SEEKING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE FAMILY SPHERE

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


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

vii

Singapore 179

E.Conclusion 181

viii

SUMMARY



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


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.‐[email protected],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,[email protected],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,[email protected].

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][email protected]chiu[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‐[email protected].

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‐[email protected],WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐[email protected],WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐[email protected],citingtotheSingaporeGovernmentGazetteExtraordinary,vol.14,no.51(Singapore:GovernmentPrintingOffice,2June1959).437Leong,WaiKum,“FiftyYearsandMoreoftheWomen’sCharterofSingapore”,SingaporeJournalofLegalStudies,[2008]pp.1‐[email protected],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”,[email protected],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][email protected],“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



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.

200

InReTseLaiChiu,DeceasedTseMoonSakv.TseHungandOthers,[1969]HKLR159.

WongYuShiandOthersv.WongYingKuen,[1957]HKLR420.

SEEKING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE FAMILY SPHERE

Documents

Transcript of SEEKING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE FAMILY SPHERE