Chapter 45

“Yudhishthira said, ‘If a person, after having given dowry for a maiden,goes away, how should the maiden’s father or other kinsmen who arecompetent to bestow her, act? Do tell me this, O grandsire!’

“Bhishma said, ‘Such a maiden, if she happens to be the daughter of asonless and rich father, should be maintained by the father (in view ofthe return of him who has given the dowry). Indeed, if the father doesnot return the dowry unto the kinsmen of the giver, the maiden should beregarded as belonging to the giver of the dowry. She may even raiseoffspring for the giver (during his absence) by any of those means thatare laid down in the scriptures. No person, however, can be competent towed her according to due rites. Commanded by her sire, the princessSavitri had in days of old chosen a husband and united herself with him.This act of hers is applauded by some; but others conversant with thescriptures, condemn it. Others that are righteous have not acted in thisway. Others hold that the conduct of the righteous should ever beregarded as the foremost evidence of duty or morality.[287] Upon thissubject Sukratu, the grandson of the high-souled Janaka, the ruler of theVidehas, has declared the following opinion. There is the well-knowndeclaration of the scriptures that women are incompetent to enjoy freedomat any period of their life. If this were not the path trodden by therighteous, how could this scriptural declaration exist? As regards therighteous, therefore, how can there be any question or doubt in respectof this matter? How can people condemn that declaration by choosing toconduct themselves otherwise? The unrighteous dereliction of eternalusage is regarded as the practice of the Asuras. Such practice we neverhear of in the conduct of the ancients[288] the relationship of husbandand wife is very subtile (having reference to the acquisition of destiny,and, therefore, capable of being understood with the aid of only theinspired declarations in scriptures). It is different from the naturalrelationship of male and female which consists only in the desire forsexual pleasure. This also was said by the king alluded to of Janaka’srace.'[289]

“Yudhishthira said, ‘Upon what authority is the wealth of men inherited(by others when they happen to have daughters)? In respect of her sirethe daughter should be regarded the same as the son.’

“Bhishma said, ‘The son is even as one’s own self, and the daughter islike unto the son. How, therefore, can another take the wealth when onelives in one’s own self in the form of one’s daughter? Whatever wealth istermed the Yautuka property of the mother, forms the portion of themaiden daughter. If the maternal grandfather happens to die withoutleaving sons, the daughter’s son should inherit it. The daughter’s sonoffers pindas to his own father and the father of his mother. Hence, inaccordance with considerations of justice, there is no difference betweenthe son and the daughter’s son. When a person has got only a daughter andshe has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happensto have a son, such a son (instead of taking all the wealth of his sire)shares the inheritance with the daughter.[290] When, again, a person hasgot a daughter and she has been invested by him with the status of a son,if he then happens to take a son by adoption or purchase then thedaughter is held to be superior to such a son (for she takes three sharesof her father’s wealth, the son’s share being limited to only theremaining two). In the following case I do not see any reason why thestatus of a daughter’s son should attach to the sons of one’s daughter.The case is that of the daughter who has been sold by her sire. The sonsborn of a daughter that has been sold by her sire for actual price,belong exclusively to their father (even if he do not beget them himselfbut obtain them according to the rules laid down in the scriptures forthe raising of issue through the agency of others). Such sons can neverbelong, even as daughter’s sons, to their maternal grandfather inconsequence of his having sold their mother for a price and lost all hisrights in or to her by that act.[291] Such sons, again, become full ofmalice, unrighteous in conduct, the misappropriators of other people’swealth, and endued with deceit and cunning. Having sprung from thatsinful form of marriage called Asura, the issue becomes wicked inconduct. Persons acquainted with the histories of olden times, conversantwith duties, devoted to the scriptures and firm in maintaining therestraints therein laid down, recite in this connection some metricallines sung in days of yore by Yama. Even this is what Yama had sung. Thatman who acquires wealth by selling his own son, or who bestows hisdaughter after accepting a dower for his own livelihood, has to sink inseven terrible hells one after another, known by the name of Kalasutra.There that wretch has to feed upon sweat and urine and stools during thewhole time. In that form of marriage which is called Arsha, the personwho weds has to give a bull and a cow and the father of the maidenaccepts the gift. Some characterise this gift as a dowry (or price),while some are of opinion that it should not be regarded in that light.The true opinion, however, is that a gift for such a purpose, be it ofsmall value or large, should, O king, be regarded as dowry or price, andthe bestowal of the daughter under such circumstances should be viewed asa sale. Notwithstanding the fact of its having been practised by a fewpersons it can never be taken as the eternal usage. Other forms ofmarriage are seen, practised by men, such as marrying girls afterabducting them by force from amidst their kinsmen. Those persons who havesexual intercourse with a maiden, after reducing her to subjection byforce, are regarded as perpetrators of sin. They have to sink in darkesthell.[292] Even a human being with whom one has no relationship of bloodshould not form the subject of sale. What need then be said of one’s ownissue? With the wealth that is acquired by doing sinful deeds, no actionleading to merit can be performed.'”