Why reforming discriminatory personal laws is essential for justice and women’s empowerment in Bangladesh
By Pulack Ghatack
The Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination “on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.” It also declares that “women and men shall have equal rights in all spheres of the State and of public life.”
Yet under Bangladesh’s Hindu personal law, daughters are excluded from inheritance if sons exist. When there are no sons, a daughter may occupy and use her deceased father’s property but cannot claim full ownership — she cannot sell, gift, or transfer it. True ownership passes to male relatives: the deceased’s grandsons, brothers, nephews, or other male heirs.
Even within marriage, a Hindu woman has no absolute inheritance rights. A wife’s claim to her husband’s property is confined to maintenance or life enjoyment, not ownership. Despite constitutional guarantees, judges continue to follow these archaic customs. They uphold tradition rather than the Constitution.
Justice Debesh Bhattacharya, during his lifetime, tried to build a social movement to reform this discriminatory system but was blocked by conservative Hindu leaders.
Those conservatives often defend inequality by invoking “religious freedom.” They argue that Hindu law is integral to religion, and controlling it means controlling their faith. But this reasoning is invalid. Hindu law is not a divine commandment; it is a body of regional customs shaped by social practice. Moreover, Article 41 of the Constitution makes religious freedom subject to morality. Discriminating against someone or depriving them of natural rights can never be moral.
If religion once demanded the burning of widows on their husbands’ pyres, the Constitution — the State’s supreme law — would rightfully forbid it. Ancient societies may have justified human sacrifice or sexual servitude as “holy,” but modern law and morality cannot. Those who cling to medieval thinking for personal gain have no alignment with either modern religion or the modern State.
Before the Constitution, Hindu law already operated in this region. Article 149 continued existing laws, but “subject to the provisions of this Constitution.” Article 26(1) explicitly states that any law inconsistent with fundamental rights “shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, become void.” Article 28 forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. Therefore, Hindu inheritance law is unconstitutional.
No one has yet challenged this in the High Court, nor has the court acted suo motu. As a result, this injustice persists.
Dowry and the Denial of Women’s Rights
In the absence of lawful inheritance, the place of a daughter’s rightful share has been occupied by the social disease of dowry. There is a law to prevent dowry but none granting daughters equal property rights. The State, therefore, behaves unjustly and discriminatorily toward Hindu women. A social movement to change this is long overdue.
So-called “progressives” in Hindu society whisper about reform but rarely speak out. The reason is not religion — it is economics. If the system of property distribution were legally restructured, society itself would change. Economic empowerment would bring social empowerment; rural women would gain dignity and self-respect. Patriarchy would lose its economic foundation, and society would move toward balance and equality.
For this reason, equal-rights legislation threatens entrenched interests. Progressive voices stay quiet, while reactionaries remain vigilant. Some Hindu leaders privately admit, “We are progressive in politics but must be conservative at home.”
Their arguments against reform are deeply flawed. They claim Hindu women are frequent targets of abduction, forced marriage, and conversion, and that granting them property would make them more vulnerable to exploitation by those seeking to seize it.
This logic collapses on examination.
First, if someone offered me religion, social acceptance, and the promise of heaven, but demanded my economic independence, comfort, and human dignity in exchange — I would choose worldly life without hesitation. Most men would. Yet for women, patriarchal society piles on monstrous reasoning.
Yes, where there is property, there may be theft or attack. But does fear of thieves justify surrendering all property rights — eating rice off the ground to stay safe? Those who give such advice never live by it themselves. Ownership motivates people to protect their lives and possessions.
It is true that Hindu women face insecurity in Bangladesh. But their vulnerability stems largely from economic dependence. Financially independent women — those who earn, work, and own property — are freer and safer both within their families and in society. They alone possess the courage to seek justice. Should Hindu girls then be forbidden to work or study simply because education or employment might attract the attention of men from other religions? Must they remain uneducated and uncultured for fear of admiration? Such thinking is absurd.
Second, the claim that inheritance would lead to more conversions is false. In fact, inheritance rights would deter conversion, because a Hindu woman who converts forfeits her inherited property. Both religious and state law affirm this. Under Hindu law, once a person converts, they are governed by their new religion’s family law.
The British Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 once protected converts from losing inheritance, but after independence Bangladesh repealed it under the Laws Revision and Declaration Act of 1973. Thus, since the country’s birth, converts have automatically lost inheritance rights.
Third, granting women equal property rights does not harm religion, society, or the afterlife. The current law is not an essential tenet of Sanatan Dharma; it is a local and customary creation. Hindus around the world inherit property under civil law — from America to Africa — and remain devout. Even within India, Hindu law varies regionally. Some communities, including matrilineal groups in Kerala and parts of the Northeast, pass property through women.
Several indigenous peoples in Bangladesh maintain similar traditions. In some matrilineal tribes, grooms weep when they move into their wives’ households — and property belongs to the wife. Studies show these societies outperform patriarchal ones in education, culture, and human development. Matrilineal Kerala leads India in social progress. Patriarchy, therefore, is not the key to advancement.
The Historical Roots of Inequality
From ancient times, Hindu law in India divided into two main schools: Dayabhaga and Mitakshara. The former, followed in Bengal, Assam, and Bangladesh, grants inheritance only after a person’s death. The latter, prevalent elsewhere in India, grants sons property rights at birth, within the joint family.
In Mitakshara, a newborn male instantly becomes a co-owner, reducing everyone else’s share. In patriarchal systems, only sons inherit; in matrilineal ones, only daughters do.
For centuries these laws remained uncodified, creating confusion in property disputes. Courts relied on old precedents rather than clear statutes. Modern India has codified its Hindu laws and established equal inheritance for men and women. Hindu identity was not weakened; it was strengthened. To preserve outdated customs now is pure folly.
Sanatan Dharma endures because it evolves. Widow burning, child marriage, and the tyranny of “kulin” Brahmins have all disappeared, yet religion has not suffered — it has matured. Widow remarriage is legal, and even if not common, it is socially accepted. What was once a religion of ritual and taboo has become a faith of conscience.
As the poet wrote:
“When a river loses its current, a thousand weeds bind it fast;
when a nation loses the motion of life, worn-out customs bind it at every step.”
Those who resist reform today, refusing to accept the demands of a changing world, are not defending Hinduism — they are undermining it.
Religion, Morality, and Progress
Ancient Hindu scripture contains both barbaric and sublime ideas. The Isha Upanishad teaches:
“All this is pervaded by the Lord. Enjoy through renunciation; covet not another’s wealth.”
This early vision of social ownership and ethical restraint is profoundly modern. Gandhi said that if all other scriptures were destroyed but this verse survived, Hinduism would live on.
Yet the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also instructs a man to subdue his wife by gifts, or by striking her with his hand or a stick if she refuses him. Hindu society must choose: will it follow the command to beat women into submission, or the higher ideal of self-restraint and moral harmony?
Swami Vivekananda defined religion as “the manifestation of the divinity already in man.” He rejected religion’s control over social or state law:
“Religion has no business to formulate social laws. Social laws were created by economic conditions under the sanction of religion. The terrible mistake of religion was to interfere in social matters.”
He believed that whatever hinders progress is sin, and whatever aids it is virtue:
“Whatever retards the onward progress or helps the downward fall is vice; whatever helps in coming up and becoming harmonized is virtue.”
If religion becomes a fixed social code, its death is inevitable. Just as a growing child cannot remain in the same garment, society cannot be bound forever by unchanging rules. Religion must evolve or be discarded.
As Vivekananda said:
“Any religion that cannot wipe the tears of a child widow, that cannot put a piece of bread into an orphan’s mouth — I do not believe in that religion.”
The Human Cost of Inequality
Economic independence is the foundation of true empowerment. Without it, political slogans and social gestures are empty. Property ownership gives both security and dignity. To deny a woman her birthright is to deny her humanity.
Consider Basanti, a 23-year-old widow who inherits her husband’s property only for life. Under law, she loses it if she remarries or is deemed “unchaste.” In earlier times she would have been burned with her husband; today she may instead be ruined by slander.
Consider Sujata, one-eyed but educated and beloved by her father. Before her wedding, her father promised twelve bighas of land to her groom. Her brother resented it. Then the father died suddenly, and by law all property passed to the son. Sujata, still unmarried, now lives as a dependent in her brother’s home.
Consider Jatin’s family. He had four daughters and no sons. After his death, his widow received only limited rights — she may enjoy the property but not own or transfer it. After her death it will pass to the daughters for life, then revert to Jatin’s brothers. This is the extent of Bengali Hindu women’s rights.
A cartoon once showed a mother giving her son a full glass of milk and her daughter half a glass. The caption read, “Give your sons and daughters equal shares.” That could be the motto of Bangladesh’s Constitution — yet Hindu society remains far from it.
In the nineteenth century, conservatives opposed Raja Rammohan Roy’s campaign against sati and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar’s struggle for widow remarriage, claiming religion forbade such change. But progress triumphed then, and it will triumph again.
Those who now oppose inheritance equality for Hindu women will also be defeated. It is only a matter of time.
— Pulack Ghatack
Email: ghatack@gmail.com