chap27
chapter_26.html
chapter_27.html
chapter_28.html
Mirror of Tamiḻ and Sanskrit
R. Nagaswamy
27. LEGAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ANCIENT INDIA
27.1. A Cōḻa Example
Instances were not wanting when women asserted their legal rights in ancient India and saw that their writ ruled. A Cōḻa record of the 12th century from Melaṭṭūr village near Tanjore found inscribed on the stonewall of the local Śiva temple at the village, illustrates this point. The inscription written in the reign of the Cōḻa Emperor Kulōttuṅga III, in 1180 CE records that a certain lady “Peṟṟa Tiru” wanted to make a gift of her landed property to the local temple, that is the purport of the record.
The lady was the second wife of a cowherd named Sūlapāṇi of that village, who had children through his first wife and also some through the second wife. On his death, the second wife got her husband’s property duly partitioned amongst all his children and had the partition deed registered. (Probably the first wife also died earlier). Later, the lady wanted to gift a parcel of the land belonging to her share, measuring about 4 + 9 mā of land, to the temple and invited the brother of her husband to serve as the authorized guardian (muṭu-kaṉ) of the transactions. It was customary in those days for men to oversee property transactions of the family, though this was not an absolute power. It seems there was some resistance from the brother-in-law to the gift. Thereupon, the lady declared that if it was not feasible (for him) she asserted that she herself would assume the “Power of Seniority” (of the family) and see through the transactions herself. The lady’s assertion came in the midst of over twenty male members who were witnesses to her declaration. The brother-in-law had to agree. The deed was drafted by the village accountant as uttered by the lady that reads in Tamiḻ (iṉ nilam dānamāka koṭukka peṟṟilōmakiḻ nāṉ ātimat atikāram paṇṇi aḷippēṉ enṟu coṉṉavare eḻutuviṭṭēṉ ivvūr kaṇakkaṉ pārtasāraty eṇ). Ātimat atikāram means “Administrative power of a senior member of the family”. The lady declares in the deed that “I, Peṟṟa-tiru, the wife of Sūḷapāṇi, got this gift deed made”. The scribe, her brother-in-law, and all the other members who were witnesses to the declaration signed the deed.
The record brings out many points of interest to social and legal history. Women had the right to own property in their name and dispose it of as per their wish. On the death of the husband, the widowed wife had the right to a share of the husband’s property in addition to her children’s shares. She alone had the right to dispose of it which she declared among many male members who signed as witnesses. It was not uncommon for women to make their intentions public and even sign the deed of transactions. What is made explicit by this record is that it was perfectly legal for women to assume the “Power of Elder” of the family and she herself would carry out property transactions. The ancient Indian law books provided for these rights, which were obeyed by the Society. As the lady who made the gift in the present case was a middle-class woman - belonging to a cowherd family, it is evident that the rights were obviously common to all sections of society.