History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1077

v4.c63.1077

*Time for partition.* The evolution of the son's right to demand a partition has been a process of ages. It would not be out of place to say a few words on this topic here. In most primitive societies where the patriarchal family system prevailed, the father had absolute power over the son, it was the son's duty to obey the father, alienation of family property was not allowed, the father had power over the acquisitions of all persons including the son and women were incompetent to hold property. Faint traces of these can be detected in the Vedic literature. The legend of Śunaḥśepa narrated in the Ait. Br. (33. 1 ff), where we are told that Ajīgarta sold his son for being offered as a victim to Varuṇa, that Viśvāmitra adopted Śunaḥśepa as his son, though he had already a hundred and one sons, and that he cursed and disinherited his fifty sons for their disobedience to his order, indicates that in the days of the Ait. Br. it was believed that in hoary ages long before it, the father's power over his sons was absolute. But a caution is necessary. It is possible to over-emphasize the legend of Śunaḥśepa ; it has to be remembered that it is a mere legend and that the Ait. Br. itself shows that the conduct of Ajīgarta was condemned as most unworthy of a decent man even according to the legend.¹⁰⁵⁰ In modern times there are rare instances where parents insure their children and then poison them or maim them for earning the insurance money. But no one says that this is usual or that modern law allows it. In Ṛg. I. 117. 17 it is stated that the eyes of Ṛjrāśva were put out by his father because the former gave a hundred rams to a she-wolf. This is a solitary instance and it is probable that the verse has some esoteric meaning or refers to some terrestrial or celestial phenomenon. In the Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā XI. 4 it is said "the father rules over the son" (*pitā putrasyeśe*). But it must be said that ideas about the father's absolute power over the sons lingered on in historic times. The Nir. (in III 4) puts forward the argument of some predecessors that daughters did not succeed to the father's wealth because women could be donated, sold or abandoned and not men, while others said that males also were liable to the same treatment as evidenced by the story of Śunaḥśepa.¹⁰⁵¹ Vasiṣṭha (XV. 2) states that¹⁰⁵² father and mother have power to make a gift or sale of the son or to abandon him. We saw above (n 1035) that Manu stated that a son's earnings belonged to his father. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 10–11) emphatically says that the right to give away or sell one's child is not recognized and that the word "sale" used in connection with a bride is used only metaphorically. About the word "sale" in relation to marriage vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 503–506.