomofdisposalofpropertyby
Will;andanymanthereforewhowisheshispossessionstodevolve
accordingtotheMahometan,Chinese,orotherlaw,hasonlytomakehis
Willtothateffect,andtheCourtwillbeboundtoascertainthatlawand
applyitforhim.342
However,thelitigationthatensuedoversubsequentyearsrevealedthat
implementingthedesiresofthemembersoftheMuslimcommunitythrough
testamentaryinstrumentssubjecttointerpretationbyEnglishjudgeswasnotas
simpleasRecorderMalkinasserted.LiketheChinese,Muslimsfoundthattheir
conceptionsofappropriatecharitableandreligioususesofpropertycontinuallyran
afouloftheEnglishRuleAgainstPerpetuities.
TheRuleAgainstPerpetuitiesremainsineffectinmanyjurisdictionsrooted
inEnglishCommonLaw.Asstatedinitsmodernformitholdsthat:
Nointerestinrealorpersonalpropertyshallbegoodunlessitmustvest,
ifatall,notlaterthan21yearsaftersomelifeinbeingatthecreationof
342InTheGoodsofAbdullah,[1808‐1884]02KY8;[1835]KY1.(Emphasisinoriginal.)
131
theinterestandanyperiodofgestationinvolvedinthesituationtowhich
thelimitationapplies.343
Therule,renownforitscomplexityinapplication,isdesigned“…tofacilitatethefree
alienationofpropertywhichinturnhelpsassureitspropermaintenanceand
changinguseasdictatedbythechangingcircumstancesofitsvariousownersandof
societyasawhole.”344Initsessenceitisaruledesignedtoprotectcommercial
interests.
Critically,charitableusesareexemptfromtheapplicationoftheRuleAgainst
Perpetuities.EvensoMuslimandChinesetestatorshaddifficultytailoringtheir
perpetualcharitablebequeststothefitthisexceptiontothesatisfactionofEnglish
judges.Forexample,inFatimah&Ors.v.D.Logan&Ors.aMuslimtestatorgavethe
residueofacertaindevisedpremisestobepartofthe“WhakoffofMahomed
Noordin”asfollows:
Toexpendfortheyearlyperformanceofkandooriesandentertainments
formeandinmyname,tocommenceontheanniversaryofmydecease
accordingtotheMahomedanreligionorcustom,suchkandooriesand
entertainmentstocontinuefortensuccessivedayseveryyear,andalso
intheperformanceofanannualkandoorieinthenameofallthe
343CaliforniaCivilCode§715.2ascitedinWills,TrustsandEstatesIncludingTaxationandFutureInterestsbyWilliamM.McGovern,Jr.,SheldonF.KurtzandJanEllenRein,§13.1,pg.504.344Klughv.UnitedStates,588F.2d45,53(4thCir.1978)ascitedinWills,TrustsandEstatesIncludingTaxationandFutureInterestsbyWilliamM.McGovern,Jr.,SheldonF.KurtzandJanEllenRein,§13.2,pg.505.
132
prophets,andtoexpendthesameingivingakandoorieorfeast
accordingtotheMahomedanreligionorcustom,tothepoor,forten
successivedaysineveryyear,fromtheanniversaryofmydecease,tothe
extentofthreehundreddollars,includingthecostoflightingupthe
mosqueorburial‐placeofmydeceasedmotherandtheschool‐rooms
theretoadjoining.Andalsotogivekandooriesorfeaststothepooras
aforesaid,onceeverythreemonths,totheextentofonehundreddollars,
andprovidedthereshouldremainanysurplusmoneys,thenthesameis
tobeexpendedinpurchasingclothesfordistributiontothepoor.345
Inmakinghisdeterminationregardingthefateofthisdispositionthejudge
lamentedthattheclause“wasnotdiscussedatanylength,andIhavenomeansof
knowingthemeaningofthewordkandoorieexceptfromthecontext,astherewas
noevidenceonthepoint”.346Nevertheless,thejudgedeterminedthat,exceptforthe
giftofthesurplusforpurchasingclothingforthepoor,thebequestfailedasanon‐
charitableperpetuity:
Butthewholeobjectofthisclauseseemstobetoprovidefundsfor
certainceremonialentertainmentstobegiveninhonourofthetestator,
inaccordancewiththeMahomedanreligionorcustom.Asthegiftisto
lastforever,thequestionariseswhetheritischaritableornot,asifitis
not,itisvoidastendingtoaperpetuity.Noevidencewasgiventoshew
345Fatimah&Ors.v.D.Logan&Ors.,[1808‐1884]01KY255;[1871]KY1.346Fatimah&Ors.v.D.Logan&Ors.,[1808‐1884]01KY255;[1871]KY1.
133
thenatureofobjectofthesefeastsandkandoories,andwhethertheyare
enjoinedbytheMahomedanreligion,andIconfessthatlookingatthe
descriptionoftheobjectsofthetestator’sbountyinthemostliberal
manner,itdoesnotappeartomethattheycan,inanysenseoftheword,
becalledcharitable.347
Yetdespitethefailureofportionsofthetestator’sbequeststoawaqftobe
establishedinhisname,thepetitioners,Fatimah,whoallegedtobethedecedent’s
wife,andTengahCheeMah,hisacknowledgeddaughter,didnotachievetheirgoal.
Bytheirpetitiontheyhadsoughttohavethewilldeclaredinvalidundereither
EnglishorMuslimlaw,whicheverthecourtdeterminedtobeapplicable,withthe
assetsoftheestatepassingbyintestacyundertheprevailinglaw.Instead,thecourt
interpretedtheresiduaryportionofthewaqf,aportionworkingprimarilyinfavor
ofthedecedent’ssonsandtheirdescendants,asvalid.Indeed,Fatimahwasfoundto
havebeendivorcedbythedecedentinaccordancewithMuslimlawyearsbeforehis
death.Asforthedecedent’sdaughter,thetestamentaryfreedomaffordedherfather
underEnglishlawdeprivedherofinheritancerightsshewouldhaveenjoyedunder
Muslimlaw.Againitisclearthattheinterestsofwomenwerenotforemostinthe
mindsofthecolonialadministrators.
Inotherinstancesthe“next‐of‐kin”didbenefitfromtherefusalofthecourts
oftheStraitsSettlementstorecognizepurposesthatMuslimtestatorsclearlysawas
charitableorreligious.ForexampleinReHadjeeEsmailBinKassim,Deceased.
347Fatimah&Ors.v.D.Logan&Ors.,[1808‐1884]01KY255;[1871]KY1.
134
MohamedeenAndOthersv.HussainBeebeeBinteShaikAliBeythetestatorattempted
tosetasideaportionofhisestateasawaqfdedicatedtofivepurposes:
(a)Ceremoniestobeperformedinhishonor.(b)Almstothepoor.(c)
PilgrimagestoMecca.(d)Ayearlyremittanceofsuchsumashistrustee
shouldthinkpropertohisbrotherandsisterinIndia.(e)Aprovisionfor
themaintenanceofanyofhischildrenandtheirdescendantsandother
relativeswhomightbeinindigentcircumstances.348
Althoughthecourtfoundthat(b)and(e)werecharitablepurposes,theyfailed
becausetheamountwasleftuncertain.LikethekandooriesintheFatimahcase,(a)
wasfoundnottobecharitable,aswellastobeuncertain.Asfor(c),thepilgrimages
toMecca,theAttorney‐Generalhadassertedthatthispurposewasreligiousand
thereforeprimafaciecharitable.Thecourtrejectedthisposition,stating:
Therebeingthereforenoevidence,norindeedanysuggestionthatthese
pilgrimagesdoanythingmorethanmerelysolacethepilgrim,and
possiblyhisfamily,Iamof[the]opinionthatthispurposewasnot
charitable.349
Withallbut(d)failingforuncertainty,lackofacharitablepurposeorboth,thecourt
determinedthatthebulkoftheincomeshouldgotothenext‐of‐kin,withthe
348ReHadjeeEsmailBinKassim,Deceased.MohamedeenAndOthersv.HussainBeebeeBinteShaikAliBey,[1911]XIISSLR74;[1911]SSLR4.349ReHadjeeEsmailBinKassim,Deceased.MohamedeenAndOthersv.HussainBeebeeBinteShaikAliBey,[1911]XIISSLR74;[1911]SSLR4.
135
principaltobesimilarlydistributedattheendoftheperpetuitiesperiod,i.e.
“twenty‐oneyearsafterthedeathofthelastsurvivingchildofthetestator.”350
Thenext‐of‐kinbenefitedagainwhenSyedShaikAlkaff’sattempttocreatea
waqfthroughtestamentarydispositionwasheldinvalidbytheSingaporecourt.351
InthisinstancethetestatorhadexecutedhiswillinArabic;thecourtworkedoffa
translationwhichallpartiesacceptedasaccurate.Thetestatorhaddividedhis
(extensive)propertyinto300shares.Ofthese,thetestatordirectedthattwo
hundredbedistributedamongsthiswife,childrenandotherrelationsin
proportionsnotdescribedinthecase.Theremainingthirdwastobeusedtocreate
awaqftofundcertain“goodworks”.These“goodworks”weretoinclude:
(1)Thereliefofindigentbloodrelativesofhimself,ofhisdeceased
fatherandofhisdeceasedbrother,(2)thedistributionontheeveof
Fridayoftheusualmealtothepoor;and(3)thespendingofthebalance
ingoodworksinTerimanditsdistrictsandinSaion,MeccaandMedina
atthediscretionofhisexecutors.352
Inthisinstancethecourthonedinontheterm“goodworks”,theEnglishrendering
oftheArabictermamuralkhaira.Accordingto“twoMohammedanwitnesses”who
gaveevidenceatthetrial,thetermusedinaMuslimwillwouldmean“’workssuch
350ReHadjeeEsmailBinKassim,Deceased.MohamedeenAndOthersv.HussainBeebeeBinteShaikAliBey,[1911]XIISSLR74;[1911]SSLR4.351ReSyedShaikAlkaff,Decd.;Alkaff&Anorv.AttorneyGeneral,S.S.,[1958]01MC38;[1923]MC1.352ReSyedShaikAlkaff,Decd.;Alkaff&Anorv.AttorneyGeneral,S.S.,[1958]01MC38;[1923]MC1.
136
astheKuranwouldapprove.’”353AgaintheAttorney‐Generalarguedinfavorof
upholdingsuchascharitable,assertingthat“amuralkhairarepresenttothemind
ofaMohammedanworksofareligiouspurposewhicharethereforeprimafacie
charitableandmustbeheldtobecharitable,unlesstheycanbeprovedtobe
immoralorcontrarytopublicpolicy.”354Againthecourtrejectedthisargument
withthefollowinganalysis:
Now,asitseemstome,thefallacyinthisargumentliesintheassumption
thatapurposewhichisreligiousintheeyesofadevoutMohammedanis
forthatreasonreligiousinthesenseinwhichthewordisusedinthe
proposition“religiouspurposesareprimafaciecharitable.”Thewordas
usedinthepropositionhasnoveryexactmeaning,butitssenseis
sufficientlyrestrictedtoexcludetheideasassociatedwithsuchwordsas
“benevolent,”“philanthropic”and“altruistic.”Tobe“religious”inthe
truesense,apurposemusttendtothepromotionofreligionnotmerely
secure“theapprovaloftheAlmighty.”Whereasintheeyesofthe
Mohammedansuchapprovalistheonlytest.Oneillustrationissufficient
topointthedifference:tomakeprovisionforone’schildrenisanact
whichhastheapprovaloftheAlmightyandistherefore,toa
Mohammedan,areligiousact,butitisnot,evenprimafaciecharitablein
thelegalsense.ForthesereasonsIhavenohesitationinholdingthata
353ReSyedShaikAlkaff,Decd.;Alkaff&Anorv.AttorneyGeneral,S.S.,[1958]01MC38;[1923]MC1.354ReSyedShaikAlkaff,Decd.;Alkaff&Anorv.AttorneyGeneral,S.S.,[1958]01MC38;[1923]MC1.
137
purposeisnotprimafaciecharitablesimplybecauseitisregardedbya
devoutMohammedanasreligious.355
Intheendthecourtapprovedonlypurpose(2),withthebalancetobedistributedto
thenext‐of‐kin.Interestingly,thejudgetoldthepartiesthatthe“distribution
amongstthenextofkinmaygiverisetoaquestionastowhethersomepartofthe
propertywillnotdevolveaccordingtotheMohammedanLaw,butIhavenodoubt
thepartieswillbeabletodecidethatquestionwithoutfurtherreferencetothe
court.”356Wasthejudgewinkingatanintestatedistributionthatunderthelawof
theStraitsSettlementsasitexistedatthattimeshouldhavebeendistributedin
accordancewiththeEnglishStatuteofDistributions,butwaslikelytobedistributed
bytheestate’srepresentativesinaccordancewithMuslimlaw?Itisinterestingto
notethatthecasewasdecidedin1923,asitwasin1923thatanAmendmentwas
madetotheMahomedanMarriageOrdinancewhichprovidedinpartthat:
InthecaseofanyMahomedanpersondyingintestateafterthe1st
January,1924,theestateandeffectsshallbeadministeredaccordingto
Mahomedanlaw,exceptinsofarassuchlawisopposedtoanylocal
customwhichpriorto1stJanuary,1924hastheforceoflaw.357
355ReSyedShaikAlkaff,Decd.;Alkaff&Anorv.AttorneyGeneral,S.S.,[1958]01MC38;[1923]MC1.356ReSyedShaikAlkaff,Decd.;Alkaff&Anorv.AttorneyGeneral,S.S.,[1958]01MC38;[1923]MC1.357Talib,NaimahSaid,“BritishPolicyTowardsIslamintheStraitsSettlements(1867‐1941)”,pg40,citingtothe1923(No.26)MahomedanAmendment,Section27.
138
SowhiletheestateofaMuslimintestatein1923wouldpassbyEnglishlaw,suchan
estatewouldpassbyShari’alawin1924.
The1923actwasanamendmenttotheMahomedanMarriageOrdinance(no.
5of1880).The1880Ordinancecontainedthreeparts,358onetoaddressthe
registrationofmarriagesanddivorces,asecondcallingfortheappointmentof
Kathis,andathird“todefinethemodificationsofthelawsofpropertytobe
recognizedinthecaseofMahomedanMarriages”.359ThepurposeoftheOrdinance,
asstatedbytheAttorneyGeneralatthetime,wasto:“placetheMahomedanwomen
hereinthesamepositionasshewouldbeinanMahomedancountry,thatistosay
herpropertyisuntouchedanditremainsthesameafterhermarriageasbefore.”360
Thus:
X.Allthepropertybelongingtoawomanonhermarriage,whether
moveableorimmovable,andhoweveracquired,shall,aftermarriagetoa
Mahomedanhusband,continue,intheabsenceofspecialwritten
contracttothecontrary,tobeherownproperty;andshemaydisposeof
358Talib,NaimahSaid,“BritishPolicyTowardsIslamintheStraitsSettlements(1867‐1941)”,pg10.359OrdinanceNo.Vof1880,asprintedintheStraitsSettlementsGovernmentGazette,August27,1880,pg.839.360Talib,NaimahSaid,“BritishPolicyTowardsIslamintheStraitsSettlements(1867‐1941)”,pg10,citingtotheStraitsSettlements,LegislativeCouncilProceedings,1June1880,p.B12.
139
thesame,bydeedorotherwise,withorwithouttheconcurrenceofher
husband….361
TheeffectofthisprovisionwastotakemarriedMuslimwomenoftheStraits
Settlementsoutsidethelegaldisabilitiesofcoverturethatattachedtomarried
womenunderEnglishlawsuchthatamarriedwomancouldnotownpropertyfree
fromherhusbandsclaimorcontrol.362
ThroughtheMahomedanMarriageOrdinanceandtheamendmentsthereto,
theBritishmadegreateraccommodationstoMuslimlawthantheymadefor
ChinesecustomarylawintheStraitsSettlements.Itislikelythatthiswasdueto
theirgreaterfamiliaritywithMuslimlawthroughtheiradministrationofthatlawin
India.Buteventhisaccommodationwasnotcompleteastherewereatleasttwo
importantsubstantiveareasinMusliminheritancelawwhereEnglishlawprevailed.
ThefirstwasexpressedinSection27ofthe1923Amendmentwhereitstates,
contrarytoMuslimlaw,that:“anyofthenextofkinwhoisnotaMahomedanshall
beentitledtoshareinthedistributionasthoughhewereaMahomedan.”363More
critically,andagaincontrarytoMuslimlaw,MuslimtestatorsintheStraits
Settlementswerefreetodisposeoftheirentireestatesastheypleased,whereasthis
361OrdinanceNo.Vof1880,SectionX,asprintedintheStraitsSettlementsGovernmentGazette,August27,1880,pg.847.362Black,HenryCampbell,M.A.,Black’sLawDictionary,pg.366.363Talib,NaimahSaid,“BritishPolicyTowardsIslamintheStraitsSettlements(1867‐1941)”,pg41,citingtothe1923(No.26)MahomedanAmendment,Section27.
140
testamentaryfreedomislimitedto1/3ofanestateunderShari’alawandeventhen
itissubjecttorestrictions.364
Insum,anidiosyncraticmélangeoflawsgovernedthedistributionofMuslim
estatesintheStraitsSettlements.Initially,thelawwasstrictlyEnglishlaw,though
thedegreetowhichthislawgovernedMuslimpracticesintheearlyyearsisan
issue.AstimewentontheEnglishmadecertainaccommodationsforMuslim
practices,in1880takingMuslimwomenoutfromunderthedisabilitiesofcoverture
andfrom1923onallowingintestateestatestopasspursuanttoShari’alaw.
Althoughawifewouldhavebeenassuredashareofherhusband’sestateunder
Shari’alaw,theretentionofcompletetestamentaryfreedomforallMuslimtestators
meantthatunderStraitsSettlementlaw,Muslimwomencouldbedisinheritedby
theirhusbands.ThisleftMuslimwomeninamorevulnerablepositionthanthey
wouldhavebeenunderatrueadministrationofShari’alaw.
C.SuccessionAmongtheChineseofColonialHongKong:Elliot’s
ProclamationsandthePerpetuationofQingLaw
ThroughoutmostofBritishcolonialrule,theChinesewomenofHongKong
didnotfareaswellastheirSingaporesisters.AlthoughbothinhabitedBritish
coloniesthemajoritypopulationsofwhichwereethnicallyChinese,theinheritance
lawwhichtheBritishcolonizersappliedinHongKongdifferedradicallyfromthat
appliedinSingapore.Specifically,theHongKongjudiciarydeterminedthatChinese
364Talib,NaimahSaid,“BritishPolicyTowardsIslamintheStraitsSettlements(1867‐1941)”,pg42.
141
customarylawratherthanthe(English)StatuteofDistributions1670appliedto
HongKong’sChineseinhabitants.Asaconsequence,theChinesewomenofHong
KongenduredthesamekindofinequitablesuccessionpracticesthatChinese
womenhadenduredforcenturies.
AlthoughtheeffectsoftheBritishchoiceoflawontheChinesewomenof
HongKongwereprofound,againwefindnoevidenceofanyconsiderationbeing
giventothoseeffectsatthetimeoftheestablishmentofthecolony.Onlyinthe
waningyearsofcolonialcontroldidwomen’sissuesfindexplicitexpressionthrough
reformationoftheinheritancelawstomakethemmoregenderequal.Thefollowing
examinationofthedevelopmentofinheritancelawasitappliedtoandaffected
ChinesewomeninHongKongduringthecolonialera,anerawhichonlyendedin
1997,willexplorethefactorsintheimplementationofBritishruleinHongKong
thatledthecolonizerstotakeanapproachsodifferentthanthattakeninSingapore,
aswellasthefactorswhichledthecolonialadministrationinitslateryearstotake
women’sinterestsintoconsideration.
i)TheFoundationsofHongKong’sDualLawSystem
BritishoccupationandadministrationofHongKongIslandandharbormay
besaidtohavebegunonJanuary7,1841whentheChineseImperialCommissioner,
Chi‐shan,havinglostafewbattlestoBritishforces,signedtheConventionofChuan‐
piwithCaptainCharlesElliot,theBritishPlenipotentiaryinChina.365Formal
365Hsu,BerryFong‐Chung,TheCommonLawSysteminChineseContext:HongKonginTransition,pg.8.
142
occupationbeganpursuanttothisConventiononJanuary26,1841.AmongCaptain
Elliot’sfirstofficialactsweretheissuanceoftwoproclamations,onedatedFebruary
1,1841,whichheissuedjointlywithCommodoreBremer,andanotherdated
February2,1841whichheissuedalone.Thefirstproclamationstatedinpart:
Theinhabitants...arefurthersecuredinthefreeexerciseoftheir
religiousrights,ceremoniesandsocialcustomsandintheenjoymentof
theirlawfulprivatepropertyandinterests.Theywillbegoverned,
pendingHerMajesty’sfurtherpleasure,accordingtothelaws,customs
andusagesoftheChinese(everydescriptionoftortureexcepted)bythe
eldersofvillages,subjecttothecontrolofaBritishmagistrate…366
Thesecondproclamationreinforcedthefirst,statinginpart:
AndIdoherebydeclareandproclaim,thatpendingHerMajesty’sfurther
pleasure,thenativesoftheislandofHongKong,andallnativesofChina
theretoresorting,shallbegovernedaccordingtothelawsandcustomsof
China,everydescriptionoftortureexcepted.AndIdofurtherdeclare
andproclaim,thatpendingHerMajesty’sfurtherpleasure,allBritish
subjectsandforeignersresidinginorresortingto,theislandofHong
366Lewis,D.J.,“ARequiemforChineseCustomarylawinHongKong”,32InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly347,pg.348,citingtoJ.W.Norton‐Kyshe,TheHistoryoftheLawsandCourtsofHongKong(1898),Vol.1,pg.5.
143
Kong,shallenjoyfullsecurityandprotection,accordingtotheprinciples
andpracticesofBritishlaw…367
BothgovernmentssubsequentlyrepudiatedtheConventionofChuan‐pias
beyondtheauthorityofthesigningofficers,theChineseonJanuary30,1841andthe
BritishonApril30,1841.368Furthermore,theBritishForeignOfficeconsideredthe
proclamationsprematuresincenoformaltreatyhadbeenratifiedbythe
sovereign.369“Nevertheless,theproclamationsappeartohaveformedthebasisof
theapplicationofEnglishlawinHongKonguntil1844.”370Theyarealsogenerally
citedastheoriginsofChina’sdualsystemoflaw.Indeed,D.J.Lewisinhisarticle
called“ARequiemforChineseCustomaryLawinHongKong”callsthem“thefirst
legalbasisfortheapplicationofChinesecustomarylaw…”371
HongKongIslandwasformallycededtotheBritishintheTreatyofNanking
(signedAugust29,1842,ratificationsexchangedJune26,1843).372HongKong
furtherexpandeditsterritoryin1860wherebypartofKowloonPeninsulawas
367Lewis,D.J.,“ARequiemforChineseCustomarylawinHongKong”,32InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly347,pg.348,citingtoJ.W.Norton‐Kyshe,TheHistoryoftheLawsandCourtsofHongKong(1898),Vol.1,pg.4.368Hsu,BerryFong‐Chung,TheCommonLawSysteminChineseContext:HongKonginTransition,pg.8.369Hsu,BerryFong‐Chung,TheCommonLawSysteminChineseContext:HongKonginTransition,pg.8.370Wesley‐Smith,Peter,TheSourcesofHongKongLaw,pg.88.371Lewis,D.J.,“ARequiemforChineseCustomarylawinHongKong”,32InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly347,pg.348.372Wesley‐Smith,Peter,TheSourcesofHongKongLaw,pg.88.
144
cededtotheBritish.373HongKong’sfinalterritorialaccretioncamewiththe
ratificationoftheConventionof1898throughwhichGreatBritainobtaineda99‐
yearleaseoftheareagenerallyknownastheNewTerritories.374
ACharterdatedApril5,1843establishedHongKongasacolonywithalaw‐
makingbody:theGovernor,actingbyandwiththeadviceofaLegislative
Council.375Fromthispointontheparametersofcoloniallawweresetbyaseriesof
SupremeCourtOrdinancesbeginningin1844.AsreportedinthecaseofInReTse
LaiChiu,DeceasedTseMoonSakv.TseHungandOthers,theenactmentsrelevantfor
determiningtheapplicabilityofEnglishlawwere:
(a)s.5oftheSupremeCourtOrdinance,Cap.4,1950RevisedEdition,
(originallys.3ofOrd.No.15of1844ands.7ofOrd.No.12of1873)
whichreadsasfollows:‐
OperationoflawsofEngland.5.SuchofthelawsofEnglandasexisted
whentheColonyobtainedalocallegislature,thatistosay,onthe5th
dayofApril,1843,shallbeinforceintheColony,exceptsofarasthe
saidlawsareinapplicabletothelocalcircumstancesoftheColonyor
373Hsu,BerryFong‐Chung,TheCommonLawSysteminChineseContext:HongKonginTransition,pg.9.374Hsu,BerryFong‐Chung,TheCommonLawSysteminChineseContext:HongKonginTransition,pg.9.375Wesley‐Smith,Peter,TheSourcesofHongKongLaw,pg.89.
145
ofitsinhabitants,andexceptsofarastheyhavebeenmodifiedbylaws
passedbythesaidlegislature.376
ThisportionofthetextoftheseSupremeCourtOrdinancesisreminiscentin
spiritoftheChartersofJusticepromulgatedintheStraitsSettlementswhereby
courtstherewereempoweredtoexerciseecclesiasticaljurisdiction“sofarasthe
severalreligions,mannersandcustomsoftheinhabitantswilladmit.”377
Nevertheless,HongKong’sjudiciaryinterpretedtheirSupremeCourtOrdinancesas
requiringamuchgreateraccommodationwithChinesecustomarylawthanStraits
SettlementcourtsfoundnecessarytobeincompliancewiththeirChartersofJustice.
Why?
Therearetwointerrelatedfactorsthathelpaccountforthisdifference.First,
theBritishperceivedtheinhabitantsoftheStraitsSettlementsasmigrantsupon
whomtheycouldimposeEnglishlaw,albeitwithaccommodations.HongKong’s
inhabitantswereperceived,ontheotherhand,as“native”subjectsofthesovereign
powerfromwhomtheyhadwrestedtheisland.AssuchtheinhabitantsofHong
Kongwereentitledtothebenefitsoftheirownlawuntilalteredbythenew
sovereign,GreatBritain.CaptainElliot’sProclamationsgaveexpressiontothis
understandingandwereintendedtoprovidereassurancetoHongKong’s
inhabitants.TheexistenceofElliot’sProclamationsthusconstitutesthesecond
factorleadingtothedevelopmentofHongKong’sduallawsystem.Theimportance
376InReTseLaiChiu,DeceasedTseMoonSakv.TseHungandOthers,[1969]HKLR159@159‐160.377Seenote311supra.
146
ofElliot’sProclamationsisexpressedinthecolony’scaselaw‐‐despitetheultra
virescharacterofthoseProclamations.
TheimportanceofElliot’sProclamationsisnowheremoreevidentthanin
the1915caseofHoTszTsunvHoAuShi.378Inthiscasethefullcourtheldonappeal
that“theStatuteofDistributionsdoesnotgovernthedevolutionoftheleasehold
estateofaChineseintestate.”379Insoholding,thecourtinHoTszTsunfinally
clarifiedthatHongKongoperatedunderaduallawsystem:
WehaveintheColonytwosystemsofdistribution,oneundertheStatute
whichasbeenrecognizedbytheCourts,andtheothertheChineselawof
inheritanceorsuccessionwhichaccordingtotheevidenceisandalways
hasbeenobservedbyChineseresidents.380
ThejudgesinHoTszTsunfoundedthissystemuponElliot’sProclamations.AsChief
JudgeRees‐Daviessaysinhisconcurringopinion:
Itisthereforeclearthat,atthecessionoftheislandtotheBritishCrown,
expressreservationwasmadeonbehalfoftheSovereign,insofaras
Chinesewereconcerned,ofthelawsandcustomsofChina;whilst
extendingtoBritishsubjectsandforeignerssecurityandprotection
378HoTszTsunvHoAuShi,YeungSiuChi,HoHongChung,HoChengShiandChanHoShi,[1915]10HKLR69.379HoTszTsunvHoAuShi,YeungSiuChi,HoHongChung,HoChengShiandChanHoShi,[1915]10HKLR69.380HoTszTsunvHoAuShi,YeungSiuChi,HoHongChung,HoChengShiandChanHoShi,[1915]10HKLR69@72.
147
accordingtotheprinciplesandpracticeoftheBritishlaw;thus
recognizingadualprospectivesystemoflawintheColony.381
HavingdecidedthatHongKongwasbasedonaduallawsystem,thecolony’sjudges
werefreetoassessandapplythatlawwithoutbeingrequiredtoapplytheEnglish
conceptsembeddedintheStatuteofDistributions.While,perhaps,alaudable
applicationoftheconceptsoflegalpluralism,womenwerenotthebeneficiariesof
HongKong’sbifurcatedjustice.
ii)TheAttributesofChineseCustomaryInheritanceLawas
AdministeredinColonialHongKong
InordertodeterminewhetherChinesecustomarylawcouldbeadaptedto
theStatuteofDistributionsthecourtinHoTszTsuncollectedaffidavitsonChinese
lawandcustoms.ThecourtgaveparticularweighttotheaffidavitsofaMr.Ross
andofMr.LinWeiChang,thelatteridentifiedasPresidentoftheHighCourtofthe
provinceofKwangtung.Thecourtreacheditsconclusionsontheprincipalfeatures
ofChinesesuccessionpracticesbasedontheseaffidavits:
ShortlystateditisclearfromthesethatChinaisapolygamouscountry;
thatthefirstwifehasprecedence,butthattheotherwivesarewivesand
notmerelyconcubines;thatthechildrenofallarelegitimate;thatthe
childrenadoptedintothefamilyareinthesamepositionaschildrenby
381HoTszTsunvHoAuShi,YeungSiuChi,HoHongChung,HoChengShiandChanHoShi,[1915]10HKLR69@79.
148
blood,thatthoseadoptedoutofitlosetheirrighttoinherit,andthis
systemofadoptioniscommon;thatmalesinherittotheexclusionof
females,whoalsoontheirmarriageceasetobemembersofthefamily;
thatwivesprincipalandsecondaryareentitledaswidowsto
maintenancesolongastheybehavethemselvesproperly,butarenot
entitledtoanyshareinthesuccession.Suchbeingthelawwhichgoverns
Chinesesuccession,itnotonlyseemstomeimpossibletoascertain
underitclasseswhomighttakeundertheStatuteofDistributions;but,
whatismoreimportant,itseemsimpossibletoholdthattheStatutecan,
withoutoppression,bemadeapplicabletoapeoplesubjecttosuchalaw
ofinheritance.382
Soitwasthatasof1915theStatuteofDistributionswasdeemedtoooppressiveto
applytoChineseinHongKong,leavingsuccessiontoacustomarysystemoppressive
towomen.Thiswasananomalousdecisioninlightofthedeterminationinthe
StraitsSettlementstoimposetheStatuteofDistributionsonthemajorityChinese
populationthere.Nevertheless,bothdecisionsweremadeindependentofany
concernsforwomen’spropertyrights;inbothcasestheimpactsofthesedecisions
onwomenweremereby‐productsofthecolonizer’squestforstabilityandorderin
theadministrationofitsempire.
382HoTszTsunvHoAuShi,YeungSiuChi,HoHongChung,HoChengShiandChanHoShi,[1915]10HKLR69@73‐74.
149
Meanwhile,eventsinChinawereneitherstablenororderly.By1915the
QingDynastyhadfallenwithnocredibleauthoritytoreplaceit.“Between1916and
1928andinperipheralareasevenlonger,Chinawasdividedamonganumberof
competingwarlords,orlocalmilitaryleaders.”383Thelate1920’sand1930’ssaw
theriseoftheGuomindangNationalistsandthelate1930’sand1940’sbroughtthe
Japaneseinvasionfollowedbycivilwar.HongKongwasitselfoccupiedbythe
Japanesefrom1941‐1945.TheChineseCommunistPartyfinallyprevailedinitswar
againsttheGuomindangin1949,unifyingChina’sgovernance,butinitiatinganew
eraofupheavals.
Theplaceofwomeninsocietywasanintegralpartoftheideologicalbattles
thatragedduringthisperiod.Eveninthemidstofthisviolenceandturmoillaws
reflectingamoreequitableorderfoundexpression.TheGuomindangbeganits
codificationeffortsin1927;its“booksonfamilyandoninheritancewere
promulgatedinDecember1930andwentintoeffectonMay5,1931.”384Gender
equalityininheritancerightsandthedismantlingofpatrilinealsuccessionwere
centraltothislegaleffort.385
ItwasinthiscontextthatthecolonialadministrationinHongKong
appointedacommitteeinOctober1948,withthemandate:
383Fairbank,JohnK.,EdwinO.Reischauer,andAlbertM.Craig,EastAsia–TraditionandTransformation,pg.757.384Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.101.385Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,pg.101.
150
ToconsiderandmakerecommendationsastohowfarChineselawand
customasexistingin1843–
(a) isnowapplicabletoChinesedomiciledinHongKongorother
Chineseresortinghere;
(b) shouldwithorwithoutmodificationbeincorporatedbyOrdinance
intothelawoftheColony;
(c) shouldwhetheralreadyincorporatedornotbesupersededwithor
withoutmodificationbythelawoftheColonyapplicabletopersons
towhomsuchChineselawandcustomdoesnotapplyorbyany
otherlaw;
andgenerallytoconsiderandmakerecommendationsastowhatis
thebestcourse,legislativeorotherwise,toadoptinrelationto
ChineselawandcustominforceinHongKong.
Theresultsofthecommittee’sefforts,areportthatcametobeknownasthe
StricklandReportnamedafterthechairmanofthecommittee,wasissuedin
Decemberof1950.Asincorporatedinthecommittee’smandate,theStrickland
Reportincludedrecommendationsforchangesinthosepartsofthelawthen
governedbyChineselawandcustom,i.e.marriage,divorce,adoption,and
inheritanceandthelawofsuccession.Inthislatterareathecommittee’s
recommendationsincludedtheallowanceoftestamentaryfreedomforallproperty,
includinglandintheNewTerritories,andtheabolitionof“Tsinglawasto
successiononintestacyinallcasesexceptinsofarassuchlawmaybeapplicableto
151
intestatesuccessiontolandintheNewTerritoriesandsubstitutethelawapplicable
tosuchsuccessionundertheChineseCivilCode(Nationalist)”withspecified
modifications.386TheChineseCivilCode(Nationalist)wasthemoregender
equitableinheritancelawdevelopedbytheGuomindang.
Unfortunately,theHongKonggovernmentrefusedtoacceptthemajor
recommendationsoftheStricklandReport,includingthoserecommendations
concerningthelawofsuccession.387Nevertheless,thereportisvaluableasan
assessmentoftheroleandcharacterofChineselawandcustominHongKonginthe
middleoftheTwentiethCentury;thesepracticesremainedlargelyinaccordwith
Qingcustomarylaw.Thus,thoseentitledtosucceedwere“allsonsandtheirmale
descendants,whetherbornoftheprincipalwifeorofaconcubine.”388Ofa
decedent’sdaughters,onlythosewhowereunmarriedhadanyclaimontheestate
andthatclaimwasto“acertainsumasagreeduponineachparticularcase”.389Ifa
manhadnosonsborntohim,hecouldadoptortheelderscouldappointonefor
him.Onlyiftherewerenobiological,adoptedorappointedsonssothatthemale
386TheStricklandReportonChineseLawandCustominHongKong–ReportofaCommitteeappointedbytheGovernorinOctober,1948,pg.75.387Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.179.388TheStricklandReportonChineseLawandCustominHongKong–ReportofaCommitteeappointedbytheGovernorinOctober,1948,pg.16.389TheStricklandReportonChineseLawandCustominHongKong–ReportofaCommitteeappointedbytheGovernorinOctober,1948,pg.16.
152
linewas“extinct”weredaughtersentitledtodividetheproperty.390Asforthe
positionofwidows,thereportwasremarkablysanguine:
Nospecialprovisionismadeforthewidowassuch,butsheisamply
caredfor.Ifsheisalsothemotherofthefamilyshecanrefusetoconsent
toadivisionoftheestate,inwhichcaseshehasthepracticalcontrolof
thewholeinheritance,andifsheisawidowofasondyingbefore
division,sheisentitledtothecustodyandmanagementofherhusband’s
shareintrustforhersonsortheadoptedsuccessor.391
iii)TheBeginningoftheEndofChineseLawandCustominHongKong
AlthoughtherecommendationsoftheStricklandReportwerenotfollowed,
D.J.Lewissuggests‐‐indeedlaments–thatthereportseemedtoaffecttheattitudes
ofthejudiciarysothatinthecaseofWongYuShiandOthersv.WongYingKuen,392
ChiefJusticeHoganannouncedthat:
InourviewChineselawandcustomprevailsonlyifthecorresponding
Englishlawisinapplicableinthesensethatitcannotbeapplied
withoutinjusticeoroppressionandifitisnotshowntobeexcludedby
HongKonglegislation.393
390TheStricklandReportonChineseLawandCustominHongKong–ReportofaCommitteeappointedbytheGovernorinOctober,1948,pg.17.391TheStricklandReportonChineseLawandCustominHongKong–ReportofaCommitteeappointedbytheGovernorinOctober,1948,pg.17.392[1957]HKLR420.393WongYuShiandOthersv.WongYingKuen,[1957]HKLR420@443.
153
InhisrequiemLewisfindsthatthiscasereversesthepositionsofChineseand
Englishlaw:
Englishlawwouldhenceforthbegenerallyapplicabletoallthe
inhabitantsofHongKong,includingtheChinese,withChineselawand
customonlybeingentertaineduponashowingthattheapplicationof
Englishlawwouldresultin“injusticeoroppression”.Importantly,the
burdenofproducingevidenceontheissueofinapplicabilitywasshifted
fromthepartyclaimingEnglishlawtothepartyclaimingChineselaw
andcustom.394
ThecaseofInReTseLaiChiu395illustrateswellthemorevulnerablestatusof
ChineselawandcustomwhenEnglishlawisassumedtoprevailunlessitisshown
toresultininjusticeoroppression.Thiscasefinallysettledtheissueofwhether
ChinesehadtestamentarycapacityorwhethersuchwasprohibitedbyChinese
customarylaw.Holdinginfavoroftestamentarycapacity,thecourtdetermined
thispowerworkednoinjusticeoroppressiononChinesesocietyasitexistedatthe
timeofthetestator’sdeathin1960.
ThepenultimatenailinthecoffinforChineselawandcustominHongKong
washammeredinshortlyafterthedecisionintheTseLaiChiucasewithaflurryof
legislativeactivitythattranspiredin1969‐1971.(Theselegislativeacts
representedonlythepenultimatenailbecauseofexceptionsrelatedtothe
394Lewis,D.J.,“ARequiemforChineseCustomaryLawinHongKong”,pg.353,citingInreTseLaichiu[1969]HKLR159@177forthefinalproposition.395InreTseLaichiu[1969]HKLR159@193.
154
devolutionoflandintheNewTerritories.)Likethedismantlingandreconstruction
ofsomanyinterlockingpieces,theselegislativeactswereintendedtodeconstruct
theChinesepolygamous,patrilinealfamilysystemandreplaceitwithastrictly
monogamous,bilateralsystemmodeledonEnglishlaw.AsD.M.EmrysEvans,then
aprofessorandheadoftheDepartmentofLawattheUniversityofHongKong,
notesinhis1973articleentitled“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,the
monogamyenvisionedwasnotthatwhich,somewouldargue,prevailedinChinese
customarylaw,i.e.thatofoneprincipalwife,togetherwithoneormoreconcubines,
butthat“usedinthesenseexplainedbyLordPenzanceinHydev.Hyde(1866)L.R.1
P.&D.130at133totheeffectthatitimpliesthe‘voluntaryunionofonemanand
onewomanforlifetotheexclusionofallothers.’”396
Alitanyoftheactspassedtoimplementthesechangesmustcommencewith
theMarriageReformBill,whichfirstappearedin1969andpassedintolawin1970,
thoughitwasbroughtintoforceonlyin1971,“thedateuponwhichother,
complementaryor‘partner’legislationwasbroughtintoforce.”397“Partner”
legislationwouldincludeatleastthefollowing:398
• LegitimacyOrdinance(Cap.184,LHK1971ed.;originallyNo.29of1971);
396Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@12,footnote17.397Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@11.398Thefollowinglistoftheinterrelatedlegislationistakenfromfootnotes12and13inD.M.EmrysEvans’“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@11.
155
• MarriedPersonsStatusOrdinance(Cap.182,LHK1971ed.;originallyNo.27
of1971,asamendedbyNo.39of1972);
• Deceased’sFamilyMaintenanceOrdinance(Cap.129,LHK1971ed.;
originallyNo.12of1971);
• ProbateandAdministrationOrdinance1971(Cap.10,LHK1971ed.;
originallyNo.26of1971);
• Intestates’EstatesOrdinance(Cap.73,LHK1971ed.;originallyNo.1of
1971,asamendedbyNo.49of1971andNo.39of1972);and
• TheWillsOrdinance(Cap.30,LHK1970ed.;originallyNo.32of1970).
WhileitwasthecombinedeffectoftheseOrdinanceswhichbroughtsweeping
changestotheHongKongsuccessionlandscape–thatterrainonwhichfamilial
structuresmeetpropertyrights–thefollowingdiscussionfocusesprimarilyon
Section4oftheIntestates’EstatesOrdinance(IEO)whichconcernsthe“Succession
toestateonintestacy”.Pursuanttothissection,summarilystated,asurviving
spousewasentitledto:
• Halftheestateifalsosurvivedbydescendantsofthedecedent,orthe
decedent’sparentsorsiblings;399or
• Alloftheestateiftherewerenosurvivingdescendants,parentsorsiblingsof
thedecedent.400
399Intestates’EstatesOrdinance(Cap.73,LHK1971ed.,sections4(3)and4(4))asreportedinD.M.EmrysEvans’“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@37.
156
Furthermore,regardlessofthepresenceofothersurvivors,thesurvivingspouse
wasentitledtothefirst$25,000intheestate401andwasfirstinlineforappointment
astheestate’spersonalrepresentative.402
Thepositionofdaughterswassimilarlyimproved,anydaughterstakingas
“issue”thesameassons.403Althoughawidowwithoutasoncouldadoptunderthe
appropriatestatute,customaryadoptionsand,consequently,posthumousadoptions
werenolongerrecognized.Asaresult,daughters’entitlementswerenolonger
jeopardizedbypostmortemactions.404
Special“transitionalprovisions”regardingunionsof“concubinageentered
intobefore7October1971”weremadesothatconcubineswereentitledtosupport
fromtheestateandsothattheirchildrencouldtakeasthelegitimateissueoftheir
father.405
Unsurprisingly,theseimprovementsinwomen’spropertyrights,albeit
delayedincomparisonwithotherChinesesocieties,werecontroversialinHong
Kong.Themostsophisticatedopponentsarguedfromalegalpluralistpointofview.
400Intestates’EstatesOrdinance(Cap.73,LHK1971ed.,section4(2))asreportedinD.M.EmrysEvans’“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@37.401Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@36.402Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@35,citingtotheProbateandAdministrationOrdinance,1971.403Intestates’EstatesOrdinance(Cap.73,LHK1971ed.,section4(3))asreportedinD.M.EmrysEvans’“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@37.404Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@36.405Intestates’EstatesOrdinance(Cap.73,LHKSection13).
157
D.M.EmrysEvanswasoneofthemorearticulate,ifnotthemostarticulate,ofthose
objectingtotheimportationofEnglishlawreflectedinthe1971ordinances.His
knowledgeablewritingsonHongKongsuccessionreflecthisdismayasheassertsin
anarticlepublishedin1973thatthewidow:
…hasusurpedthepositionoftheeldestsoninrelationtoadministration
oftheestate,andshehasalsousurpedhispositioninthat,inthe
appropriatecircumstances,shecantakethewholeoftheestatetothe
exclusionofthechildrenwherethenetvalueoftheestateisbelow
$25,000.406
By1979Evanshaddevelopedamorenuancedpositionwhen,writingastheDean
oftheSchoolofLaw,UniversityofHongKong,hepennedthefollowingobjection:
ButIwouldliketomakeageneralcriticismofthetrendevincedbyHong
Kong’s1971legislation.Thetrendwhichcanbeseeninboththe
commonlawworldandelsewherehasbeentomoveawayfrom
dependenceonthe‘legitimate’relationship,intheold‐fashionedsense,
towardsareadieracceptanceofthenexusofthebloodrelationship,
whetherstrictlylegitimateornot.Thechildbornoutofwedlockis
widelytreatedasmuchasthechildborninwedlock,andfactual
dependencyassumesagreaterimportancethandependencywithin
406Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@36.(Italicsinoriginal;underliningadded)
158
prescribedlegaldegreesdefinedbyreferencetomarriage.Thisis
somethingtowhichwecouldwellpaysomeattentioninHongKong.
Thoughitisalmostheresytosuggestit,itmaybethatHongKonghas
takenabackwardstep:the‘old’law,basedonatraditionalviewofthe
familyinChineseculturalterms,providedawiderbasisofsupport
withinawiderfamilyunit.Theformaldestructionofthesystemwhich
underpinnedthatwiderbasishashadtheeffect,forexample,ofmaking
unmarried,yetdependent,womenmistresseswithoutthehopeofany
rightsandtheirchildrenequallyunprotectedbastardsintermsoftheir
propertyrights.Yetthischangewasachievedinthenameofprogress
underthebannerofenhancingthestatusofwomenandfreeingthem
fromwhatwasseenasademeaningyokeimposedonthembyChinese
customarylaw.Wasthechangereallynecessary?407
WhileEvans’questionshouldbeansweredwitharesounding“YES”,thereis
somevaliditytohiscritique.Forexample,Evans’visionofalegalregimeinwhichat
leastthechildrenofout‐of‐wedlockunionsarenotmadetosufferforthedecisions
andactionsoftheirparentsisonethatshouldbeembraced.
Evansalsocriticizesthe1971legislationasbeingbasedonEnglishlawand
theEnglishconceptofthefamily,ratherthanbeingreflectiveofChinesecultureor
407Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,10HongKongLawJournal19(1980)@21‐22.
159
foundeduponsoundsociologicalresearch.408Yet,iftherewasawaytoachieve
genderequalityinsuccessionlawinHongKongwithoutresortingtothewholesale
importationofEnglishstatutes,itwaslosttothehegemonythatwasWestern
thoughtandvaluesatthatpointintime.
Atthetimeofitsenactmentin1971theIEOexemptedlandintheNew
TerritoriesfromitsapplicationsothatlandinthatpartoftheColonycontinuedto
devolveinaccordancewithChinesecustom.AsEvansexplainedinhis1973article:
TheIEOthuscontinuestheimplementationofalong‐standingand
deliberatepolicywithregardtotheNewTerritories.Thispartofthe
Colonyhasalwaysreceivedspecialtreatmentinaneffortbyitsnew
rulerstopreservesomethinglikethegeneraladministrativeframework
whichobtainedatthetimeoftheleaseaswellasthecustomsandusages
ofthetime.409
But,aswillbedemonstratedinthefinalchapter,therecouldbenosuchthingasa
culturalmuseumpieceintheheartofathrivingmetropolis.
D. SummaryComparisonoftheImpactofColonialism
Thedevelopmentsdetailedinthischapteralltranspiredwithinthecontext
ofBritishcolonialism,acontextinwhichpropertyconcernswereparamount.
Amongthecomplextasksofcolonialrulewasensuringthatasystemofproperty
408Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,10HongKongLawJournal19(1980)@21&23.409Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973)@39.
160
interestswasinplaceinwhichtitleswereclear,thetaxbasetransparent,andassets
fungiblewithoutundulydisturbingastatusquoinwhichtheseattributesmaynot
havebeenpresent.Somelegislationdesignedtoimprovethelivesofwomen,such
astheHinduWidowsRemarriageAct,wasenactedtotheextentpermittedbythese
propertyimperatives.However,throughoutmostofthecolonialerawomen’s
propertyrightsdidnotfigureinanyprogressiveagenda.Thisisnottosaythat
womenneverbenefittedfromBritishpropertypolicy–incasesofintestacythe
ChinesewomenintheStraitsSettlementsbenefittedfromthedecisiontoapply
Englishlawtothecolony;itistosaythatanybenefitssoaccruedwereincidentalto
decisionsmadeforotherpurposes.
161
CHAPTERFOUR
THEPOSTCOLONIALCATHARSIS
ANDTHEINHERITANCERIGHTSOFWOMEN
Notuntilthewaningdaysofcolonialruledidwomen’srights,including
women’spropertyrights,riseinpriority.Thehigherprofilegivenwomen’sissues
wasduetoahostofinterrelatedfactors,includingthespreadoftheinfluenceofthe
women’smovementwhichattimes,thoughnotalways,workedintandemwith
campaignsforpoliticalindependence.Demandsforindependencepavedtheway
forlimitedformsofpoliticalrepresentationastheillegitimacyofdirectdomination
offoreignterritoriesbegantobeacknowledgedeveninBritishdomesticopinion.
Politicalrepresentationprovidedafocusforactivists’demands.
Althoughprogressonwomen’sissueswasmadeinIndiaandSingaporeprior
totheirachievingindependence,fullequalityininheritancelawdidnotcomeuntil
afterindependence–withmajorlegislationfollowingshortlyafterindependencein
acatharticexpressionofliberationandequality.InthisnarrativeHongKongisan
anomaly,havingachievedgenderequalityininheritancerightsunderBritishrule.
Ontheotherhand,bythetimewomenachievedequalinheritancerightsintheNew
Territoriestheremainingdaysofcolonialismwerefewinnumber.TheSino‐
BritishJointDeclarationwasadecadeoldandthetransferofsovereigntytoChina
butthreeyearsaway.
Thischapterrecountsthesehistoriesleadingtoatleaststatutoryequalityin
theinheritancerightsoftheHinduwomenofIndiaandtheChinesewomenof
162
SingaporeandHongKong.Althoughaninadequatelyregulatedtestamentary
freedomleavessomeroomforfurtherreforminIndiaandSingapore,thegoalof
statutoryequalitylargelyhasbeenachievedfortheHinduwomenofIndiaandthe
ChinesewomenofSingaporeandHongKong.
Islamiclaw,alegalsystemlongattheforefrontofwomen’sinheritance
rights,ascurrentlyineffectinIndiaandSingaporeenshrinesaninequalityatodds
withtherightsaccordedwomenofotherfaiths.Thischapteralsowillexaminethis
situationandtheprospectsforchange.
A. INDIA’SHINDUCODESTRUGGLE
TheearlyTwentiethCenturywitnessedmuchpoliticalactivityontheIndian
subcontinentasthestruggleforindependenceintensified.Theformationofseveral
women’sorganizationstopushforchangesinwomen’slegalstatuswaspartofthis
politicalfervor.Amongtheleadingwomen’sorganizationsweretheWomen’s
IndianAssociation(WIA)foundedin1917,theAllIndiaWomen’sConference
(AIWC)foundedin1927,andtheNationalCouncilofWomeninIndia(NCWI)
foundedin1925.410OnceTheGovernmentofIndiaActof1935cameintooperation
sothatnationalistorganizationscouldlegislateonthefamily,theseorganizations
lobbiedforlegislationthatwouldremovewomen’slegaldisabilitiesinmarriageand
inheritance.
410Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.205.
163
OneoftheearlypiecesoflegislationtobeintroducedwasTheHindu
Women’sRighttoPropertyAct,1937.IntroducedbyDr.G.V.Deshmukh,thebillwas
intendedto“setrighttheproblemscreatedbythejudicialdecisionsoftheEnglish
courtswhichhadconstrainedthescopeofstridhana,duringthelaterphaseofthe
nineteenthcentury.”411Thebill’sgoal,“…toachieveequalitybetweenHindumen
andwomeninrespectoftheirproperty”,412wasambitious.Itincludedprovisionsto
ensurethatthepropertyofanintestateHindumale“woulddevolveuponthewife,
mother,daughterandwifeofapredeceasedsonalongwiththesonsandallwould
haveequalshareintheproperty.”413Anotherprovisioninthebillasintroduced
“equatedthestatusofwomentothatofmenandmadethemabsoluteownersofthe
property.”414ThebillmetwithstrenuousoppositionfromorthodoxIndian
membersoftheassembly.Ultimately,the“liberalshadtoseekthesupportofthe
colonialgovernmenttoby‐passthisopposition,andTheHinduWomen’sRightsto
PropertyActof1937wasacompromise.”415
Incomparisonwiththeinitialaspirationsofthebill’ssupporters’,the
compromisewaseviscerating.AlthoughthebillgavetheHinduwidowsome
411Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”,pg.68,inWomenandLawinIndia,citingtoK.Gill,HinduWomen’sRighttoProperty,NewDelhi:Deep&DeepPublications(1986),pg.485.412Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”,pg.68,inWomenandLawinIndia.413Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”,pg.69,inWomenandLawinIndia.414Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”,pg.68,inWomenandLawinIndia.415Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.206.
164
interestsinherhusband’sestatethathadpreviouslybeenexcludedbythepresence
ofason,ason’sson,orason’sson’sson,theseinterestsweresubjecttosevere
limitations.So,forexample,thewidowreceived“…arighttointestatesuccession
equaltoason’sshareinseparatepropertyamongthosegovernedbyMitakshara,
andinallpropertyamongthosegovernedbyDayabhaga,”aswellasherhusband’s
interestintheundividedMitaksharacoparcenary.416However,theseinterestswere
limitedtothatofawoman’sestate,allinterestswereforfeitedonremarriage,and
theActexcludedagriculturallandfromitspurview.Daughtersreceivedno
additionalrightsundertheAct.417
Nevertheless,theActwasusefulinstimulatingdiscussionandinraising
morequestionsthanitansweredregardingthestatusofwomeninrelationto
property.Tosortthroughthesequestionsandproposeadditionallegislationto
answerthem,thecolonialgovernmentappointedtheRau(HinduLaw)Committee
in1941.418UponreviewingthesituationtheCommitteedeterminedthatitwastoo
confusedtoberepairedbypiece‐meallegislation:
InsteaditstronglyrecommendedthatacompletecodeofHindulawbe
prepared,beginningwiththelawofinheritanceandfollowedbythelaw
ofmarriageandotheraspectsofHindulaw.Thecodeasenvisagedby
416Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.206.417Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.206.418Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.206.
165
theCommitteewouldbeone‘which...recognize[d]thatmenand
womenareequalinstatuswithappropriateobligationsaswellas
rights’.419
Women’sorganizationssupportedtheappointmentoftheRauCommittee“..
.evenwhiletheyprotestedtheabsenceofwomenontheCommittee.”420However,
thetacticsoftheIndependenceMovementpresentedthemwithadilemma.Around
thetimeoftheappointmentoftheRauCommittee,theCongressPartybeganan
intensificationofitscivildisobedience,includingaboycottoftheLegislatures.In
responsethecolonialgovernmentincarceratedmanyCongressmembers.Inthis
contextsupportofacommitteeappointedbythecolonialgovernmentcouldbe
interpretedasdisloyaltytotheIndependenceMovementsothatwomenwerefaced
withachoiceofeithersupportingacommitteecommittedtowomen’srightsor
supportingindependence.Asnotmanyofthenationalistmenweresupportiveof
women’sissues,manywomenoptedtosupporttheCommittee.421
AreconstitutedRauCommitteewithamandatetoprepareaHinduCodewas
appointedinJanuary1944.Withactivesupportfromwomen’sgroupssuchasthe
419Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.208,withquotedcommentcitingtotheGovernmentofIndia,ReportoftheHinduLawCommittee,1941,Simla:GovernmentofIndiaPress.420Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.208.421Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.208.
166
AIWC,theCommitteeissuedaDraftCodebyAugust.Provisionsaffecting
inheritancerightspredominated,includingthefollowing:
• “abolitionoftheMitakshararightbybirthandprincipleofsurvivorship;
• equalpropertysharesforthesonsandwidowofthedeceased,andhalfthe
sons’sharesforthedaughtersinallintestateinheritance;
• anabsoluteestateforthewidow(asopposedtoalimitedinterest);
• introductionofmonogamyasarule.”422
ThebattleovertheHinduCodecommencedasoppositiontothesereforms
wasfierce.AmidstthisoppositionaHinduCodebillwasintroducedintothe
LegislativeAssemblyinApril1947,justfourmonthsbeforeIndiaachieved
independence.Oppositionremainedstrong.
Theconflictcontinuedunabatedafterindependence.However,evenwiththe
supportofPrimeMinisterNehru,theHinduCodeBillcouldnotpass.Ratherthan
continuetofightforthisomnibusbill,Nehruhadthebillbrokenintoanumberof
separatepiecesoflegislation.TheseseparatepiecesoftheHinduCodefinally
passedintolawin1955and1956.TheActsthatpassedintolawatthistimewerea
reaffirmationofHastings’personallaws:
• TheHinduMarriageAct,1955;
• TheHinduAdoptionsandMaintenanceAct,1956;
422Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.208,withquotedcommentcitingtotheGovernmentofIndia,ReportoftheHinduLawCommittee,1947,NewDelhi:GovernmentofIndia.
167
• TheHinduMinorityandGuardianshipAct,1956;and
• TheHinduSuccessionAct,1956.
Inevitably,therewerecompromisesinthepassageoftheHinduSuccession
Act,1956(HSA).Thegoalofequalinheritancerightsforwomenasformenwasnot
achieved,thoughtherewereimportantimprovementsoverthecoloniallaw.Oneof
themostcriticalofthesewastheabolitionofthewoman’sestate.Thiswas
accomplishedthroughSection14oftheHSAwhichprovidesasfollows:
14.PropertyofafemaleHindutobeherabsoluteproperty.
(1)AnypropertypossessedbyafemaleHindu,whetheracquiredbefore
orafterthecommencementofthisAct,shallbeheldbyherasfullowner
thereofandnotasalimitedowner.
Explanation:Inthissub‐section,“property”includesbothmovableand
immovablepropertyacquiredbyafemaleHindubyinheritanceor
devise,oratapartition,orinlieuofmaintenanceorarrearsof
maintenance,orbygiftfromanyperson,whetherarelativeornot,
before,atorafterhermarriage,orbyherownskillorexertion,orby
purchaseorbyprescription,orinanyothermannerwhatsoever,and
alsoanysuchpropertyheldbyherasstridhanaimmediatelybeforethe
commencementofthisAct.423
423Nagpal,RameshChandra,ModernHinduLaw,pg.671.
168
Importantly,paragraph2ofSection14permitsthecreationofalimitedestatewhen
expresslyprovidedinawilloradeedofgift.
MoredisappointingintheHSAwastheretentionofsomeofthebasic
elementsoftheMitaksharacoparcenarysysteminwhichmalesacquiredaninterest
bybirthandfemalesdidnot.Thus,eventhoughadaughtersharedinherfather’s
interestinthecoparcenaryuponhisdeathifhediedintestate,herinterestwould
stillnotequalthatofherbrotherduetoherbrother’sbirth‐interest.
ThepowertochangesuccessionlawisconcurrentbetweenIndia’scentral
governmentanditsstates.424Thus,between1956and2005severalstatestook
advantageofsuccession’splaceontheConcurrentListtoenactgenderprogressive
legislation.KeraladidsothroughtheKeralaJointHinduFamilySystem(Abolition)
Actof1976,anactwhich,asitsnamesuggests,abolishedthejointownershipby
deemingfamilymemberstobeseparateowners,thuseliminatingtheson’s
advantageinthejointfamilysystem.425AndhraPradesh,TamilNadu,Karnataka
andMaharashtratookadifferentapproachtoenhancingwomen’spropertyrightsin
successionpractices.426Theyoptedtopreservethecoparcenarysystem,butmake
424SeePartXI,Section246andListIIIoftheSeventhScheduleoftheIndianConstitution.425Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.214.426From“Womendidn’treceiverightswithoutstruggle”,TheIndianExpress,Tuesday,September13,2005,onlineatwww.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/hsaa_interview%20_indianexpress_13sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).
169
unmarrieddaughterscoparcenersbybirth,justlikesons.427Marrieddaughtersand
agriculturallandswereexcludedfromtheactswhichpreservedthecoparcenary
system.428
Meanwhile,pressurecontinuedforactionatthenationallevel.The
approachestakenbyKeralaontheonehand,andtheotherreformingstatesonthe
otherpresentedtwodistinctmodelsforlegislation:theabolitionoftheMitakshara
coparcenarysystem,i.e.theKeralaapproach,ortheapproachestakenbyAndhra
Pradesh,TamilNadu,KarnatakaandMaharashtrai.e.itsreformthroughinclusionof
thedaughterasacoparcenerbybirth.Althoughmostactivistsinfavorofwomen’s
equalityininheritancerightsfavoredabolitionoftheMitaksharasystem,429the
legislationasfinallypassedin2005preservesthejointfamilysystem,butmakesa
numberofotherfarreachingchangesinIndianinheritancelaw.Thesechangesare
asfollows:430
427Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,pg.214,citingtoB.Sivaramayya,“TheHinduSuccession(AndhraPradesh)AmendmentAct1985:AMoveintheWrongDirection”,JournaloftheIndianLawInstitute,20(2),pp.166‐173(1988);andTheHinduSuccession(TamilNaduAmendment)Act1989(ActNo.1of1989).428From“Womendidn’treceiverightswithoutstruggle”,TheIndianExpress,Tuesday,September13,2005,onlineatwww.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/hsaa_interview%20_indianexpress_13sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).429From“Womendidn’treceiverightswithoutstruggle”,TheIndianExpress,Tuesday,September13,2005,onlineatwww.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/hsaa_interview%20_indianexpress_13sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).430Agarwal,Bina,“Landmarksteptogenderequality”,TheHindu,September25,2005,asfoundat
170
• TheinclusionofallagriculturallandsunderthepurviewoftheHSA,as
amended.(Priortotheamendmentextensivetractsofagriculturallandand
beenexcluded,withdevolutiontosuchlandssubjecttotenuriallawsenacted
atthestatelevel.Thesetenuriallawswereverygenderdiscriminatory.)
• Theinclusionofdaughters,includingmarrieddaughters,ascoparcenersin
jointfamilyproperty.
• Theinclusionofthedaughter,whetherornotmarried,inallrightswith
respecttothefamilydwellinghouse.(PriortothischangeSection23ofthe
HSA“didnotallowmarrieddaughters(unlessseparated,desertedor
widowed)evenresidencerightsintheparentalhome.Unmarrieddaughters
hadresidencerights,butcouldnotdemandpartition.)”431
Asthesereadingsandcitationsshouldmakeclear,BinaAgarwal,Director
andProfessorofEconomicsattheInstituteofEconomicGrowth,DelhiUniversity,
hasbeenoneoftheprincipalforcesbehindthemovetowardtheequalizationof
women’sinheritancerightsinIndia.Uponpassageofthe2005Amendmenttothe
HSA,shewasinterviewedbySonuJainofTheIndianExpress.Whenaskedwhether
inequalitiesstillremainedsherespondedwithanargumentinfavorofrestricting
testamentaryfreedomoveratleast1/3ofanestatesothatwomencanbeassureda
http://www.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/Landmark%20Step%20to%20Gender%20Equality%20TheHindu_25sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).431Agarwal,Bina,“Landmarksteptogenderequality”,TheHindu,September25,2005,asfoundathttp://www.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/Landmark%20Step%20to%20Gender%20Equality%20TheHindu_25sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).
171
share.432Men’spowertoexcludewomenthroughtestatesuccessionremainsan
impedimenttoanequitabledistributionofassetsfromagenderperspectivein
India.ThisalsoremainsanissueinSingaporeandHongKong,thoughsome
protectivelegislationhasbeenenactedinthesetwojurisdictions.
B. MONOGAMYANDTHESINGAPOREWOMEN’SCHARTER
TheintroductionofEnglishlawintotheStraitsSettlements‐‐andwithitthe
StatuteofDistributions‐‐wentagooddistancetowardtheequalizationof
inheritancerightsbetweengenders,incontraventionofChinesecustomarylaw.
Nevertheless,thedeterminationthatChinesewerepolygamousandthat
accommodationsshouldbemadeforthispracticebyhavingthet’saior“principal
wife”andthet’sipor“secondarywife”orconcubineshareequallyinthewidow’s
portionleftmanywomendissatisfiedwiththestatusofthelaw.AswithIndia,this
dissatisfactionfoundexpressiononcesomeformofrepresentativegovernmentwas
permitted.
Singapore’srepresentativegovernmentcameintoexistenceasaresultof
negotiationsbetweenanumberofpoliticalpartiesandthecolonialgovernmentin
LondonduringMarchandAprilof1957.433Asaresultofthesetalksitwasagreed
that“GeneralElectionstowardafullyelectedgovernmentinSingapore(withcharge
432From“Womendidn’treceiverightswithoutstruggle”,TheIndianExpress,Tuesday,September13,2005,onlineatwww.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/hsaa_interview%20_indianexpress_13sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).433Leong,WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐24@pg.2.
172
ofallmattersexceptforeignaffairsanddefencethatwouldstillbecontrolledby
Britain)”wouldbeheldinMay1959.434
AsinmostSingaporepoliticaldramas,thePeople’sActionParty(PAP)played
theleadrole,holdingouttheemancipationofwomenasoneofthetasksintheir
firstfive‐yearplan.Thepartymadeitexplicitthatsuchemancipationnecessarily
includedmonogamyforallnon‐Muslims.435ThePAP’selectionvictorywas
overwhelming,taking43outof51seatsinthe1959GeneralElections.436
ThePAPwasfaithfultoitspromise,usingitsthumpingmajoritytopassthe
Women’sCharterintolawattheSecondSessionoftheFirstLegislativeAssemblyon
24thMay1961.437SubjecttoanapplicabilityprovisionthatexceptsMuslim
marriages,PartII,Sections4(1)–4(3)oftheWomen’sCharterprovide:
4.—(1)Everypersonwhoon15thSeptember1961islawfullymarried
underanylaw,religion,customorusagetooneormorespousesshallbe
incapableduringthecontinuanceofthatmarriageormarriagesof
434Leong,WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐24@pg.2.435Leong,WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐24@pg.3.436Leong,WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐24@pg.3,citingtotheSingaporeGovernmentGazetteExtraordinary,vol.14,no.51(Singapore:GovernmentPrintingOffice,2June1959).437Leong,WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐24@pg.3,citingtotheSingapore,LegislativeAssemblyDebates,vol.14,no.2atcols.1545‐1547(24May1961).
173
contractingavalidmarriageunderanylaw,religion,customorusage
withanypersonotherthansuchspouseorspouses.
(2)Everypersonwhoon15thSeptember1961islawfullymarriedunder
anylaw,religion,customorusagetooneormorespousesandwho
subsequentlyceasestobemarriedtothatspouseorallthespousesshall,
ifhethereaftermarriesagain,beincapableduringthecontinuanceof
thatmarriageofcontractingavalidmarriagewithanyotherperson
underanylaw,religion,customorusage.
(3)Everypersonwhoon15thofSeptember1961isunmarriedandwho
afterthatdatemarriesunderanylaw,religion,customorusageshallbe
incapableduringthecontinuanceofthatmarriageofcontractingavalid
marriagewithanyotherpersonunderanylaw,religion,customorusage.
Thus,monogamybecamemandatoryforallSingaporeanChinese,aswellasallother
non‐Muslimsresidinginthecity‐state.
AswithIndiaandHongKong,testamentaryfreedomremainsapotential
sourceofgenderinjustice.AlthoughthisfreedomislimitedinSingaporebythe
Inheritance(FamilyProvision)Act438,ithasbeenarguedthatthefamily
maintenancestandardenshrinedinthatActasitcurrentlyexistsinSingaporeis
inadequatetoprotectfamilyleftbehind.439Accordingtothisargumentcourts
438Cap138,1985ed.439Ong,DebbieSiewLing,“FamilyProvisionafterDeath”,7SingaporeAcademyofLawJournal379.
174
shouldhavethesameauthoritytoallocateassetsthattheyexerciseindivorcecourt
toensurethatasurvivingspouseandanydependentsreceiveafairshareofthe
familywealth.440
C. HONGKONG’SNEWTERRITORIES:BRINGINGANDENDTOAN
EXCEPTION
Althoughtheissueofequalinheritancerightsforwomenwanedforovera
decadeafterthe1971legislationwhilewomen’sgroupsfocusedonotherissues,the
issueresurfacedinthemid‐1980’swiththeemergenceofaChinesefeminist
movementinHongKong.441Theemergenceofthismovementcoincidedwiththe
greaterdemocratizationofHongKonginitiatedbytheBritishpriortothetransferof
sovereigntyoverHongKongtothePeople’sRepublicofChina.InJuly1984
legislationwas“publishedsettingtheintroductionofindirectelectionstothe
LegislativeCouncil(Legco)for1985.”442OnDecember19,1984theSino‐British
JointDeclaration,anAgreementbetweenthesetwosovereignsonthefutureof
HongKong,wassigned.443Appendix3ofthisAgreementsetforththeintentto
preserveinheritancealongthemalelineforlandintheNewTerritoriesbeyond
440Ong,DebbieSiewLing,“FamilyProvisionafterDeath”,7SingaporeAcademyofLawJournal379@387.441Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.180.442Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.298.443FromdocumentationobtainedonthewebsiteofHongKongBaptistUniversity[http://hkbu.edu.hk/~pchksar/JD/jd‐full1.htm](LastvisitedonJuly15,2010).
175
China’sresumptionofsovereigntyin1997.444Thisreminderoftheenduring
unequalstatusofwomenintheNewTerritoriesrevivedthisissueforHongKong’s
feministmovement,whichreneweditscampaigntochangethelaw.445
Themovementreceivedaboostin1993whenthegovernmentpublisheda
GreenPaperonEqualOpportunitiesforWomenandMen;theGreenPaperincluded
theissueofinheritancerightsforwomenintheNewTerritories.Followingonthis
report,theHongKongnewspaper,MingPao,reportedthattherestrictionsonthe
inheritancerightsofwomenprevailingintheNewTerritoriesappliednotjustto
nativeinhabitants,buttoallwomen:
Whatwasmostastonishingtothepublicwastherealizationthatall
publichousingestatesdevelopedintheN.T.hadnotyetbeenexempted
fromtheNTO[NewTerritoriesOrdinance]….By1991,41.9%oftheHong
Kongpopulace(closeto2.4million)wasresidingintheN.T….446Less
than12%oftheN.T.populationwasnownativetothearea.447Doubts
444Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.298.445Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.298.446Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.181.447Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.181,citingtoStephenDaviesandElfedRoberts,PoliticalDictionaryforHongKong.HongKong:MacmillanPublishers(HK)Ltd.,pg.187.
176
aboutlandtitlesandsuccessionrightscausedgraveconcernandanxiety
amongindigenousandnon‐indigenousN.T.landandpropertyowners.448
WithHongKong’sLegcohavinghelditsfirstdirectelectioninSeptemberof
1991,Beijingscheduledtohostthe1995U.N.WorldConferenceonWomen,and
otherfavorablefactorsinplace,actionwasrelativelyswift.OnJune22,1994the
NewTerritoriesLand(Exemption)Ordinancewaspassed,givingallwomeninthe
NewTerritoriesequalinheritancerightsoverlandandotherproperty.449
Testamentaryfreedomwasandisathreattothisneworder,butonethathas
beenamelioratedconsiderablybytheInheritance(ProvisionforFamilyand
Dependants)Ordinanceenactedin1995.UnliketheSingaporeactwhichonly
empowersthecourttoconsiderthemaintenanceneedsoffamilymembers,450the
HongKongordinanceempowersthecourttoensurethat“reasonablefinancial
provision”451hasbeenmadeandcantakeintoconsiderationwhatthehusbandor
wife“mightreasonablyhaveexpectedtoreceiveifonthedayonwhichthedeceased
diedthemarriage,insteadofbeingterminatedbydeath,hadbeenterminatedbya
decreeofdivorce.”452Thus,inHongKongthecourt’sbroadpowerstoallocate
448Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.181.449Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReforminColonialHongKong”,pg.182.450SingaporeStatutes,Chapter138,Inheritance(FamilyProvision)Act,Section3(1).451HongKongStatutes,Chapter481,Inheritance(ProvisionforFamilyandDependants)Ordinance,Section4(1).452HongKongStatutes,Chapter481,Inheritance(ProvisionforFamilyandDependants)Ordinance,Section5(2)(b).
177
propertiesbetweenpartiesondivorcehavebeenbroughttobearincasesof
allegedlyunfairtestatedistributionsofproperty.
D.MUSLIMMINORITIES,ISLAMICINHERITANCELAWANDTHEGENDER
ISSUE
InbothIndiaandSingaporetheIslamisationbegunduringthecolonial
periodhascontinuedintothepost‐colonialera.Inboththesecountriesthe
distinctivepersonallawsoftheMuslimcommunityhavebeenstatutorily
recognized.Apartfromthebroaderapplicationofthescienceoftheshares,there
hasbeenlittlechangeinMuslimsuccessionlawinIndia.Thisislargelytruein
Singaporewithoneexception.Thecompletetestamentaryfreedomaffordedall
testatorsundercoloniallawhasbeencurtailedforMuslimstobringtestamentary
practiceintocompliancewithShari’alaw.Thisisconsistentwiththetrendtoward
Islamisation.Thislackofactivitymaybeattributedinparttothesensitivities
inherentinhavingamajoritycommunitydictatethroughlegislationtoaminority
community.
i) MuslimInheritancePracticesinIndependentIndia
Thecreationofarepresentativeassemblyelectedpursuanttothe
GovernmentofIndiaActof1935focusedtheeffortsoftheUlemawhodesireda
greateradherencetoShari’alawinsuccessionandinheritance,anareainwhich
customarylawprevailedinmanyareas.453Theyobtainedsupportforthisnew
legislationfromMuslimwomen’sgroupsbyassertingthatastrictapplicationof
453Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,pg.192.
178
Shari’alawwouldimprovetheirstatusincomparisonwiththatundercustomary
law.454Indeed,astrictapplicationofthescienceoftheshareswouldbenefitMuslim
womeninIndiaincomparisonwithmostcustomarylawwhichtendstobemore
strictlypatrilineal.
TheMuslimPersonalLaw(Shariat)ApplicationAct,1937didpass;itremains
goodlawtodayinIndia,governingMusliminheritanceandsuccessionpractices.
Nevertheless,theexclusionofagriculturallandfromitspurviewhaslimitedits
valuetowomen.AswithreformstotheHinduMitakshara,somesouthernstates
havetakentheleadinincludingagriculturallandaspartofthepropertytobe
distributedinaccordancewithShari’alaw.TamilNadu,KarnatakaandAndra
Pradeshincludedagriculturallandthroughlegislationenactedin1949.Kerala
enactedsimilarlegislationin1963.455“Elsewhere,however,successionto
agriculturallandcontinuestodependvariouslyoncustoms,tenuriallaws,etc.,with
differingimplicationsacrosstheunamendedstates.”456
Insum,inIndiatodaythestrictapplicationofthescienceoftheshareswould
beanimprovementovercurrentpractice.Thestrugglecontinuestohave
454Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,pp.192‐193.455Agarwal,Bina,“Women’sInheritance:nextsteps”,TheIndianExpress;Postedonline:Monday,October17,2005;availableat:http://www.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/Women%27s%20Inheritance_%20Next%20Steps%20IndianExpress_17Oct05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).456Agarwal,Bina,“Women’sInheritance:nextsteps”,TheIndianExpress;Postedonline:Monday,October17,2005;availableat:http://www.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/Women%27s%20Inheritance_%20Next%20Steps%20IndianExpress_17Oct05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).
179
agriculturallandincludedunderShari’alawandtoensurethatwomenreceivetheir
portionsasdeterminedunderthescienceoftheshares.Equalizationoftheshares
themselvesisaremoteprospect.Giventhesensitivitiesbetweencommunitiesin
India,anysuchchangewouldhavetocomeasareformfromwithinIndia’sMuslim
community.
ii)TheAdministrationofMuslimInheritanceLawinSingapore
ThepropertyofintestateMuslimsinSingaporehadpassedbyShari’alaw
eversincetheenactmentofthe1923amendmenttotheMahomedanMarriage
OrdinanceonJanuary1,1924,butMuslimtestatorshadfulltestamentaryfreedom
untiltheenactmentoftheAdministrationofMuslimLawAct(AMLA)in1968,
Section111(1)ofwhichprovides:
111.–(1)NotwithstandinganythingintheprovisionsoftheEnglishlaw
orinanyotherwrittenlaw,noMuslimdomiciledinSingaporeshall,after
1stJuly1968,disposeofhispropertybywillexceptinaccordancewith
theprovisionsofandsubjecttotherestrictionsimposedbytheschoolof
Muslimlawprofessedbyhim.457
TheAdministrationofMuslimLawActgovernsallMuslimsinSingapore.The
Actestablishesa“SyariahCourt”458withjurisdictionoverMuslimmarriagesand
divorce.Regardingsuccession,theSyariahCourtisempoweredtodeterminethe
personsentitledtoshareintheestateunderIslamiclaw.AlthoughtheSingapore
457AdministrationofMuslimLawAct,SingaporeStatutesChapter3,Section111(1).458AdministrationofMuslimLawAct,SingaporeStatutesChapter3,Section34.
180
Courtofappealhasheldthat“thequestionastowhatassetsconstitutetheestate
andeffectsofadeceasedMuslimhasfirsttobedeterminedaccordingtohis
personallaw,whereapplicabletothecircumstances,andnotaccordingtothe
commonlaw”,459certainattributesofownershipdeterminedundercommonlawor
bycivillawstatutemaytakethatpropertyoutoftheestate.Thus,ithasbeenheld
thatpropertyheldbyjointtenancypassesbysurvivorshipanddoesnotbecomea
partofanestate,460andthatassetspassingtoanomineeuponthedeathofthe
holderofaCentralProvidentFundAccountalsodonotbecomepartoftheestate.461
BothrulingsrancountertofatwasissuedbyMajlisUgamaIslamSingapura(MUIS),
anIslamicbodyestablishedundertheAMLA,thecourtsholdingthatsuchfatwas
wereexpertopinionsnotbindingonthecivilcourts.462
Undertheserulingsitispossibleforasubstantialportionoftheassetsofa
MuslimdomiciledinSingaporetopassoutsideofthedistributionalrulesofthe
scienceoftheshares,though,asSingaporecourtswouldargue,stillwithinthe
acceptablelimitsoftheIslamicInheritanceSystemasdescribedbyPowers.463Itis
interestingtonotethatwomenwerethebeneficiariesinthetwodecisionsatissue.
459ShafeegbinSalimTalibandanothervFatimahbteAbudbinTalibandothers,[2010]SGCA11@Section27.460ShafeegbinSalimTalibandanothervFatimahbteAbudbinTalibandothers,[2010]SGCA11@Sections35‐49.461SaniahbteAli&OrsvAbdullahbinAli,[1990]3MLJ135.462SaniahbteAli&OrsvAbdullahbinAli,[1990]3MLJ135andShafeegbinSalimTalibandanothervFatimahbteAbudbinTalibandothers,[2010]SGCA11@Section63.463SeeDavidS.Powers,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem”.
181
Importantly,inShafeeg,thecourt’srulingenabledthewidowtoretainthefamily
home.Onlytimewilltellifthisisatypicalresult.
E.CONCLUSION
TheintroductionoftheBritishcolonialadministrationanditslegalapparatus
intothethreesocietiesunderreviewhasfurnisheduswithacommonexperienceto
explorethedifferentresponsesofeachsocietywithregardtogenderandproperty.
BritainasacolonialpowerinIndiaandHongKongwasaforceforconservatismin
therealmofwomen’spropertyrights.InbothIndiaandHongKongthecolonial
authoritiesalliedthemselveswiththeexistingpatriarchiesinatacitpacttopreserve
customarylaws.TheBritish,includingmostoftheBritishjudiciary,perceivedthose
customarylawsasancient,uniformandimmutable.Thus,inIndiaandHongKong
throughoutmostofthecolonialerathepropertyrightsofwomenwereentrappedin
areificationofanimaginedregime.Thatimaginedregime,neveraccurateatany
time,becameincreasinglyinappropriateasitstoodrigidinthefaceofsocial
changes–transformationsoftenengenderedbythepresenceofthecolonizers
themselves.InIndiathisconservatismexpresseditselfthroughthestrict
enforcementofthe“woman’sestate”andtheprovisionsofforfeitureofinheritance
rightsuponremarriage.InHongKongcolonialconservatismledtothecontinuation
ofdiscriminatorypoliciesdatingfromtheTangDynasty,ifnotearlier,untiltheearly
1970’sforthoseonHongKongIslandandKowloon,anduntil1994forthoseinthe
NewTerritories.
182
Singaporewouldseemtodefythispattern.InSingaporetheapplicationof
theEnglishStatuteofDistributionsledtoamoregenderequitabledistributionof
propertyinintestacythanwouldhavebeenthecaseundercustomarylaw.
However,itisarguedherethatthebenefitstoChinesewomeninSingaporewerean
incidentallegalconsequenceofthedecisiontoapplyEnglishlawintheStraits
Settlements,ratherthanaresultofanyprogressivepolicytowardwomen.This
positionissupportedbyBritain’ssubsequentdecisiontoapplythemore
conservativecustomaryChineselawinHongKong.StartingfromIndiawhere
indigenouslawswereimplementedthroughHastings’directivein1772,then
movingchronologicallyforwardandgeographicallyeastwardtoSingaporewhere
EnglishlawwasappliedpursuanttotheSecondCharterofJusticeissuedin1826,
thenontoHongKongwhereagainindigenouslawswereimplementedasa
consequenceofElliot’sProclamationsin1841,itseemsclearthatfactorsotherthan
aprogressiveagendawereatwork.Whatevermayhavebeenthepersonal
inclinationsofthesocialreformers,likethosewhosoughttoreformsati,intheend
itwastheimperativesofstabilityandgovernabilitythatruledtheday.Insum,for
alltheinteresttheBritishcolonialauthoritieshadinpropertyanditstransmission,
theywerenotparticularlyconcernedaboutequalityofwomen’srightstherein.
Eventually,thewomen’smovementandtheconceptofgenderequalitydid
reachtheshoresofIndiaandtheharborsofSingaporeandHongKong.Although
somechanges,suchasSingapore’sStatuteofDistributionsandHongKong’s
Intestates’EstatesOrdinance(albeitnotuntil1971),wereintroducedbyBritainasa
colonialpower,themostsweepingchangeswereproducedbyrepresentative
183
governments:India’sHinduSuccessionActandthe2005amendmentthereto;
Singapore’sWomen’sCharter,andHongKong’sNewTerritoriesLand(Exemption)
Ordinance.ThispaperbeganwithaquotefromTocquevilleimplyingthatallthe
legislatorhastodoistochangethelawofinheritanceandpowerrelationswillre‐
arrangethemselvesaccordingly.Butastheseexamplesshow,oftenthelegislatoris
notmovedtoenactsuchtransformativelegislationunlesspushedbypopularwill.
Today,statutorily,thereismuchtocelebrateintherealmofinheritance
rightsincasesofintestacy.Althoughsomelegalrestrictionsontestamentary
freedommaybenecessarytoensurewomenaren’tdisinherited,thecurrentstateof
thelawisavastimprovementoverthepast.Ofcourse,implementation,i.e.the
penetrationandeffectivenessofthelaws,isanotherquestion‐‐onewhichmustbe
pursued,especiallyinIndiaandtheNewTerritories.
Meanwhile,theMuslimcommunityhaseffectivelyworkedtodevelopits
autonomyfromtheprevailingsuccessionlawsofbothcolonialandindependent
states.IncolonialIndiaMuslimswereallowedtofollowIslamiclawpursuantto
Hastings’directive,albeitsubjecttothejurisdictionofthecourtsoftheRaj.In
colonialSingapore,lobbyingbytheMuslimcommunityledthecolonialgovernment
toenactlegislationexemptingthecommunityfromtheapplicationofEnglish
successionlaw.Post‐IndependencethegovernmentsofIndiaandSingaporehave
continuedthepolicyofadministeringaseparatepersonallawfortheirMuslim
minorities.Althoughnotmadeexplicit,thereislittledoubtthatIndia’sand
Singapore’sreservationstoanddeclarationsontheConventionontheElimination
184
ofAllFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomenaredesignedtoexempttheirMuslim
communitiesfromitspurview.Giventhegenderdisparitiesinherentinthescience
oftheshares,itisgermanetoquerywhattheprospectsareforreformsothat,for
example,Muslimdaughtersenjoyashareequaltothatreceivedbytheirbrothers.
FollowersandsupportersofIslamwhoareconcernedwiththestatusof
womeninMuslimsocietyofferthreecomplementarynarrativestoaccountforthe
genderdisparitiesunderthescienceoftheshares.Thefirstnarrative,the
“ComprehensiveSystem”narrative,explainshowthescienceofthesharesisbut
partofamorecomprehensiveIslamicInheritanceSystem.Accordingtothis
narrativeothermeansexisttocompensateforthegenderdisparitiesinherentinthe
scienceoftheshares.Thisnarrativeassertsthatalternativestothescienceofthe
shares,suchastheintervivosgiftandthewaqf,providesufficientalternative
avenuesofpropertytransmissiontopermitrectificationofanyinequities,including
genderinequities,inherentinthescienceoftheshares.
Thesecondnarrativeassertsthatthescienceofthesharesfromitsinception
wasaprogressiveforceinthelivesofwomen,grantingthempropertyrights
previouslyunknowntoArabianwomen.Anextensionofthisnarrativeisthatthe
truespiritofIslamisegalitarian,afactwhichadvocatesofthisnarrativesayshould
bereflectedincontemporaryinterpretationsoftheShari’a.
185
Thethirdnarrative,the“MaintenanceRights”narrative,justifiesthegreater
entitlementsofmenbasedontheirsocialandreligiousobligationstosupporttheir
femalekin“whetherornotsheownsindependentresources.”464
WhiletheTrueSpiritofIslamnarrativeisthemostpromisinginitsabilityto
serveasafoundationforformalequalityofinheritancerightsbetweenmenand
womenunderIslamiclaw,avigorousscholarlydebatethrivesaroundtheissueof
women’srightfulplaceinIslam.
464Chaudhry,Zainab,“TheMythofMisogyny:AReanalysisofWomen’sInheritanceinIslamicLaw”,61AlbanyLawReview511,541(1997).
186
BIBLIOGRAPY
SeekingGenderEqualityintheFamilySphere:
AComparativeLegalHistoryofWomen’sInheritanceRightsinIndia,HongKongandSingapore
Agarwal,Bina,AFieldofOne’sOwn:GenderandLandRightsinSouthAsia,CambridgeUniversityPress,(1994).
Agarwal,Bina,“’Bargaining’andLegalChange:TowardGenderEqualiltyinIndia’sInheritanceLaws”,WorkingPaperinLaw,DemocracyandDevelopmentSeries,(InstituteofDevelopmentStudies(October2002)).
Agarwal,Bina,“LandmarkSteptoGenderEquality”inTheHindu,September25,2005,asfoundathttp://www.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/Landmark%20Step%20to%20Gender%20Equality%20TheHindu_25sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).
Agarwal,Bina,“Women’sInheritance:nextsteps”,TheIndianExpress;Posted
online:Monday,October17,2005;availableat:http://www.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/Women%27s%20Inheritance_%20Next%20Steps%20IndianExpress_17Oct05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).
Agnes,Flavia,“LawandGenderInequality:ThePoliticsofWomen’sRightsinIndia”
inWomenandLawinIndia,OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi(2004).
Agnes,Flavia,“PoliticizationofPersonalLaws:AStudyofColonialIndia”inWomenofIndia:ColonialandPost‐ColonialPeriods,BharatiRay,editor,(SagePublications,NewDelhi(2005)),pp.3‐25.
Aiyar,N.Chandrasekhara,Mayne’sTreatiseonHinduLawandUsage,11thedition,HigginbothamsLtd.,Madras(1953).
Anderson,Michael,“LegalScholarshipandthePoliticsofIslaminBritishIndia,”inR.S.Khare,ed.,PerspectivesonIslamicLaw,JusticeandSociety(Lanham,Md.,1999),65‐91.
Banks,DavidJ.,“IslamandInheritanceinMalaya:CultureConflictorIslamicRevolution?”,AmericanEthnologist,Vol.3,No.4(Nov.,1976),pp.573‐586.
Basu,Srimati,ed.,DowryandInheritance,ZedBooks,(2005).
187
Basu,Srimati,“ThePersonalandthePolitical:IndianWomenandInheritanceLaw”inReligionandPersonalLawinSecularIndia:ACalltoJudgement,GeraldJamesLarson,ed.,IndianaUniversityPress,Bloomington(2001).
Bates,Karine,“TheHinduSuccessionAct:OneLaw,PluralIdentities”,50JournalofLegalPluralismandUnofficialLaw119(2004).
Beckert,Jens,InheritedWealth,PublishedinGermanybyCampusVerlag(2004);TranslatedbyThomasDunlap,PrincetonUniversityPress(2004).
Bernhardt,Kathryn,“TheInheritanceRightsofDaughters:TheSongAnomaly?”inModernChina,Vol.21,No.3(Jul.,1995),pp.269‐309.
Bernhardt,Kathryn,WomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,California,(1999).
Benton,Lauren,“ColonialLawandCulturalDifference:JurisdictionalPoliticsandtheFormationoftheColonialState”,ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory,Vol.41,No.3(July,1999),pp.563‐588.
Birge,Bettine,“WomenandConfucianismfromSongtoMing:TheInstitutionalizationofPatrilineality”inTheSong‐Yuan‐MingTransitioninChineseHistory,PaulJakovSmithandRichardvonGlahn,ed.s,HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,Cambridge(Massachusetts),(2003).
Birge,Bettine,“Review:Gender,Property,andLawinChina–areviewofKathrynBernhardt’sbookentitledWomenandPropertyinChina,960‐1949”,inJournaloftheEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOrient,Vol.44,No.4(2001),pp.575‐599.
Black,HenryCampbell,M.A.,Black’sLawDictionary,6thed.,WestPublishingCo.,St.Paul,Minn.(1990).
Brown,Jennifer,KripaAnanthpurandReneeGiovarelli,“Women’sAccessandRightstoLandinKarnataka”(Seattle:ReportNo.114(May2002));RuralDevelopmentInstitute.
Brown,JenniferandSujataDasChowdhury“Women’sLandRightsinWestBengal:AFieldStudy”(Seattle:ReportNo.116(Nov.2002));RuralDevelopmentInstitute.
Bulcroft,KrisandPhyllisJohnson,“ACross‐NationalStudyoftheLawsofSuccessionandInheritance:ImplicationsforFamilyDynamics”,2J.L.Fam.Stud.1(2000).
Carroll,Lucy,“ApplicationoftheIslamicLawofSuccession:WasthePropositusaSunnioraShi’i?”,IslamicLawandSociety,Vol.2,No.1(1995)pp.24‐42.
188
Carroll,Lucy,“Daughter’sRightofInheritanceinIndia:APerspectiveontheProblemofDowry”,ModernAsianStudies,Vol.25,No.4(Oct.1991),pp.791‐809.
Carroll,Lucy,“Law,Custom,andStatutorySocialReform:TheHinduWidow’sRemarriageActof1856”,WomeninColonialIndia:EssaysonSurvival,WorkandtheState,IndianEconomicandSocialHistoryReview,OxfordUniversityPress,Delhi(1989),pp.1‐26.
Carroll,Lucy,“OrphanedGrandchildreninIslamicLawofSuccession:ReformandIslamizationinPakistan”,IslamicLawandSociety,Vol.5,No.3,TheIslamicInheritanceSystem(1998),pp.409‐447.
CEDAW(ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen)website:(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.
CEDAWwebsite:(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations.htm),lastvisitedonMay6,2010.
CEDAWwebsite:(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.
CenterforComparativeandPublicLawattheFacultyofLaw,theUniversityofHongKongwebsite:(http://www.hku.hk/ccpl/research_projects_issues/cedaw/index.html),lastvisitedonApril21,2009.
Chan,Eliza,“FemaleInheritanceandAffection”inHongKong:TheAnthropologyofaChineseMetropolis,GrantEvansandMariaTam,ed.s,CurzonPress,(1997).
Chan,SelinaChing,“NegotiatingTradition:CustomarySuccessionintheNewTerritoriesofHongKong”inHongKong:TheAnthropologyofaChineseMetropolis,GrantEvansandMariaTam,ed.s,CurzonPress,(1997).
Chaturvedi,Dr.R.G.,SanjivaRow’sTheIndianSuccessionAct–SixthEdition,TheLawBookPublishingCompany–Allahabad(1995).
Chaudhry,Zainab,“TheMythofMisogyny:AReanalysisofWomen’sInheritanceinIslamicLaw”,61AlbanyLawReview511(1997).
Chen,MarthaAlterandJeanDreze,“WidowhoodandWell‐BeinginRuralNorth
India”inTheVillageinIndia,VandanaMadan,ed.,OxfordUniversityPress(2002),pp.417‐444.
Chowdhry,Prem,TheVeiledWomen:ShiftingGenderEquationsinRuralHaryana1880‐1990,(OxfordUniversityPress,Delhi(1994)).
189
Cohn,BernardS.,AnAnthropologistamongtheHistoriansandOtherEssays,(OxfordUniversityPress,Delhi,(1987)).
Cohn,BernardS.,ColonialismandItsFormsofKnowledge:TheBritishinIndia,byBernardS.Cohn,(PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NewJersey,(1996)),including“TheCommandofLanguageandtheLanguageofCommand”pp.16‐56;and“LawandtheColonialStateinIndia”,pp.57‐75.
“Comments:Widow’sRightofSuccessioninIndia”,11AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw574(1962).
Coulson,N.J.,SuccessionintheMuslimFamily,(Cambridge,1971).
Dasgupta,Indraneel,andDigantaMukherjee,“ARevisionistAnalysisoftheFailureoftheWidowRemarriageActof1856”,ContemporaryIssuesandIdeasinSocialSciences,April2007,pp.1‐20.
Day,TonyandCraigJ.Reynolds,“Cosmologies,TruthRegimes,andtheStateinSoutheastAsia”,ModernAsianStudies,Vol.34,No.1(Feb.,2000),pp.1‐55.
Derrett,J.DuncanM.,“TheHinduSuccessionAct,1956:AnExperimentinSocialLegislation”,TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw,Vol.8,No.4(Autumn,1959),pp.485‐501.
Derrett,J.DuncanM.,Religion,LawandtheStateinIndia,(OxfordUniversityPress,Delhi(1999)),including“TheBritishasPatronsoftheSastra”,pp.225‐273;“TheAdministrationofHinduLawbytheBritish”,pp.274‐320;and“TheCodificationofHinduLaw”,pp.321‐351.
Desai,SunderlalT.,Mulla‐PrinciplesofHinduLaw,FifteenthEdition,N.M.TripathiPrivateLimited(1982).
Evans,D.M.Emrys,“CaseCommentaries:TheWidowWhoWouldNotAdopt”,1HongKongLawJournal84(1971).
Evans,D.M.Emrys,“CommonLawinaChineseSetting—TheKernelortheNut?”,1HongKongLawJournal9(1971).
Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,10HongKongLawJournal19(1980).
Evans,D.M.Emrys,“TheNewLawofSuccessioninHongKong”,3HongKongLawJournal7(1973).
Fairbank,JohnK.,EdwinO.Reischauer,andAlbertM.Craig,EastAsia–TraditionandTransformation,HoughtonMifflinCompany,Boston(1978).
Freedman,Maurice,“ChineseFamilyLawinSingapore:TheRoutofCustom”inFamilyLawinAsiaandAfrica,J.N.D.Anderson,ed.,GeorgeAllen&UnwinLtd,(1968).
190
Freedman,Maurice,“ChineseKinshipandMarriageinSingapore”inJournalofSoutheastAsianHistory,Vol.3,No.2(Sept.1962),pp.65‐73.
Freedman,Maurice,“ColonialLawandChineseSociety”,TheJournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteofGreatBritainandIreland,Vol.80,No.½(1950),pp.97‐126.
Freedman,Maurice,ed.,FamilyandKinshipinChineseSociety,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,California,1970.
Freedman,Maurice,NoctesOrientales.ASelectionofEssaysreadbeforetheStraitsSettlementsPhilos.Soc.,1893‐1910.Singapore.
Friedman,LawrenceM.,TheLegalSystem:ASocialSciencePerspective,RussellSageFoundation,NewYork(1975).
Frykenberg,RobertE.,“TheEmergenceofModern‘Hinduism’asaConceptandasanInstitution:AReappraisalwithSpecialReferencetoSouthIndia”inHinduismReconsidered,GuntherD.SontheimerandHermannKulke,ed.s,ManoharPublications,NewDelhi(1989),pp.29‐49.
Galanter,Marc,LawandSocietyinIndia,OxfordUniversityPress(1989).
Gledhill,Alan,“TheInfluenceofCommonLawandEquityonHinduLawsince1800”,TheInternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly,Vol.3,No.4(Oct.,1954),pp.576‐603.
Goody,JackandS.J.Tambiah,BridewealthandDowry,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge(1973).
Gopal,Gita,“GenderandEconomicInequalityinIndia:TheLegalConnection”inHinduLawandLegalTheory,editedbyVedP.NandaandSuryaPrakashSinha,DartmouthPublishingCompanyLimited,Hants,England(1996),pp.331‐354.
Gupte,S.V.,HinduLawinBritishIndia,N.M.TripathiLtd.,Bombay(1947).
Gupte,S.V.,HinduLawofSuccession,N.M.TripathiLtd.,Bombay(1972).
Hallaq,Wael,Authority,ContinuityandChangeinIslamicLaw,(Cambridge,2001).
Hallaq,Wael,“CantheShari’abeRestored?”inYvonneY.HaddadandB.Stowasser,eds.,IslamicLawandtheChallengesofModernity(WalnutCreek,2004),pp.21‐53.
Hallaq,Wael,“JuristicAuthorityvs.StatePower:TheLegalCrisisofModernIslam”,JournalofLawandReligion,Vol.19,No.2(2003‐2004),pp.243‐258.
Hallaq,WaelB.,“WhatisShari’a?”,YearbookofIslamicandMiddleEasternLaw,2005‐2006,Vol.12(Leiden:BrillAcademicPublishers,2007),pp.151‐180.
191
Harding,Andrew,“GlobalDoctrineandLocalKnowledge:LawinSouthEastAsia”,TheInternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly,Vol.51,No.1(Jan.,2002),pp.35‐53.
Holmgren,Jennifer,“TheEconomicFoundationsofVirtue:Widow‐RemarriageinEarlyandModernChina”,TheAustralianJournalofChineseAffairs,No.13(Jan.,1985),pp.1‐27.
Hooker,M.B.,“EnglishLawandtheInventionofChinesePersonalLawinSingaporeandMalaysia”inLawandtheChineseinSoutheastAsia,M.BarryHooker,ed.,InstituteofSoutheastAsianStudies,Singapore(2002).
Hooker,M.B.,IslamicLawinSouth‐EastAsia,OxfordUniversityPress,Singapore(1984).
Hooker,M.B.,Editor,ReadingsinMalayAdatLaws,SingaporeUniversityPress,Singapore(1970).
Hooker,M.B.,“TheChallengeofMalayAdatLawintheRealmofComparativeLaw”,TheInternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly,Vol.22,No.3(July,1973),pp.492‐514.
Hooker,M.B.,ThePersonalLawsofMalaysia:AnIntroduction,OxfordUniversityPress,KualaLumpur(1976).
Horowitz,DonaldL.,“TheQur’anandtheCommonLaw:IslamicLawReformandtheTheoryofLegalChange,”AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw,(1994)[42Am.J.Comp.L.233]
Hsu,BerryFong‐Chung,TheCommonLawSysteminChineseContext:HongKonginTransition,intheseries“HongKongBecomingChina:theTransitionto1997”,M.E.Sharpe,Inc.(1992).
Ibrahim,Ahmad,TheDistributionofEstatesAccordingtoShafiiLaw,MalayanLawJournalPte.Ltd.(1976).
Jones,Carol,“TheNewTerritoriesInheritanceLaw:ColonizationandtheElites”inWomeninHongKong,VeronicaPearsonandBenjaminK.P.Leung,ed.s,OxfordUniversityPress(1995).
Kader,S.A.,MuslimLawofMarriageandSuccessioninIndia,(EasternLawHouse,Calcutta,1998).
Kadir,Suzaina,“Islam,StateandSocietyinSingapore,”Inter‐AsiaCulturalStudies,Vol.5,No.3,2004.
Karim,WazirJahan,WomenandCulture:BetweenMalayAdatandIslam,WestviewPress,Boulder(1992).
192
Khan,Ateeque,“Women’sDisabilitiesUndertheModernHinduLawofProperty:AConstitutionalPerspective”inHinduLawandLegalTheory,editedbyVedP.NandaandSuryaPrakashSinha,DartmouthPublishingCompanyLimited,Hants,England(1996),pp.321‐329.
Kishwar,Madhu,“CodifiedHinduLaw:MythandReality”,EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,Vol.29,No.33(Aug.13,1994),pp.2145‐2161.
Kishwar,MadhuPurnima,ZealousReformers,DeadlyLaws:BattlingStereotypes,(SagePublicationsIndiaPvt.Ltd.,NewDelhi(2008)).
Kozlowski,GregoryC.,MuslimEndowmentsandSocietyinBritishIndia,CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork,(1985).
Kozlowski,GregoryC.,“MuslimWomenandtheControlofPropertyinNorthIndia”,WomeninColonialIndia:EssaysonSurvival,WorkandtheState,IndianEconomicandSocialHistoryReview,OxfordUniversityPress,Delhi(1989),pp.114‐132.
Kugle,ScottA.,“Framed,BlamedRenamed:TheRecastingofIslamicJurisprudenceinColonialSouthAsia,”ModernAsianStudies,35,2(2001),pp.257‐313.
Larson,GeraldJames,ReligionandPersonalLawinSecularIndia:ACalltoJudgment,IndianaUniversityPress(2001).
Lariviere,RichardW.,“JusticesandPanditas:SomeIroniesinContemporaryReadingsoftheHinduLegalPast”,TheJournalofAsianStudies,Vol.48,No.4(Nov.,1989),pp.757‐769.
Lewis,D.J.,“ARequiemforChineseCustomaryLawinHongKong”,32InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly347(1983).
Leong,WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐24
Leong,WaiKum,PrinciplesofFamilyLawinSingapore,ButterworthsAsia,Singapore(1997).
Liddle,JoannaandRamaJoshi,“GenderandImperialisminBritishIndia”,EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,Vol.20,No.43(Oct.26,1985),pp.WS72‐WS78.
MacKinnon,CatharineA.,“SexEqualityUndertheConstitutionofIndia:Problems,Prospectsand‘PersonalLaws’”,4InternationalJournalofConstitutionalLaw181,(2006).
Madan,Vandana,ed.,TheVillageinIndia,OxfordUniversityPress(2002).
Mani,Lata,“ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSatiinColonialIndia”,CulturalCritique,No.7,TheNatureandContextofMinorityDiscourseII(Autumn,1987),pp.119‐156.
193
McCreery,JohnL.,“Women’sPropertyRightsandDowryinChinaandSouthAsia”,Ethnology,Vol.15,No.2(Apr.,1976),pp.163‐174.
McGovern,WilliamM.Jr.,SheldonF.KurtzandJanEllenRein,Wills,TrustsandEstates–IncludingTaxationandFutureInterests,WestPublishingCo.,St.Paul,Minn.,(1988).
Merry,SallyEngleandRachelE.Stern,“TheFemaleInheritanceMovementinHongKong:TheorizingtheLocal/GlobalInterface”,CurrentAnthropology,Vol.46,No.3(June2005).
Metcalf,ThomasR.,ImperialConnections:IndiaintheIndianOceanArena,1860‐1920,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,BerkeleyandLosAngeles,California(2007).
Mohamad,Maznah,“IslamandFamilyLegalContestsinMalaysia:HegemonizingEthnicoverGenderandCivilRights”,AsiaResearchInstitute,WorkingPaperSeriesNo.109,(December2008).
Mundy,Martha,“TheFamily,Inheritance,andIslam:ARe‐ExaminationoftheSociologyofFara’idLaw”inIslamicLaw:SocialandHistoricalContexts,AzizAl‐Azmeh,Editor,Routledge,London(1988).
Nair,Janaki,WomenandLawinColonialIndia:ASocialHistory,KaliforWomen,NewDelhi(1996).
Nagpal,RameshChandra,ModernHinduLaw,EasternBookCompany,Lucknow(1983).
Nanda,VedP.andSuryaPrakashSinha,ed.s,HinduLawandLegalTheory,DartmouthPublishingCompany,Ltd.,Hants,England(1996).
Nussbaum,MarthaC.,“India:ImplementingSexEqualityThroughLaw”,2ChicagoJournalofInternationalLaw35(2001).
Nussbaum,MarthaC.,“Sex,Laws,andInequality:WhatIndiaCanTeachtheUnitedStates”,Daedalus,Vol.131,No.1,OnInequality(Winter,2002),pp.95‐106.
Ong,Aihwa,“StateversusIslam:MalayFamilies,Women’sBodies,andtheBodyPoliticinMalaysia”,AmericanEthnologist,Vol.17,No.2(May,1990),pp.258‐276.
Ong,DebbieSiewLing,“FamilyProvisionafterDeath”7SingaporeAcademyofLaw379‐395(1995).
Patel,Reena,HinduWomen’sPropertyRightsinRuralIndia:Law,LabourandCultureinAction,(AshgatePublishing,Hampshire,England2007).
Pearl,David,ATextbookonMuslimPersonalLaw,2ndEdition,CroomHelm(1987).
194
Peletz,MichaelG.,SocialHistoryandEvolutionintheInterrelationshipofAdatandIslaminRembau,NegeriSembilan,ResearchNotesandDiscussionsPaperNo.27,InstituteofSoutheastAsianStudies,(1981).
Petersen,CaroleJ.,“EngenderingaLegalSystem:TheUniqueChallengeofPostcolonialHongKong”inGenderandChangeinHongKong:Globalization,Postcolonialism,andChinesePatriarchy,ElizaW.Y.Lee,Editor,UniversityofBritishColumbiaPress,Vancouver,B.C.(2003),pp.23‐48.
Potter,JackM.“LandandLineageinTraditionalChina”,inFamilyandKinshipinChineseSociety,MauriceFreedman,ed.,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,California,(1970),pp.121‐138.
Powers,DavidS.,StudiesinQur’anandHadith:TheFormationoftheIslamicLawofInheritance(1986).
Powers,DavidS.,“TheIslamicInheritanceSystem:ASocio‐HistoricalApproach”,ArabLawQuarterly,Vol.8,No.1(1993).Pp.13‐29.
Puri,Balraj,“MuslimPersonalLaw:QuestionsofReformandUniformityBeDelinked”,EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,Vol.20,No.23(June8,1985),pp.987‐991.
Radford,MaryF.,“TheInheritanceRightsofWomenunderJewishandIslamicLaw”,23B.C.InternationalandComparativeLawReview135(2000).
Rahman,NoorAishaAbdul,ColonialImageofMalayAdatLaws:ACriticalAppraisalofStudiesonAdatLawsintheMalayPeninsuladuringtheColonialEraandSomeContinuities,Brill,Leiden(2006).
Rahman,NoorAishaAbdul,“TraditionalismandItsImpactontheAdministrationofJustice:TheCaseoftheSyariahCourtofSingapore”,Inter‐AsiaCulturalStudies,Vol.5,No.3,(2004).
Raman,G.,ProbateandAdministrationinSingaporeandMalaysia,(LexisNexis,2005).
Reimann,MathiasandReinhardZimmermann,TheOxfordHandbookofComparativeLaw,(OxfordUniversityPress,2006).
Rocher,Ludo,“TheDharmasastras”inTheBlackwellCompaniontoHinduism,GavinFlood,ed.,BlackwellPublishingLtd.,Oxford(2003),pp.102‐115.
Rocher,Ludo,“HinduConceptionsofLaw”,HastingsLawJournal,29,pp.1283‐1305,asreproducedinHinduLawandLegalTheory,VedP.NandaandSuryaPrakashSinha,editors,DartmouthPublishingCompany,Ltd.,Hants,England(1996).
195
Rocher,Ludo,editorandtranslator,Jimutavahana’sDayabhaga–TheHinduLawofInheritanceinBengal,(OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork(2002)).
Rocher,Ludo,“LawBooksinanOralCulture:TheIndian‘Dharmasastras’”,inProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety,Vol.137,No.2(June,1993),pp.254‐267.
Rudolph,LloydI.andSusanneHoeberRudolph,“BarristersandBrahmansinIndia:LegalCulturesandSocialChange”,ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory,Vol.8,No.1(Oct.,1965),pp.24‐49.
Samuels,Harriet,“HongKongonWomen,AsianValues,andtheLaw”,HumanRightsQuarterly21.3(1999),pp.707‐734.
Saw,Swee‐Hock,ThePopulationofSingapore,SecondEdition,(InstituteofSoutheastAsianStudies,Singapore(2007)).
Saxena,J.N.,“Widow’sRightofSuccessioninIndia”,TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw,Vol11,No.4(Autumn,1962),pp.574‐585.
Shah,NikNorianiNikBadli,“TheSyariahLawSystem:FamilyLawConcernsandReforms”,LawSocietyofSingaporeLawGazette,(July2004(4)).
Shammas,Carole,“EnglishInheritanceLawandItsTransfertotheColonies”,TheAmericanJournalofLegalHistory,Vol.31.No.2(Apr.,1987),pp.145‐163.
Sheel,Ranjana,“InstitutionalisationandExpansionofDowrySysteminColonialNorthIndia”,EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,Vol.32,No.28(July12‐18,1997),pp.1709‐1718.
Sheriff,NoraE.,“Note:HoldingupHalftheSkyButNotAllowedtoHoldtheGround:Women’sRightstoInheritandOwnLandinHongKongandthePeople’sRepublicofChina”,23HastingsInternationalandComparativeLawReview279,Winter,2000.
Shukla,Siddhartha,“InternationalPerspectiveonIntestacyPractices:LessonsforIndia.”http://ssrn.com/abstract=965493.
Sidhu,MahinderSingh,TheLawofWillsProbateAdministrationandSuccessioninMalaysiaandSingapore,(InternationalLawBookServices1998).
Skaist,Aaron,“Review:InheritanceLawsandTheirSocialBackground”reviewingEssaysonOrientalLawsofSuccessionbyJ.Brugman;M.DavidF.R.Kraus;P.W.Pestman;M.H.VanDerValk,inJournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety,Vol.95,No.2(Apr.–June,1975),pp.242‐247.
Smith,David,“OrientalismandHinduism”inTheBlackwellCompaniontoHinduism,GavinFlood,ed.,BlackwellPublishingLtd.,Oxford(2003),pp.45‐63.
196
Sreenivas,Mytheli,“ConjugalityandCapital:Gender,Families,andPropertyunderColonialLawinIndia”,TheJournalofAsianStudies,Vol.63,No.4(Nov.,2004),pp.937‐960.
Sridhar,Archana,“TheConflictBetweenCommunalReligiousFreedomandWomen’sEquality:AProposalforReformoftheHinduSuccessionActof1956”,20BerkeleyJournalofInternationalLaw555(2002).
StricklandReportonChineseLawandCustominHongKong–ReportofaCommitteeappointedbytheGovernorinOctober,1948.
Swedbert,Richard,“TheCaseforanEconomicSociologyofLaw”,TheoryandSociety,Vol.32.No.1(Feb.,2003),pp.1‐37.
Talib,NaimahSaid,“BritishPolicyTowardsIslamintheStraitsSettlements(1867‐1941)”,B.A.HonorsThesis,DepartmentofHistory,NationalUniversityofSingapore,1981.
Tambiah,S.J.,“DowryandBridewealth,andthePropertyRightsofWomeninSouthAsia”inBridewealthandDowrybyJackGoodyandS.J.Tambiah,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,(1973),pp.59‐169.
Tan,KevinY.L.,“AShortLegalandConstitutionalHistoryofSingapore”inTheSingaporeLegalSystem,2nded.,KevinY.L.Tan,editor,SingaporeUniversityPress,NationalUniversityofSingapore(1999),pp.26‐66.
Tan‐Wong,NellieS.L.andVipinPatel,Editors,AdatPerpatih:AMatrilinealSysteminNegeriSembilan,MalaysiaandOtherMatrilinealKinshipSystemsThroughouttheWorld,Wintrac(WWB/Malaysia)Sdn.Bhd.(1992),includingthefollowingpapers:“HistoricalDevelopmentoftheMatrilinealStateofNegeriSembilan”byAbdullaAzmibinAbdulKhalid,and“WomeninAdatPerpatihSociety”byKassim,Azizah.
Thiruvengadam,Arun,“ProgressiveChangesinHinduFamilyLaw:TowardsaBetterFutureforWomen”,postedon“LawandOtherThings:ABlogAboutIndianLaw,theCourts,andtheConstitution”onNovember7,2005[http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com].
Tocqueville,Alexisde,DemocracyinAmerica,translatedbyHarveyC.MansfieldandDelbaWinthrop,(UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago(2000)).
Trevelyan,SirErnestJohn,HinduLawasAdministeredinBritishIndia,Thacker,Spink&Co.,CalcuttaandSimla,(1917).
Viswanathan,Gauri,“ColonialismandtheConstructionofHinduism”inTheBlackwellCompaniontoHinduism,GavinFlood,ed.,BlackwellPublishingLtd.,Oxford(2003),pp.23‐44.
197
Wakefield,David,Fenjia:HouseholdDivisionandInheritanceinQingandRepublicanChina,UniversityofHawai’iPress,Honolulu,Hawai’i(1998).
WenYenTsao,“TheChineseFamilyfromCustomaryLawtoPositiveLaw”,17HastingsLawJournal727,1965‐1966.
Wesley‐Smith,Peter,TheSourcesofHongKongLaw,HongKongUniversityPress,HongKong,1994.
Withers‐Payne,C.H.,TheMahomedanLawofInheritanceAccordingtotheSchoolofShafii,PrintersLimited,Singapore,(1932).
“Womendidn’treceiverightswithoutstruggle”,TheIndianExpress,Tuesday,September13,2005,onlineatwww.binaagarwal.com/popular%20writings/hsaa_interview%20_indianexpress_13sep05.pdf(lastvisitedonJuly19,2010).
Wong,PikWan,“NegotiatingGender:TheWomen’sMovementforLegalReformin
ColonialHongKong”,AdissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionoftherequirementsforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophyinPoliticalScience,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,Bell&HowellInformationandLearningCompany(2000).
Woon,Walter,ed.TheSingaporeLegalSystem,LongmanSingaporePublishers(1989).
YanLijia,Dawn,“TheDevelopmentoftheLawofSuccessioninSingapore”,forSingaporeLegalHistoryLLA4104,FacultyofLawNationalUniversityofSingapore2003/2004.
STATUTES
HongKong
Inheritance(ProvisionforFamilyandDependants)Ordinance,HongKongStatutes,Chapter481.
Intestates’EstatesOrdinance(Cap.73,LHK1971ed.;originallyNo.1of1971,asamendedbyNo.49of1971andNo.39of1972)
TheNewTerritoriesLand(Exemption)Ordinance(Enacted1994).
India
TheHinduSuccessionAct,1956(ActNo.30of1956)[17thJune,1956].
TheHinduSuccession(Amendment)Act,2005.
198
TheHinduWidows’RemarriageAct,1856(ActXVof1856).
TheMuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightsonDivorce)Act,1986.
Singapore
AdministrationofMuslimLawAct,SingaporeStatutesChapter3.Inheritance(FamilyProvision)Act,SingaporeStatutes,Chapter138.MahomedanMarriageOrdinance(No.Vof1880).MahomedanMarriageOrdinance,1923Amendment.
CASES
India
BalwantRaoandOthersv.BajiRaoandothers,(1920)57Ind.Cas.545,MANU/PR/0041/1920.
BhikubaiChunilalAmbaidasv.ManilalBhagchandRaychand,A.I.R.1930Bom517,
(1930)32BOMLR1217.BhugwandeenDoobeyv.MynaBee,11M.I.A.487,513‐514(1867).ChotayLallv.ChunnooLallandothers,4Cal.744or6I.A.15(1878).
CollectorofMaduraV.MootooRamalinga[1868]12M.I.A.397,43.
GandhiMaganlalMotichandv.BaidJadabandothers,1899I.L.R.24Bom192.
MohammedAhmedKhanvShahbanoBegum,MANU/SC/0194/1985;AIR1985SC945.
MussumatThakoorDeyheev.RaiBalukRamandothers,11M.I.A.139(1866).
MuttuVaduganadhaTevarv.DoraSinghaTevar,3I.L.R.‐M.290.
RarnalakshmiAmmalv.SivananthaPerumalSethwayar(1872)14M.I.A.570.
SheoShankarLalandAnr.V.DebiSahai,(1903)L.R.30I.A.202,MANU/PR/0028/1903.
199
VittaTayrammavChatakonduSivayya,ILR41Mad.1078.
Singapore
Fatimah&Ors.v.D.Logan&Ors.,[1808‐1884]01KY255;[1871]KY1.FlorenceMozelleMeyerv.IsaacManassehMeyer,(1927)S.S.L.R.1.
InTheGoodsofAbdullah,[1808‐1884]02KY8;[1835]KY1.
InTheGoodsofLaoLeongAn,(1893)1SSLR1.
IntheMatteroftheEstateofChooEngChoon,Deceased,ChooAngCheev.NeoChanNeo,TanSeokYang,CheangChengKim,LimCheokNeo,MahImmNeo,andNeoSooNeo,1911]XIISSLR120;[1908]SSLR2.
ReHadjeeEsmailBinKassim,Deceased.MohamedeenAndOthersv.HussainBeebeeBinteShaikAliBey,[1911]XIISSLR74;[1911]SSLR4.
TheKingv.SimBoonLip,(1902‐3)VIISSLR4.LimChyePeowv.WeeBoonTek[1808‐1884]01KY236;[1871]KY2.
Reginav.Willans,[1808‐1884]03Ky16;[1858]Ky4.
SaniahbteAli&OrsvAbdullahbinAli,[1990]3MLJ135.ShafeegbinSalimTalibandanothervFatimahbteAbudbinTalibandothers,[2010]
SGCA11.
ReSyedShaikAlkaff,Decd.;Alkaff&Anorv.AttorneyGeneral,S.S.,[1958]01MC38;[1923]MC1.
YeapCheahNeoandOthersv.OngChengNeo,6P.C.381(1875).
HongKong
HoTszTsunvHoAuShi,YeungSiuChi,HoHongChung,HoChengShiandChanHoShi,[1915]10HKLR69.