The Question of Dowry
Earlier this week I attended a two-day seminar on the women's movement and the law, which was graced by several well-known academics, activists and lawyers. There were some very interesting and some not-so-interesting papers presented, some thought-provoking, and some entirely incomprehensible. Anyway, the issue I want to discuss here - rather, some random thoughts I want to note down on - is that of dowry.
There were a couple of points during the discussion on dowry that struck me - the fact that whenever we discuss this issue, or it's brought to our attention, it is almost always the violence that emanates from this institution that claims our interest and indignation - even more than the notion of dowry per se. It seems almost as if through all the protests, the media reports, the so-called sensitisation of the police force, the debates surrounding the efficacy of the laws/Acts against dowry, what is being sought to be highlighted, and eliminated, is the violence accruing from it, rather than the practice of giving and taking dowry itself. Instead of clamouring for an end to dowry deaths, we should be asking for an end to dowry; instead of the filing cases against people suspected of murdering or driving a woman to suicide, we should be involving the law and order machinery much earlier.
Which brings me to the second point - how do we define dowry, exactly? There was a discussion on the benefits of extending the definition of dowry - and this I agree with. Dowry these days can no longer be limited to the exchange of gifts, an exchange which is almost always unequal, reflecting the inequality in status that persists till date between the bride givers and bride takers. Isn't the blatant display of ostentation that characterises the majority of marriages a part of this institution? I think it is - yes, I know the lavish arrangements are all too often explained away as signifying the 'happiness' that accompanies a marriage ... after all, a child will only get married once (though that's far from certain in the 21st century!), and why should the family not go out of their way to make the occasion as memorable as they can? Scratch the surface, though, and you open a very different can of worms. We all know that the ostentation is invariably due to a desire to enhance one's status in the particular community that one resides in; or due to an almost desperate desire to cater to the groom's family's every need, lest their daughter bear the brunt of the latter's displeasure at a later date; in some instances certain requirements are even dictated by the bridegroom's family; or all of the above. Buttressing as it does the lowly status assigned to girls/women and, by extension, their families, this pressure to 'perform' and stage a splendid wedding is no less a form of dowry than the more material demands for cash or goods.
Incidentally, despite all this inequality between bride givers and takers, the law, when it is upheld, looks upon dowry givers and takers as equally culpable. Rather unfair, that - while I agree that aiding and abetting an offence is just as big a crime as the criminal act itself, dowry givers are more often than not presurised into acquiesance, thanks to the patriarchal nature of our society and the obsolete traditions it insists on clinging on to. Which woman, knowing that her parents will be arrested, will go ahead and report a case of dowry?
What this seminar also did was bring out the incredibly fractured and fractious nature of the women's movement - but that complex issue, with all its myriad over- and undertones, is best left for a later post.
About Me
- A very cool cat
- A confirmed misanthrope, I'm a great believer in personal space, and living and letting live. Admire and appreciate intelligence, self-awareness and humility in people, and detest arrogance, rudeness, selfishness, avarice, ignorance, meanness, irresponsibility, bigotry, and callow, youthful know-it-alls. Passionate about animals, especially cats. And I love sunshine. Really don't see the poetry in dark, gloomy skies, dank weather, and mud squelching underfoot.
13 comments:
I think you put your finger on it when you mentioned the essentially patriarchal nature of society, something that is being perpetuated and propagated today by the media, the government, fundamentalism, and so on. Women are not being brought up as independent individuals, but with a mindset that they "need looking after" - usually they their fathers, followed by husbands and then sons. Hence, the - call if justification if you will! - of something as demeaning as dowry, explaining it away as "security". Honestly, I doubt any laws can chang this. It is a way we as a society look at women - and men. Over the years, the practice of dowry has actually increased. A lot of people actually end up with happy married lives despite the giving/taking of dowry, which is perhaps the more shocking aspect of the whole thing!
Yes, I know. That's what I've tried to emphasise - that when people talk about eradicating dowry, its problems, etc., what they actually have in mind is the violence that stems from it. It's as if if people were to continue with this despicable custom but at the same time manage to live 'happy' lives without pain or death, the problem wouldn't exist! It's weird. And it's become so much a part of life, that people don't even question it any more.
Hi!! This is the very first time that I have visited your blog. I really like the overall layout of your blog - I especially like the colours - they all seem to be so much in sync. Very cool indeed :)
Hi! Thanks - both for the compliment on my blog's look, and for visiting! Hope you'll make this a regular haunt - and I'll comment on your blog soon, I promise!
I'm afraid I've a few bones to pick with the issue of dowry-givers and dowry-takers not being equally culpable. There is nothing in the CrPC that prevents those being pressured into giving dowry reporting the armtwisting and raising a media commotion about it: it's, in matter of fact, been done, however questionable the motive might have been of the one woman, whose identity we are all aware of, who had reported the dowry-takers. As long as one insists on demonising the dowry-takers alone, and making victims of the dowry-givers, there can be no solution. The law might be an ass, but shove hard enough and the ass will begin to trot.
Furthermore, oftentimes, the groom himself will have refused "marital compensation" but the bride's end will insist on "contributing" something to the jamboree. Equally often, the donation of the bride's family will remain in the bride's name. Of course, this is merely another contingency for entrenched patriarchy and can be easily circumvented. But sometimes - and increasingly enough, I think, to make a difference - the imprimatur on the ownership of whatever the bride brings in will not matter a whit to the couple.
I hope it's clear that I'm in no manner defending either dowry-taking or -giving, or the institution of dowry itself. But I think one needs to take into consideration that even dowry is culture-specific, and that its dynamics differ according to tradition and entrenched socioeconomics: in most African tribes, and among all Native Americans (in Canada, North America and the South Americas), bride-price means that it is the prospective groom who has to cough up. If you look at it one way, it means that the groom is purchasing the bride. (Then, again, the practice informs even two people in love, and not just arranged marriages.) Looked at another way, it means that dowry-giving and -taking among African tribals and the Native Americans has long been ambling peacefully precisely in a direction opposite to the Indian one.
There are no statistics that show that dowry-giving or -taking have increased over the years in percentile terms. (They might have increased because of the steep and evidently inexorable increase in population, but that's another issue: we seem, in this debate, to have mixed up percentiles and percentages.) You could say that I'm being influenced far too much by dumb math, and you could be right. but, at the end of the day, passion is best tempered with reason.
Just a few random comments since as you can see from my name i dont have much time to arrange them. You must excuse me in case i appear to somewhat disagree since i DO NOT. I too think that we have still not been able to target the menace at its source. But I think that the problem with not being able to use the law and order machinery at the time of the demand (is that how you mean to tackle the 'notion' of dowry?) of dowry is that its always easier to use the law for redressal rather than for pre-emption. For the law to come into play there has got to be a complainant. So who could be the complaiunant in case of demand - you say yourself that newer ways of demanding are much more covert, you cant really get someone arrested for wanting 'his guests to be taken care of' (that's what they say these days right?)So once such demand is made and agreed to, the scope of possible complainants become much narrower ... not the guys family surely.. neither the girl's or the girl herself generally. How else do you target the notion of dowry?. Is law any help at all in this case. maybe we have to think of alternate ways than the law..
Hi - and thanks, both for visiting my blog, and for commenting. You do have a pertinent point here, especially in the new forms dowry has been taking, which the people concerned sometimes do not even consider dowry! I'm not even sure if awareness generation will help - after all, everyone around knows that dowry, in whichever form, is illegal and wrong - but they're always armed with a plethora of rationalisations to excuse their behaviour. So there's a conundrum. Any ideas on how to resolve it?
great to see so much talk being generated about this issue. But thats where it usually stops. We are all ready to back social issues in principle. But when we find ourselves in a similar situation we tend to take the easy way out: When in Rome do as the Romans do.
In the end, as it has always been, the success of the play depends on the main actoress and her abilities. If the bride has courage and determination then no one can dare do anything.
Even her parents would gain strength from the fact that their daughter is bold and able to handle such issues.
But how will the daughter become bold?
Most Indian woman are sexist when it comes to relationships. They want the guy to take initiative. Once they do that they have already handed the control over to the guys side.
As we are seeing today girls (esp. in metro cities) are starting to take the initiative. I would like to see someone asking for a dowry from a well educated working professional of a girl. A girl who is aware of what she can do.
Finally as far as giving away your daughter in style is concerned I think as long as it is the brides family doing it without pressure from the grooms side, it is ok.
Even if they do it because of social pressure. After all everyone tries to have the best possible image in the society they live in.
Its the same with those people who have posted on this blog. In the society we move around in (probably well educated people) if you said dowry was a good thing you would become a social outcast.
The same way in a village if you say dowry is a bad thing you become a social outcast.
In the end remember human being is a social animal. And whether for good or for bad we always try to adjust to our surroundings and society. The few of those who don't are called visionaries or crackpots. But it takes courage to be either.
Thanks again for commenting. I wouldn't define the stereotypical way in which women behave as sexist, really - it's a great deal of socialisation, which has in all probabilities been internallised, that's responsible for certain attitudes that both women and men have. I agree that it's time they thought things through, and this is happening. I see it in my friends, and in people around me. Just when this change will occur, I can't say. But a start's been made - and that's always a good thing!
And you also know from my post that I do have a problem with societal pressure - if we don't think it's okay for an individual to levy pressure, how then can we acquit society when it does the same? Society, after all, is not this abstract entity, what Emile Durkheim might have said - it is we who make up society, and uphold its norms. This pressure is what makes the institution of marriage so all-important, dowry so prevalent, and women devalued. If more people started questioning these ideas and living the way they wanted to, the term 'crackpot' could take on an entirely different meaning!
again while I agree to the fact that if more people end up questioning the concept of dowry (esp. men looking to get married) it would become a taboo, I don't think society is a uniform creature.
The society of well educated forward thinking people, that is often to be found only in major cities, would certainly benefit from such kind of questioning. In fact such a society has a high sense of ethics and morality(at least in public!) so they know at some level that dowry is bad. Thus you will find them vociferously protesting against various social evils at all the right places.
But the society WE make does not in any way extend or connect with the society which actively practices the evil of dowry (to be found in the smaller cities). Thus we do not have a great influnce on them.
Now I agree with you that dowry is a very bad thing and like you said social pressure does encourage it. But my question is.. how do we influence a society so very different from ours?
How do we translate a seminar in an A/C auditorium (I hope it was) into action in a small town where everyone (almost!) thinks that girls are a burden?
In the end it comes down to the classical reply given by people who are struggling under a rotten system when you try and show them the way out: 'But we have to live here, we can't go against the system, you will go away who will help us then?'
I think you cannot remove the social pressure. You need to start not with the adults. They have already had their values/morals/ethics hard wired.
Start with the kids. Start with the female child.
Like I mentioned the new generation of educated working women are ready to kick ass. They are still in minority but the numbers are surely increasing (like you said a start has been made!). This concept will slowly reach the smaller cities.
And thats how you will remove dowry.
Dowry exists because somewhere in the mind of the typical Indian female exists a major inferiority complex. They define themselves by their man. They know/think/believe that without a man they cannot survive in society.
This complex is what is exploited when demanding dowry.
When does support turn into supplication in a girls mind I don't know. Maybe that is the reason Indian families don't break up that easily w.r.t. some countries. The women learn to sacrifice their individuality for the greater good of the family.
In the major cities we see as women get more independent the divorce rates are on a rise.
Maybe these two things are tied in.
On one side the dominated female (Happy Families but evils like dowry, bride burning etc.) on the other side the dominating female (Happy Families but evils like extra-mar. affairs/families torn apart by divorce etc.)
What would you choose?
Yes, the auditorium was air-conditioned! :-)
I agree with you about the devaluation of female, about her need for supplication - but I disagree with the idea that this problem is rampant only in smaller towns and rural areas. It is extremely important to educate and empower girl children, but unfortunately education does not automatically lead to awareness. Do you think dowry isn't prevalent in Delhi, the capital of the country? It's probably the most rampant here. Do you know that it's in south Delhi, that most elite and posh locality where the rich crowd live, that the child sex ratio is most problematic?
Also, this dichotomy you present vis-a-vis the dominated/dominating female is rather simplistic - yes, sure, divorces are on the increase, and yes, it is because women today have a choice to move out, thanks to their education and financial independence - but your comment seemed to imply that it's women who're single-handedly doing the walking out and being unfaithful bits. Not true at all - all that's happening is that hitherto oppressed now have avenues of escape that the previous generation didn't.
As for what I would choose - well, I've already made my choice, and it's one that shows that things are not as black and white as your dichotomy would have one assume. I'm certainly not a dominated woman, neither am I dominating (god, I hope not!), but I happen to be in a very happy marriage. And neither my husband, nor I have any plans of being unfaithful to each other, or walking out at any point - and yes, I can say that with supreme confidence.
See I never implied a black and white scenario. When it comes to any kind of conflict usually its the fault of both the sides (more often one side more than the other!). So I certainly did not mean to say that divorce happens only because of the brand new Indian woman. But just that it is one of the contributing factors.
So the main point that I was trying to make is what no matter what course of action is chosen there will always remain some problems that you can never address. The reason being those problems are a result of the chosen course of action.
I do know the problems with dowry w.r.t. 'south Delhi, that most elite and posh locality' (being a resident of one of those till about 4 years ago!) but that was just the point I was trying to make. The girl child is learning. Education is not an instant result giver. You cannot, like I said, expect the parents of a girl child to understand and absorb what the child learnt (coz their morals are set).
But I ask you this... if somewhere inside the girl child the independence (I dont need a man to make my life) switch is set to on due to education, today. Do you think tomorrow she will allow her child (if a girl) to be married off thru dowry? Maybe she might even have the courage to refuse giving dowry when it is her time to marry?
And seriously you give a very wrong example of Delhi. The problem with those posh colonies is that its new money/business people that populate them.
They have a very very very set way of thinking (many of them!). So the girls are particularly docile and (I kid you not) many are brought up with the single dream of getting married. That is why you will find those kinds of girls hardly study beyond graduation and get married off around 21-22.
They are pretty independent (see them shop sometime) in their own right. Just that for them marriage-family is most important and dowry is an accepted thing (since they are rich enough to give it).
Lets be honest.. dowry is not a problem for the rich.. its a problem for the poor and that is why I mentioned small towns and cities where perhaps it is more difficult for most people to give a fat dowry. At the same time attitude of society less flexible to allow marriage without one.
Hi guys quite an interesting discussion happening here. But i totally failed to understand what you meant by this Azhar
"On one side the dominated female (Happy Families but evils like dowry, bride burning etc.) on the other side the dominating female (Happy Families but evils like extra-mar. affairs/families torn apart by divorce etc. Which would you choose?)"
Do you mean we must make a choice between either of the above. Or we have no choice atall. or what?
Is that what the whole discussion on dowry boils down to?
What do you mean by "Happy familes but evils like dowry, bride burning." How can a family be happy where the wife just got burnt. Or do you mean a family can be happy inspite of the wife having just been burnt? She just meant that much to anybody else in the family?
And why does educating, empowering women have a direct corelation with the "dominating woman". And why is she being blamed for extra-marital affairs and divorces?
Also I am not sure that just educating the girl child is going to change things. The type of education also has a role to play. Just learning physics maths, history etc in school is not going to make any difference if back at home she is still told that her education is for her to get a good husband because these days men want wives who can talk in their parties. It is going to change only if she is told at home, listen we are giving you education so that you stand on your own two feet and take your own decisions.
I had a friend who is a lawyer who married another lawyer who did not practice law after getting her degree because her family told her listen we have to get you married first and after you get married you do whatever you like if your husband allows. And when she got married my friend's family demanded a car and a flat. And her family gave. She was a well educated girl child. And I am not so sure she will refuse to give dowry for her child.
Why are you differentiating between the rich and the poor in a debate on dowry. the debate is on the problem which is dowry and which exists among both rich as well as the poor.
Do you mean to say that the problem of dowry is in its incapacity from giving? That if you could give there would not be a problem at all. So the rich can pay let them buy husbands for their daughters? Even then you know, there are problems. Because with the rich the demands also get richer. Dowry related violence happen even in rich families. Only the demands are much more cunning, much more cleverly shrouded.
And anyway even if the rich can afford to give and satisfy why should the ability of a woman to be accepted be in her monetary value. Why should even the rich man's daughter be accepted only because she can make her husband richer. Why wont she be accepted for herself.
And also even the rich dont want to give away their money. They too want to be the one to receive all that free money. So they prefer not to have daughters atall. And because they are rich they have access to all the latest technologies which ensure that they dont have daughters.
Post a Comment