Sujeev,

You disappointed me greatly in this article. For the first time, I noted that you are becoming like those political leaders who start some talk on some serious issue and connect it with politics or some sort of populist talk. While I was hoping to read some thought provoking economic article from you, you degenerated into the same mindless platitude in the following passages:

"However, this legal provision is usually taken as bait to ensure a good after-life than to face challenges post-retirement. The inheritance law stems from the Hindu principle of chain of command, where it is deemed necessary to hand over one's mantle (and property) to the eldest son in exchange for smooth passage after death. As Dor Bahadur Bista said, we are more concerned about the dead than the living.

We are a democratic republic now, but we are yet to become a real democracy, stuck as we are in a feudal mindset. We say we have become a secular country, but electricity subsidies are only available to temples. When we light lamps at inaugurations, idols belonging to specific faiths guard the entrance. The seating arrangements at conferences are still the same as they were during the monarchy. The king has been substituted by a head of state, but he still spends much of his time attending religious functions. It may be a transitional period, but if we are to evolve as a democratic society that is secular and equal, we need to ring in the changes.

A real democracy talks about equal opportunities and helps to foster a society where there is a level playing field. "

Democracy? Secularism? What else, sir, federalism? Here at this column while talking about a legal issue related to economy?

Please be focussed.

Dear Chandra Gurung

I have tried to spark a debate that is directly related to the economy. Due to our inheritance laws, rent seeking mentality persists and enterpreunership always takes a back seat due to 'security' provided by ancestral wealth...Columnists write not people to agree to disagree, but to ensure that their viewpoints are not ignored...its to continue the debate and continue to build a pluralistic society...

Before any nosedive action is taken to amend the inheritance laws, we must think about the pros and cons of the same. That means whether the law is equitable for everybody or not.

Inheritance in itself is a very delicate societal issue, for sure it is. And there is hardly any appropriate nostrum to satisfy all the members of the family concerned. But, on top of all that, if we dream of an egalitarian democratic nation we must make some concessions, such as no more mention of gender's priority. Both male and female genders should be on equal footing holding equal parts in usufruct, and the inheritance should be bequeathed through a testament or a will instead of through birthright.

While we are at it, why not make atonement for the wrong done in the past because of our ancestral traditions of always favoring the eldest son of the family who is a cut above the other siblings either males or females.

And the government's inheritance taxes should be applicable in accordance with the amount in question and the use made by the beneficial owner, either he makes investment of a dollop sum to create wealth or he spends it carelessly at random.

Here is food for thought!?!

Great Discussion.

I think this law will also address problem for married couples who only have daughters and hence their inheritence is all taken by their nephews because of ignorance on their part that nephews will have them die peacefully and hence need to give them their wealth to them while the daughters get nothing from them.

Also, for married couples who do not have any children. I think at present, their wealth is taken by the nearest relative but this law will force them to think about giving it to people who need or deserve the money.

A 'will' will also force the sons/daughters to think about their parents even if it is for the interest in the share of property.

This is one of Artha Beed's best articles.  The only way to become a truly secular society is to move away from our religious dispositions in legal and government affairs. 

Chandra Gurung, secularism and democracy go hand-in-hand: you cannot pretend to be an unbiased state when favours are given to one religion or another.

Narbada Ghimire, no one has said that secularism and atheism is the same thing; equating these two items is the tendency of Hindu hard-liners who wish to scare the general population into thinking that if we are not a Hindu state, we cannot practice Hinduism. All Dr. B is saying is that at the legal level, we cannot use religious law.  We are not Bangladesh/Iran/Pakistan/etc (thank goodness!).  We no more need a judiciary based on Hindu scripture any more that we need Sharia law. 

The point is that in a secular society, people decide what they want to follow (or not follow for that matter).  Any religion is okay to follow, any belief is fine insofar as it does not trample on the rights of others.  The fact that the state no longer directly sponsors Hinduism is only a concern to those Hindus who lack self-confidence in their own faith.  Who said anything about anyone not being able to follow Hinduism under what is supposed to be a secular democracy?

Dear All

thank you to all for such stimulating thoughts and debates...as I said in the column, we need to develop a pluralistic approach to issues be it inheritance or securalism...for this beed, all these issues have bearing on the economy so at times issues may just sound political...as an eternal management student, I always believe in the 10% take away with each issue I read or a session in a seminar I attend...I do not believe in perfection..I just believe in generating some good thoughts..