The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c21.53

v1.c21.53

What is obvious is that the whole matter of inheritance was as yet not regulated by any general state law. Different countries or districts of India have different laws; different authorities differ in regard to the interpretation of these laws; and, finally, different texts of Vedic authority contradict by inference the rule to be got from them. Thus because one Vedic text says 'Manu divided his wealth among his sons,' it is implied that there should be no preference shown to the eldest; but, on the other hand, another Vedic text says 'they distinguish the eldest by the heritage,' which countenances the preference shown to the eldest. Now this last point, despite the desire for conciseness, demands consideration at length, so the maker of the Sūtra takes it up, arguing that a mere statement of fact is not a rule. For example (he says), the dictum 'a learned priest and a he-goat are the most sensual beings' is a statement, but cannot be taken as a rule. Hence, he says, the statement 'they distinguish the eldest' is not a rule. But the question remains, why then should the other statement, 'Manu divided his wealth,' be regarded as a rule? The subject of inheritance is treated first by Baudhāyana under the head of impurity, where he says simply that Sapiṇḍas inherit in default of nearer relations, and Sakulyas (remoter relations) in default of Sapiṇḍas; but afterwards he adds that the eldest son, in accordance with the quotations cited by Āpastamba, may receive the best chattel, or the father may divide equally among his sons. Here also the fact that the same subject is treated in different sections shows that as yet the matter of civil law was not treated systematically but incidentally.