{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022510231923601638, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005457025920873124, 'mean_word_length': 4.915322580645161, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Marriage, family, and property in India: the Hindu Succession Act of 1956

The Hindu Succession Act of 1956, one of the first laws relating to property and family enacted by the newly independent government of India, remains in the final analysis an anti-women piece of legislation. This article explores the reasons that forced the hand of the new post-colonial state in that direction. There had been, from the early nineteenth century, a small but influential section of Indian reformers who had argued in favour of granting property rights to women: wives, widows and married daughters. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, one of the chief framers of the Hindu Code Bills, of which the Succession Act was part, as well as Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister, were also strong proponents of women's property rights. Why then were their endeavours defeated in the final legislation? Through an analysis of the debates around the Hindu Succession Act, I argue that the anti-woman nature of the law was inextricably linked to the modernization of Indian families. The latter did not necessarily imply a move from the extended family to nuclear structures or from non-contractual to contractual bonds between individuals. It entailed other kinds of changes and adjustments, often from extended to joint families. The centrality of the family has important implications for thinking about the history of modern property and the propertied subject in the Indian context.