Are we (INDIANS) not a Patriarchal Society?

Dear men of India,

You may scream all day till your juices dry about how you treat your fellow Indian women equally while silently or ignorantly enjoying the benefits of the Patriarchal society that you are born into.

Men are ALLOWING women to work as equals in organisations you say, but there still is a huge divide in the ratio. "The number of female workers is about less than half the number of male workers"[sic].

And then there is the Gender pay gap. You may very well compare yourself to your lady colleague and cry that she gets paid equal or over you. Well, even with that lady earning more than you the Gap is still not evened out which means everywhere else the gap is so much that a comparison is just a joke.

"Gender pay gap high in India: Men get paid Rs 242 every hour, women earn Rs 46 less"[sic]

But then, what motivated me to write this post in the middle of all the atrocious and heinous crimes committed against women daily (some holding the attention of the entire nation for  a couple of weeks) is something I came across in the 'Hindu_Succession_Act,_1956'.

Let me call your attention to one interesting piece from this Act. Particularly to the 'property of a Hindu male dying intestate (without a will)' - "Class II heirs"

Class I heirs are pretty straightforward and no hassle. But the class II heirs is a clear definition of Patriarchy. 

"Class II heirs: Absence of Class I heirs

In case of absence of the class I heirs, as given above, the class II heirs will become entitled to the property of the deceased.

The class II heirs consist of many relatives who have been classified into categories and placed in a hierarchy. Preference is given to the one ranking above, wherein if there is even one member available in the higher (preceding) category then all of the property shall pass to the members in that category and none to the ones coming after that (succeeding).

However if there is no one available in the higher (preceding) category then it shall pass to the members following next in the category (succeeding)."[sic]

Class II heirs are categorized as follows and are given the property of the deceased in the following order:

1. Father [MALE]
2. Son's / daughter's son [MALE]
3. Son's / daughter's daughter [FEMALE]
4. Brother [MALE]
5. Sister [FEMALE]
6. Daughter's / son's son [MALE]
7. Daughter's / son's daughter [FEMALE]
8. Daughter's / daughter's son [MALE]
9. Daughter's /daughter's daughter [FEMALE]
10. Brother's son [MALE]
11. Sister's son [MALE]
12. Brother's daughter [FEMALE]

(yeah, I do not see Sister's daughter in the list either)

Apparently, the rights of the property of an Indian male dying without a will goes to the MALE relatives before the FEMALE.

This is justified by the assumption that a MALE (who is evidently earning more than FEMALE in the our society) is the bread-winner of the family and should be given priority when there is any extra benefit comes their way and the FEMALE is already assumed to be living with another MALE (married off) and will not require these extra benefits.

If you have a brother and a sister, the law gives your property to your brother and not your sister in the absence of any living person on the other higher categories. 

How's that for an Equal and well-balanced society? 

No, we should not compare ourselves with countries where women still do not have rights over property today but work towards rectifying our flaws.