History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.92

v4.c63.t1.92

The list of twelve or thirteen kinds of sons looks rather formidable, has puzzled and misled even great scholars into making all sorts of sweeping assertions and putting forward untenable theories about the origin and necessity of so many sons. For example, Dr. Jolly in his '*Recht und Sitte*' (English tr. p. 156) observes 'The twelve kinds of sonship, which to some extent are based on the illicit connection of the mother and for the greater part have nothing to do with the blood-relationship of the son with the father, are probably the most striking feature of Indian family law. The cause of this abnormal importance being attached to male issue is to be sought, according to the smṛtis, in the offering of sacrifices to the *manes* which depends upon the male issue; yet, however, originally an economic motive was perhaps a more important factor in it—to get for the family as many powerful workers as possible'. The learned writer appears to hold that the smṛtis regarded all the secondary sons as equally competent to confer spiritual benefit and that at one and the same time a man could have all or most of them as sons. But he is mistaken in both these respects. The very definition of putrikāputra, kṣetraja¹²³¹ and dattaka given by many of the smṛtis show that one who has already an aurasa son, grandson or great-grandson could not have a putrikāputra, a kṣetraja or an adopted son. If the definitions of all the 12 or 13 kinds of sons are carefully analysed, it will be quite apparent that the long list is due to the ancient writers' great *penchant* for divisions and sub-divisions based upon very slight differences of circumstances. The several kinds can be classified into three or four groups as done by Devala.¹²³² All the five sons called *dattaka*, *krīta*, *kṛtrima*, *svayaṁdatta* and *apaviddha* are sons who are affiliated by a person under various circumstances. There is no tinge of any illicit connection of the mother in any one of these, the one thing common to all of them being that they are the sons of one man and are treated by another as his. Similarly the *paunarbhava* and *śaudra* are the legal sons of the man himself, but there is opprobrium attaching to them, because in the first case the mother contracted a remarriage (which was very much condemned by the smṛtis) and in the other a brāhmaṇa married a śūdra woman (which also was looked down upon, if not absolutely forbidden as done by Yāj. I. 56). The *paunarbhava* son of a *dvija* is still called a dvija by Manu III. 181, but Manu only provides that he is not fit to be invited at a śrāddha. The putrikā (the daughter appointed as a son) is the man's own child and the putrikāputra also is the man's own grandchild and both these are special cases of adoption and no question of mother's illicit connection arises in these. So out of 13 kinds of sons, nine were entirely free from any taint of illicit connection. There remain only the four viz. kṣetraja, gūḍhotpanna, kānīna, sahoḍha. The kṣetraja was in a class by himself and was a survival of an ancient practice prevalent in many countries all the world over, which had been condemned in India by Āp. (as shown above on p. 644) and his predecessors several centuries before the Christian era. It may, however, be pointed out that some medieval writers held the view that several secondary sons like the dattaka, krīta &c. could be had by a man having no aurasa son.1232a The chief concern of the smṛtis as shown clearly by the Anuśāsanaparva (chap. 49 quoted above on p. 645) and the com. of Nīlakaṇṭha was to provide for the maintenance and the performance of the saṃskāras of those children that may be either abandoned by their parents or may be under the cloud of illegitimacy.