Samavesha Religious And Customary Diversity And Its Erosion Under Hindu Personal Law

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Family & Personal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:02:35.835Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:09:36.152Z

SAMAVESHA RELIGIOUS AND CUSTOMARY DIVERSITY

AND ITS EROSION UNDER HINDU PERSONAL LAW Asst. Prof. Amritha Sureshkumar, CMR University School of Legal Studies Anoushka Girish, CMR University School of Legal Studies

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the making of “Hinduism” as a legal category and the gradual erosion of religious and customary diversity under Hindu personal law. It traces the historical roots of this process from the colonial period, where administrative classifications such as the census began grouping diverse traditions under the broad label of “Hindu. ” It then examines how, after independence, the codification of Hindu personal laws through the Hindu Code Bills extended this categorization to Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs, reshaping distinct traditions into a unified legal framework. The study also considers how judicial interpretations and constitutional provisions reinforced this homogenization, while sidelining unique practices and claims to independent recognition.

By engaging with census practices, codified laws, constitutional debates, and case law, the paper highlights how plural religious and community identities were gradually absorbed into a Hindu identity, raising fundamental questions about pluralism, minority rights, and the limits of legal reform in India. Ultimately, it seeks to show how the customs of individual communities were eroded as they merged into the broader umbrella of Hinduism.

Introduction

The roots of Hinduism traces back over 5,000 years to the Indus Valley civilisation (c. 3300–

1300 BCE) one of the world’s earliest urban cultures. Archaeologists have found seals

depicting figures in meditative posters1 that resembles Hindu deities, this suggests early spiritual practices that may have influenced subsequent developments in the religion. Later the Indo Aryan who migrated to the Indian subcontinent around 1500 BCE are said to have introduced the religion to the Indian subcontinent. 2 This era is also known as the Vedic period which was categorised by the composition of Vedas, which were the oldest and most sacred texts of Hinduism that laid groundwork to Hymns, rituals and philosophical concepts. This society was patriarchal3 and witnessed the emergence of hierarchy and social classes that would remain influential in making significant developments in the structure of Hindu society between the 800 to 400 BCE. The Upanishads emerged marking a shift from ritualistic practices to introspective spirituality.

The texts that were introduced had profound concepts such as Brahman (the ultimate reality) and Atman (the individual soul), emphasizing meditation and self-realization. 4 The composition of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, along with the development of Puranas popularised stories of deities like Vishnu, Devi and Siva. By this period religious practises became more devotional like Bhakti and temple-Centred. Overtime Hinduism developed multiple philosophical schools such as Vedanta, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Nyaya, and Vaisheshika5 this provided a structure, intellectual framework that allowed for theological diversity under a common philosophical umbrella. 6 Hinduism did not start as a single, codified religion rather it was seen to be evolved, pluralistic and syncretic set of traditions.

The concept of “Hinduism” as a unified identity was shaped later, initially by outsiders, including Persians and Greeks who labelled Indian religious practices. However more systematically during the colonial period. When the British categorised wide range of Indian traditions as ‘Hindu’ for administrative purposes. 7 The categorisation of the religion and

1 Harappa, “Indus Cylinder Seals,” Harappa (blog), May 4, 2016.

2 Valentine Chirol, “The Enduring Power of Hinduism,” in India

Old and New (London: Macmillan and Co. , 1921), chap. 2, 3 Uma Chakravarti, “Conceptualising Brahmanical Patriarchy in Early India: Gender, Caste, Class and State,” Economic & Political Weekly 28, no. 14 (April 3, 1993): 579–585. 4 C. Osegenwune, “The Metaphysics of the Upanishads,” African Journal of Philosophy / Journal of the African Philosophical Association (2010). 5 Benuprasad Staula Dhande Bhardwaj, “Hindu Philosophy as the Foundation of Modern Science,” Sarcouncil Journal of Arts and Literature, vol. 4, no. 1 (2025). 6 Tim Dowley, A Brief Introduction to Hinduism, revised ed. , Christopher Partridge, gen. ed. , Brief Introductions to World Religions, vol. 3 (2018). 7 David N. Lorenzen, Who Invented Hinduism? , 41 Comp. Stud. in Soc’y & Hist. 630 (1999) (Cambridge Univ. Press).

religious identity in India has been a complex interplay for colonial administrative convenience and post-colonial legal uniformity. The colonial senses that began in 1871 had a pivotal role to play in consolidating various religious tradition under a monolithic category of what we now called Hinduism, this process continued even after India received independence with legal framework8 further reinforcing the homogenisation. This administrative decision had profound implications, as it laid the groundwork for the legal and political homogenization of religious identities in India. The Hindu Code Bills and Social Homogenization Post independence, India aimed at a uniform legal framework and to achieve this. The Hindu code bill of 1955–56 played an important role. This bill sought to modify the personal laws for Hindu in terms of marriage, succession, and inheritance.

However, the scope and definition of “Hindu” within these Bills was expansive and, some critics argue, legally imprecise. The legislation explicitly extended to not only Hindus but also Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs. 9 While the intent was to create a uniform legal framework for people considered part of the broader Indic cultural and religious milieu, this inclusivity inadvertently overlooked the distinct religious doctrines, cultural practices, and historical identities of these communities. For instance, Sikhs had a clearly defined religious identity and code of conduct, Buddhists followed principles and rituals quite distinct from Hindu customs, and Jains had their own long-standing religious and ethical traditions. By subsuming them under the generalized category of “Hindu,” the legislation diluted the specificity of their religious and social practices.

Jainism The Erosion of Distinct Religious Identity The Jain community, has religious and social practices that have historically been distinct from the mainstream Hindu traditions and this inclusion under a wide legal umbrella represented a double-edged sword. On one hand, Jain individuals were benefited as legal protections, particularly concerning women’s rights in inheritance and marriage and on the other hand, the assimilation into a generalized Hindu legal category eroded several longstanding Jain traditions. Traditional Jain inheritance norms were closely tied to sectarian and familial hierarchies. Many communities prioritized specific lineages and followed precise rules 8 K. C. Bindu, “Marketing the Nation: Hindu and Outside Hindu: Tribe in the Early Census Reports,” Society, July 31, 2004.

9 B. R. Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, vol. 14, part one, Sections I–III, ed. Vasant Moon.

governing the transmission of property. 10 With the implementation of the Hindu Succession Act (1956), these customs were supplanted by a uniform system granting daughters equal rights in joint family property. While progressive in promoting gender equity, this legal standard conflicted with centuries-old Jain practices, creating tensions between community norms and state law. Jain marriage were also one such examples where ceremonies emphasized nonviolence (ahimsa), simplicity, and adherence to religious vows. Furthermore, strict endogamy within sects and sub-communities was a central principle. 11 The Hindu Marriage Act (1955) imposed uniform requirements on age, consent, and the prohibition of polygamy. While these reforms modernized marital law, they marginalized certain sect-specific rituals and diluted the social significance of endogamous traditions.

Jainism places profound importance on asceticism. Monks and nuns traditionally renounced property and familial claims, Inheritance and property laws recognized by the state conflicted with the monastic ideal of total renunciation, forcing the community to adapt its practices to comply with civil law. Adoption within Jain families historically served both religious and social functions, ensuring the continuation of familial religious duties when male heirs were absent. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (1956) standardized adoption procedures, overriding certain sect-specific criteria. Consequently, some traditional Jain adoption practices became legally unenforceable or required adaptation to the state’s uniform legal framework.

One significant Jain tradition that has been effectively erased due to the integration of Jainism into the broader Hindu legal framework is the Aliyasantana system12 of matrilineal inheritance. Practiced among Jain communities in the coastal regions of Karnataka, this system passed property and lineage through the maternal line, specifically to the sister's son. Women held significant autonomy and control over property, and the maternal uncle often acted as the head of the family. In many cases, after marriage, the husband would live in his wife's ancestral home, a practice known as matrilocal residence. This system was remarkably progressive for its time, granting women property rights and a central role in family and community affairs.

13 The enactment of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 marked a turning point for the 10 Vaibhav Jain and Sanjay Jain, “Legal Aspect of Jain Religion as Separate Entity,” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) 19, no. 2, ver. IV (February 2014): 8–19. 11 Marcus Banks, “Caste, Sect and Property: Relations in the Jain Community of Jamnagar, Gujarat,” The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 9, no. 3 (1984): 34–49. 12 Deeksha Devadiga, “The Survival Story of Aliyasantana, Karnataka’s Matrilineal System,” The News Minute, August 9, 2022. 13 Deeksha Devadiga, “The Survival Story of Aliyasantana, Karnataka’s Matrilineal System,” The News Minute, August 9, 2022.

Aliyasantana system. By codifying and unifying inheritance laws among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, the Act replaced matrilineal inheritance practices with a uniform patrilineal system. 14 As a result, the Aliyasantana system, along with its associated social structures, declined, forcing communities to adapt to a framework that no longer recognized women's historic property rights and unique familial roles. This legal change led to the loss of a tradition that had empowered women and structured familial and community relationships in a progressive and culturally distinctive way. By subsuming Jains under the broad category of “Hindu,” the legislation involuntarily undermined the distinct religious and social identity of the community.

Buddhism Erosion of Distinct Religious Traditions under Hindu Integration Buddhism in India, from its origins to the medieval period, had distinctive religious practices, institutions, and social norms that set it apart from Hinduism. Early Buddhist monasteries (viharas) were autonomous institutions with their own property, governance, and legal recognition, including endowments and land rights under local rulers. Buddhist monks and nuns had legal privileges, such as exemption from certain taxes and authority over monastic property. Rituals such as ordination ceremonies (upasampada), public recitation of the Vinaya, and communal alms collection (pindapata) were central to the social and religious life of the community. Women could become fully ordained nuns (bhikkhunis), with rights and protections codified under Buddhist Vinaya rules something uncommon in parallel Hindu traditions.

15 However, after Buddhism declined in India and legally was subsumed under the broad umbrella of Hindu law in modern codifications (e. g. , Hindu Religious Endowments Acts, Hindu Marriage Act), many of these progressive practices were erased or lost legal recognition. 16Monastic property lost its independent legal status, making viharas subject to Hindu management boards. Ordination of women, once protected under Buddhist monastic law, ceased in most regions because Hindu legal frameworks did not recognize bhikkhuni orders. Practices like communal alms collection and monastic self-governance were restricted, 14Chitra Sinha, “Images of Motherhood: The Hindu Code Bill Discourse,” Economic and Political Weekly 42, no.

43 (October 27–November 2, 2007): 49–57.

15 Gregory Schopen, Buddhist Nuns, Monks, and Other Worldly Matters

Recent Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2014). 16 K. T. S. Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. , 2012), ISBN 978-81-215-1241-1. as Hindu legal norms did not accommodate a distinct monastic legal identity. 17 Even key rituals and festivals unique to Buddhist communities, such as Asalha Puja or Magha Puja with specific monastic functions, were marginalized or merged with local Hindu festivals, diluting the distinctiveness of Buddhist observances. Sikhism Originally, Sikhism established itself in opposition to ritualistic Hindu practices rejecting caste hierarchies, idol worship, and Brahmanical mediation in spiritual life.

Early Sikh households, even in rural Punjab, followed distinctive customs marriages were solemnized by reciting Anand Sahib instead of Vedic mantras death rituals focused on community service and remembrance rather than shraddha offerings; and birth ceremonies were marked by Naamkaran (naming through the Guru Granth Sahib) instead of astrological consultations. 18But, during the late 19th century, mainly during the colonial census classification, many Hindu families began identifying Sikhs as a sect within Hinduism. This blurred identity encouraged the gradual assimilation of Sikh social practices into Hindu frameworks, leading to loss of distinct customs in mixed or “Hindu-Sikh” families. 19 As the boundaries between the two faiths were softened, several specific Sikh customs eroded.

The Anand Karaj ceremony was often replaced by Vedic weddings in certain urban Punjabi families seeking Hindu recognition for legal purposes before the Anand Marriage Act of 1909. 20 Caste endogamy, which Sikhism had explicitly rejected, reappeared strongly among Sikh subcastes (like Jat Sikhs or Khatris) as Hindu notions of purity reasserted themselves. Idol worship once repudiated by the Gurus crept into domestic and gurdwara spaces during the late 1800s, prompting the Singh Sabha reform movement to reclaim Sikh identity. Similarly, Hindu festivals such as Diwali began to overshadow traditional Sikh commemorations like Bandi Chhor Divas. 21 This cultural overlap diluted Sikh distinctiveness, illustrating how the process of “integration” into Hinduism often meant absorption at the expense of autonomy, not mutual respect between equal traditions.

17 Vinay Lal, "Buddhism's Disappearance from India," UCLA South Asia Studies, accessed October 23, 2025. 18 Samrath S. Machra, Sikhs and Colonialism: A Study of Religious Identity Across Time, from Guru Nanak to the British Raj (Claremont, CA: Claremont McKenna College, 2022).

19 Id.

20 Harjot Oberoi, The Construction of Religious Boundaries

Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). 21 Harjot Oberoi, The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 160–162.

The Matrilineal Traditions and The Legal Reforms Matrilineal traditions in India represent a distinctive social and legal order, in which inheritance, lineage, and certain forms of authority pass through the female line. These practices offered women the rights and privileges that stood in contrast to the predominantly patriarchal norms of the subcontinent. The Nair community of Kerala historically followed the ‘marumakkattayam’ system, a matrilineal mode of inheritance that centered property rights and lineage through the female line. Under this system, ancestral property (tharavadu) was owned collectively by a matrilineal joint family and managed by the senior-most male, the karanavan,(brother of the senior most lady) on behalf of his sisters and their children.

Women held secure residence rights and economic stability independent of their husbands a system that, for its time, ensured women remarkable social autonomy and legal protection. 22 Marriage among Nairs was not a sacrament but a social contract known as sambandham, which emphasized flexibility, consent, and dissolution without stigma practices that stood in stark contrast to patriarchal Hindu marriage norms. 23 The codification of Hindu personal law after Independence transformed these social realities. The Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 24, first sought to formalize inheritance in matrilineal families but still preserved the essence of the tharavadu. However, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and later the Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, dismantled this matrilineal framework entirely, imposing patrilineal inheritance and nuclear family structures.

25 Property that was once collectively held by the tharavadu became subject to individual ownership, leading to fragmentation of estates and the erosion of female economic agency. With legal reforms aligning with patriarchal Hindu models, practices such as sambandham and female-centric inheritance became obsolete — not through organic change, but through legislative assimilation. Cultural erasure extended beyond inheritance. The Nair system of worship through ‘Kaavus’ (sacred groves), often presided over by female or non-Brahmin priests, represented a local ecological and spiritual tradition deeply intertwined with matriliny. These groves were central to the spiritual and ecological life of Kerala’s matrilineal communities, where rituals centered on local deities like Bhagavathi and serpent gods rather than Brahminical Vedic deities. With

22 Manu S. Pillai, The Ivory Throne

Chronicles of the House of Travancore.

23 Ramya P.P., “Historical Perspectives of Gender, Power, and Matriliny

The Nair Tharavad System in the Malabar Region,” (Pollachi, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu: Nallamuthu Gounder Mahalingam College, Department of History).

24 Madras Marumakkathayam Act, Act VIII of 1932, Madras Legislative Council, 1932.

25 Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, Act 27 of 1975, Kerala Legislative Assembly, 1975.

the spread of temple-centric Brahminical worship and state-sanctioned temple administration under the Devaswom Boards, Kaavu traditions diminished dramatically, reducing the participatory and localized nature of worship to standardized temple ritualism. 26 The loss of matriliny was not confined to the Nairs. The Bunt community of coastal Karnataka and the Tiyya (Ezhava) community of Kerala, who also practiced variations of matrilineal inheritance (Aliyasantana among Bunts), underwent similar legal integration. The Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949, recognized their system briefly, but post-independence legal uniformity under the Hindu Code replaced it with patrilineal succession, dissolving joint families and weakening women’s traditional authority.

These transformations reflect how the postcolonial project of legal codification though progressive in gender equality rhetoric erased pluralistic indigenous legal cultures that had historically offered women greater autonomy than the uniform Hindu legal model allowed. 27 Thus, the integration of the Nairs and other matrilineal communities into the framework of Hindu personal law demonstrates a subtler form of homogenization. The attempt to create a unified Hindu civil identity subsumed distinctive matrilineal and regional practices, resulting in the gradual erasure of non-patriarchal kinship systems, the decline of localized worship traditions like Kaavu, and the restructuring of women’s property rights along patriarchal lines.

These reforms, while aiming for legal modernity, quietly effaced a centuries-old social order where female lineage and localized spiritual traditions thrived outside Brahminical control. Before the British and postcolonial codification of “Hindu law,” the Indian subcontinent contained multiple autonomous personal systems that, while locally rooted, often contained progressive social mechanisms. The colonial project of creating a unified Anglo-Hindu Law— as Derrett notes conflated an immense diversity of sectarian, regional, and caste-based norms under the legal fiction of a single “Hindu” identity. 28 Among those absorbed were Lingayat customs in Karnataka, which historically rejected Brahminical authority, encouraged widow remarriage, and denied ritual pollution.

29 These practices founded on the egalitarian teachings of Basavanna in the twelfth century had functioned as proto-modern assertions of individual moral agency within a caste-free community. Yet the postcolonial Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, 26 Catrien Notermans, Albertina Nugteren, and Suma Sunny, “The Changing Landscape of Sacred Groves in Kerala (India): A Critical View on the Role of Religion in Nature Conservation,” Religions 7, no. 4 (2016): 38. 27 Deepti Chhabra, “Succession to the Property of a Female Intestate Hindu Law,” International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation 4, no. 2 (2022).

28 Derrett, J.D.M., Religion, Law and the State in India (London

Faber and Faber, 1968), 112–115.

29 Bairy, Raghavendra, “Lingayatism

The Reformist Movement in Medieval Karnataka,” Studies in History 28, no. 2 (2012): 213–234. classified Lingayats as Hindus for legal purposes, thereby dissolving their distinct marital customs into a standardized Hindu framework that did not necessarily reflect their reformist character. 30 Comparable absorption occurred in the Meitei or Manipuri legal system, which combined pre- Vaishnavite customary law with strict codes of gender parity and clan-based inheritance. 31Following their inclusion within the statutory definition of “Hindu” under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution and the 1955–56 Hindu Code enactments, these customs lost recognition as separate sources of law. 32 The Meiteis’ local adjudicatory systems (Panchayats based on clan councils) and ritual autonomy were progressively supplanted by courts applying uniform Hindu family law doctrines.

The same occurred with Kashmiri Pandit customs, which, before codification, recognized women’s separate maintenance rights and property claims under community decrees rights that were narrowed under codified Hindu succession norms. 33 In short, the legal integration of Hinduism—though justified under the rhetoric of modernization and equality often entailed a juridical erasure of intra-Hindu diversity. The drive for legislative coherence replaced a plural, evolving set of community laws with a unitary civil identity, effectively imposing Brahmanical patriarchal structures in place of locally progressive customs. What was lost in the process was the legal recognition of pluralism itself an irony given that the subcontinent’s legal philosophy had historically been based on desachara (local usage) and kulachara (community norms).

34 Conclusion India has historically been a vibrant tapestry of religious and customary practices, each community maintaining progressive norms suited to its social and moral contexts. The Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and matrilineal communities such as the Nairs and Bunts developed internal systems that promoted gender equity, social cohesion, and localized justice. Jain inheritance rules, Buddhist monastic autonomy, Sikh marital flexibility outside Brahminical 30 Shiva Rao, B. , The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: An Analysis (New Delhi: Eastern Book Company, 2005), 45– 50. 31 Parratt, John, The Religion of Manipur: Beliefs, Rituals and Social Structure (New Delhi: Manohar, 1997), 85–102. 32 Singh, Moirangthem N. , “Customary Law and the Hindu Code in Manipur,” Indian Journal of Legal Studies 12, no. 1 (2005): 45–67, ISSN 0972-4932.

33 Zutshi, Chitralekha, Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir (New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004), 178–182.

34 Derrett, J.D.M., Religion, Law and the State in India (London

Faber and Faber, 1968), 112–115. control, and South Indian matrilineal property practices all exemplified a sophisticated Samavesha of diverse legal and social customs that functioned effectively for centuries. However, the post-independence codification of Hindu personal laws notably the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act subsumed these distinct systems under a uniform legal framework. While this standardization brought administrative clarity and a degree of legal uniformity, it simultaneously eroded centuries-old practices that were progressive for their time. Customs that empowered women, ensured collective property management, or maintained communitybased governance were overridden by patrilineal and brahminical norms.

The imposition of Hindu law as a singular juridical category reduced the rich Samavesha of India’s religious and customary diversity, illustrating that uniformity, however well-intentioned, came at the cost of erasing historically significant social innovations.