Land Tenure Rights in India: an analysis of the failure of amendments to the Hindu Succession Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to a minimum standard of living as a basic human right is recognized internationally. As Hernando DeSoto argues in his book, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, a clear, legal definition of property rights is essential in an owner’s realization of return to their capital [1]. This would enable an individual in a developing country to raise their standard of living, thus contributing to the recognition of the right to property as a basic human right [2]. The implementation of property rights has become a priority for governments, NGOs, and international development agencies in many countries. While the right to property legally applies to both sexes, it is not extended to women in practice. Amendments to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 legitimized land ownership and inheritance for Indian women [4]. However, the 2006 Agricultural Census indicates that only 10.7% of Indian landowners are women [5]. The failure of implementation of legal changes regarding property rights and women can be attributed to cultural and religious opinions of women, traditional land tenure systems established before British colonial rule, and government bias within legislation. The Indian government must consider preexisting cultural norms and de facto property rights in the employment of new legislations, as they may impose costs on women. In order for changes in legislation to be effective, they must be inclusive of all women of different religious backgrounds, and simultaneous changes across government sectors must be enacted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".