"'Yudhishthira said, "If a person, after having given dowry for a maiden,
goes away, how should the maiden's father or other kinsmen who are
competent to bestow her, act? Do tell me this, O grandsire!"
"'Bhishma said, "Such a maiden, if she happens to be the daughter of a
sonless and rich father, should be maintained by the father (in view of
the return of him who has given the dowry). Indeed, if the father does
not return the dowry unto the kinsmen of the giver, the maiden should be
regarded as belonging to the giver of the dowry. She may even raise
offspring for the giver (during his absence) by any of those means that
are laid down in the scriptures. No person, however, can be competent to
wed her according to due rites. Commanded by her sire, the princess
Savitri had in days of old chosen a husband and united herself with him.
This act of hers is applauded by some; but others conversant with the
scriptures, condemn it. Others that are righteous have not acted in this
way. Others hold that the conduct of the righteous should ever be
regarded as the foremost evidence of duty or morality.[287] Upon this
subject Sukratu, the grandson of the high-souled Janaka, the ruler of the
Videhas, has declared the following opinion. There is the well-known
declaration of the scriptures that women are incompetent to enjoy freedom
at any period of their life. If this were not the path trodden by the
righteous, how could this scriptural declaration exist? As regards the
righteous, therefore, how can there be any question or doubt in respect
of this matter? How can people condemn that declaration by choosing to
conduct themselves otherwise? The unrighteous dereliction of eternal
usage is regarded as the practice of the Asuras. Such practice we never
hear of in the conduct of the ancients.[288] The relationship of husband
and wife is very subtile (having reference to the acquisition of destiny,
and, therefore, capable of being understood with the aid of only the
inspired declarations in scriptures). It is different from the natural
relationship of male and female which consists only in the desire for
sexual pleasure. This also was said by the king alluded to of Janaka's
race."[289]
"'Yudhishthira said, "Upon what authority is the wealth of men inherited
(by others when they happen to have daughters)? In respect of her sire
the daughter should be regarded the same as the son."
"'Bhishma said, "The son is even as one's own self, and the daughter is
like unto the son. How, therefore, can another take the wealth when one
lives in one's own self in the form of one's daughter? Whatever wealth is
termed the Yautuka property of the mother, forms the portion of the
maiden daughter. If the maternal grandfather happens to die without
leaving sons, the daughter's son should inherit it. The daughter's son
offers pindas to his own father and the father of his mother. Hence, in
accordance with considerations of justice, there is no difference between
the son and the daughter's son. When a person has got only a daughter and
she has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happens
to have a son, such a son (instead of taking all the wealth of his sire)
shares the inheritance with the daughter.[290] When, again, a person has
got a daughter and she has been invested by him with the status of a son,
if he then happens to take a son by adoption or purchase then the
daughter is held to be superior to such a son (for she takes three shares
of her father's wealth, the son's share being limited to only the
remaining two). In the following case I do not see any reason why the
status of a daughter's son should attach to the sons of one's daughter.
The case is that of the daughter who has been sold by her sire. The sons
born of a daughter that has been sold by her sire for actual price,
belong exclusively to their father (even if he do not beget them himself
but obtain them according to the rules laid down in the scriptures for
the raising of issue through the agency of others). Such sons can never
belong, even as daughter's sons, to their maternal grandfather in
consequence of his having sold their mother for a price and lost all his
rights in or to her by that act.[291] Such sons, again, become full of
malice, unrighteous in conduct, the misappropriators of other people's
wealth, and endued with deceit and cunning. Having sprung from that
sinful form of marriage called Asura, the issue becomes wicked in
conduct. Persons acquainted with the histories of olden times, conversant
with duties, devoted to the scriptures and firm in maintaining the
restraints therein laid down, recite in this connection some metrical
lines sung in days of yore by Yama. Even this is what Yama had sung. That
man who acquires wealth by selling his own son, or who bestows his
daughter after accepting a dower for his own livelihood, has to sink in
seven terrible hells one after another, known by the name of Kalasutra.
There that wretch has to feed upon sweat and urine and stools during the
whole time. In that form of marriage which is called Arsha, the person
who weds has to give a bull and a cow and the father of the maiden
accepts the gift. Some characterise this gift as a dowry (or price),
while some are of opinion that it should not be regarded in that light.
The true opinion, however, is that a gift for such a purpose, be it of
small value or large, should, O king, be regarded as dowry or price, and
the bestowal of the daughter under such circumstances should be viewed as
a sale. Notwithstanding the fact of its having been practised by a few
persons it can never be taken as the eternal usage. Other forms of
marriage are seen, practised by men, such as marrying girls after
abducting them by force from amidst their kinsmen. Those persons who have
sexual intercourse with a maiden, after reducing her to subjection by
force, are regarded as perpetrators of sin. They have to sink in darkest
hell.[292] Even a human being with whom one has no relationship of blood
should not form the subject of sale. What need then be said of one's own
issue? With the wealth that is acquired by doing sinful deeds, no action
leading to merit can be performed."'"