Dowry is a serious economic violence
The monetization of the `sacred’ bond is creating chaos:
It happens only in India
Shalu Nigam
From the Book
Dowry is a Serious Economic Violence: Rethinking Dowry Violence Law in India
“Women are not for burning; women are
human beings.”
(A slogan raised in post-colonial
India against the dreadful
practice of the dowry in
post-independent India.)
Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels, in their famous thesis titled ‘The Manifesto of
the Communist Party’ in 1848, wrote,
“The bourgeoisie has torn away from the
family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere
money relation”.
Likewise, in the patriarchal context of North India, the
institution of marriage, though deemed `sacred’ is considerably reduced to a
commercial relationship where money is prioritized over sentiments. The barbaric
practice of dowry has been institutionalized and entrenched gradually, with religion
playing a vital role in stubbornly determining the norms of sexuality[1], influencing
the institution of marriage, shaping the choice of the partner, and setting the
rules for cohabitation[2].
Though multiple patriarchies undoubtedly exist in
India[3], in
the unusual case of dowry violence as it is practiced in contemporary times, the
Brahmanical patriarchy[4] clubbed with the neoliberal, fundamentalist,
capitalist patriarchy[5]
has slyly manipulated the obnoxious duality of sacredness and divinity along
with the commercialization of conjugality to dreadfully suppress women and to
advantage men. In fact, the despicable practice
of linking payments with the sacred marital relationship has followed a treacherous
path from a tradition of giving to coercive dowry demands that lead to the brutal
torturing and slaying of women.
As
per Hindu law, marriage is
described as a sacrament[6] and
not a contract between the parties. Some scholars have suggested that this `holy
alliance is made in heaven’[7]. Though, in profound abstraction, marriage
is considered a divine and heavenly institution, it is simultaneously
commercialized, in reality. Thus, the intimacy in the relationship is ruined
while the `sanctity and sacrament’ of the marriage are callously destroyed[8].
With the monetization of the so-called holy marital bond, the focus on the
relationship is shifted from its sanctity to its profitability, from its
sacramental nature to its exploitative and extortive character, and from
companionship to violence, where the elements of love, affection, care, trust, or
mutual respect are all weighed down by the value of goods and assets transferred
by one party to another. And it happens only in India[9].
Materially, the
monetization of each and every ritual associated with the marriage ceremony
indicates how this relationship is commercialized, where the monetary value
replaces the reciprocity and affinity within the relationship. For instance,
the marriage ceremonies impetuously began with the elaborate ritual of the shagun,
tikka or betrothal ceremony. It marks the beginning of giving. Rokna
or earnest money, is typically paid by the girl’s parents to the groom with the
intent to finalize the candidature so that they stop looking for potential
matches[10].
And these peculiar rituals and ceremonies of unilateral `giving’ from the bride’s
side to the groom’s side miserably extend years after the marriage is
performed. Together, these celebrations of one-sided `giving’ depict how the
transfer of money feeds into the workings of the larger obnoxious and
regressive patriarchal arrangement while enhancing the status of the groom and
his family and simultaneously undermining the worth of a woman.
Additionally, the
patriarchal setup exploited the element of `sacredness’ to generate fear and
emotionality among women to compel them to stay in an extremely abusive
marriage, and at the same time, while emphasizing patrilocality along with
patrilineality and allowing the unilateral flow of wealth from the bride to the
groom’s family, it ensured that upper-caste, elite men enjoyed all the
privileges and that the supremacy of males remained intact.
The patriarchal culture
of dowry is propagated and justified while evoking Hindu mythology and ancient religious
text[11]. Some
historians have traced the origin of
the dowry to the texts of Manusmriti, which outline the Dharmashastras
or the laws of behaviour of social classes. Manu hypothesized the obnoxious linkage
of the practice of dowry with upper-caste Brahmins[12].
Manusmriti recommended Brahma and its related forms of
marriage, such as Prajapatiya, Daiva, and Arsha, which are linked
with the practice of dowry for the Brahmins. Non-brahmins were forbidden from practicing dowry[13]
though in practice, it is also found among the Kshatriya Rajput caste. Asura
or other forms of marriage such as Gandharva or Rakshasa vivah,
which uphold the practice of the bride price, were common among the lower
castes and classes[14]. The laws of Manu condemn Asura forms
of marriage as they are based on the concept of the sale of a girl[15]. Paradoxically,
the same assumptions are not applied to realize the practice of dowry as a sale
of the groom.
In the Brahmanical
marriage, ludicrously, daughters are given or donated as `gifts’ as kanyadaan,
and the dowry is regarded as vardakshina, or the supplementary gifts,
and not the `consideration’ for marriage[16]. Srinivas[17]
observed,
“A
gift or daan has to be accompanied by a subsidiary cash gift (dakshina),
and in kanyadaan, the bride is given as a gift to the groom. On this
analogy, the dowry becomes the dakshina”. (p. 11)
As per this repulsive patriarchal assumption, the ritual of giving a virgin
but simultaneously bejewelled and expensively clothed, daughter to a suitable
man in marriage, for whom she will bear the future generation, is seen as the highest form of donation
and a pious or sacred duty of the bride’s parents[18]. Manu has exalted this practice of
unilateral giving, where a father fulfils his material and moral obligations
towards his daughter by entrusting
her to her husband, who will then control her life[19].
Giving a daughter along with the dowry is disgustingly considered an act
of high spiritual merit, which compulsorily enhances the status and honour of
the giver[20]. This biased practice exaggerates
the concept of honour and prestige in families while devaluing the social
position of women in families[21]. The
repugnant patriarchal ritual of wrapping
a bride as an object to be gifted or donated objectifies and commodifies
women, reiterates the idea of unilateral transactions, and depicts how women are
controlled by men, yet this socio-cultural practice is glorified and celebrated[22].
Typically, once a daughter is “given away” (as a daan
or donation) to the groom’s family, she can no longer rely on her parents
financially or emotionally because an object once donated cannot be taken back[23]. Her
loyalties are supposed to be shifted from her natal home to her matrimonial
home, and she is expected to devote herself fully to her marital family[24]. Divorce is highly discouraged in
such a patriarchal arrangement. So, even in the dire circumstances of violence
a woman experiences, she is expected to bear the torture and die in her
matrimonial home. This is validated by common sayings such as `once a woman
marries, only her dead body can come out of her matrimonial home’ or “a
daughter is a paraya dhan’ (another man’s wealth)”. These absurd ideas fail
to see a daughter as a human being and as a productive member of her natal
family. These discriminatory stereotypical assumptions discount her visible and
invisible contributions in terms of her help in managing household work, including
cooking, cleaning, or even taking care of younger siblings at the age when she
herself requires care and affection, and treat her as an economic liability and
a burden in her natal family. Ironically, though the religion venerates the
practice of `giving’, however, it is the giver of the daughter and dowry in
this situation who is made to suffer and exploited by the `taker’. The giver is
coerced to give more dowry, and transfer more wealth while using his daughter
as a `hostage’.
Though the
ancient texts prohibit abusing a woman in her childbearing age and consider
violence a heinous crime or a violation of universal order, still women are cruelly
tortured and murdered for dowry and even otherwise[25]. Marriage
is not seen as an equal partnership between a man and a woman in this male-dominated
paradigm. Brides are seen only as a means of
procreation and as a continuous source to fulfil
material desires by the groom and his family. Moreover, the patriarchal ideology practiced by the upper caste
entails traditional secluding and excluding women, besides regulating
them[26].
In post-independent India, the conservative
patriarchal ideology along with the Victorian mindset imbibed by the legal
system continued to operate parallel to the constitutional provisions relating
to equality between sexes, social justice, and liberty. Presently, society, as
well as the law, socially and legally legitimize the Brahma form of
marriage over all other forms. While impetuously deciding the critical issues
relating to inheritance and division of property, the official system grimly approves
and continues to blithely accept this detestable and degenerating Brahminical
idea. The regressive conservative norms, therefore, are deeply institutionalized,
culturally legitimized, and socially universalized through the restructuring of
the traditions and rituals.
This indigenous patriarchy and
upper-caste hegemony were reactivated and refuelled by the imperial rulers. Kolsky[27]
demonstrated that while codifying the laws, Britishers created a culture of
impunity and placed a heavy burden on women seeking a judicial remedy in the
colonial courts. The compromised legal system proposed by Thomas Babington
Macaulay accommodated the colonial hierarchy and was grounded on a regressive
patriarchal understanding. An extensive emphasis on the regressive
family ideology and the conspicuous absence of social security measures in
post-colonial India further compound the deplorable situation where a woman experiencing
brutal violence counter difficulties while walking out of a vicious marriage.
The progressive view that a woman can be economically and emotionally
independent is not easily accepted by patriarchal society.
[1] This is
evident from the sociolegal discourse on same-sex marriage and the arguments
being submitted by the state in the matter of Supriyo @ Supriyo Chakraborty
v Union of India WPC 1011 of 2022, The matter is pending before the five
judges Bench in the Supreme Court while the hearing is going on at the time
when this book is being written https://www.scobserver.in/cases/plea-for-marriage-equality/ accessed
on May 4, 2023
[2] Mahajan
Priyanka T, Priya Pimple, PD Delnaz et.al. (2013) Indian religious concepts on
sexuality and marriage. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(Suppl 2): S256-62.
[3] Sangari,
K. (1995) Politics of Diversity: Religious Communities and Multiple
Patriarchies, Economic and Political Weekly, 30(51), 3287-3310.
[4]
Chakravarti Uma (1993) Conceptualizing Brahminical patriarchy in early India:
Gender, caste, class and state, Economic and Political Weekly, 28(14)
579-585
[5] Mies
Maria (1986) Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale: Women in
international division of labour, Zed Books, London
[6] Sivasankaran
v Santhimeenal Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 4984-5 of 2021 decided on
13.09.2021, N Adithayan v Travancore Devaswom Board [2002] (8) SCC 106, and spate of other
cases state that marriage is a sacrament as per the Hindu law
[7] Prakasa, Rao (1982) Marriage, The Family and Women in India. South
Asia Books, Printox.
[8] Patnaik
Raghunath (1989) Dowry as a social evil: An evaluation for rendering legal aid,
Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 31(4) 570-576
[9] Most
Indians have grown up listening to Bollywood songs and this is title of one of
such popular song released in 1998 in the movie titled Pardesi Babu
(Literally translating to foreign mister). The lyrics is a mix of patriarchy,
and rampant misogyny with a gigantic dose of nationalism
[10] Sarkar
Lotika, Usha Ramanathan and Madhu Mehra (1994) Gender Bias in Dowry Law,
Karmika Delhi
[11] Teays W
(1991) The Burning Bride: The Dowry Problem in India, Journal of Feminist
Studies in Religion, 7: 29-52
[12] Gandhi,
N and N Shah (1992) The Issues at Stake: Theory & Practice in the
Contemporary Women’s Movement in India. Kali, New Delhi
[13]
Palriwal, R. (2003) Dowry in contemporary India: An overview, in Expanding
Dimensions in Dowry, AIDWA, New Delhi p. 11- 34
[14] Sheel
Ranjana (1997) Institutionalization and Expansion of Dowry System in colonial
North India, Economic and Political Weekly, 32(28) 1709-1718
[15] Rao
Jagmohan R (1973) Dowry System in India – A Sociolegal approach to the problem,
Journal of Indian Law Institute, 15(4) 617-625
[16] Kumari
Ranjana (1989) Brides are not for Burning: Dowry victims in India,
Radiant Publishers, Delhi p. 17
[17] Srinivas
MN (1983) Some Reflections on Dowry, JP Naik Memorial Lecture, Published
by CWDS New Delhi
[18] Menski
Werner (1995) Dowry: A Survey of the Issues and the Literature in Dowry
Conference Souvenir, Harvard Law School,
[19] As per this conservative notion, a woman is not
considered as an independent entity; as a child she is dependent on her father,
after marriage, her life is controlled by her husband and in old-age she is
dependent on her son.
[20] Vatuk,
S. (1973) Gifts and Affines in North India, Contributions to Indian
Sociology (ns), 9: 155-96.
[21] Basu
Monmayee (2001) Hindu Women and marriage law: From sacrament to contract,
OUP, Delhi
[22] Barman
Milan (2016) Dharamsutras and Modern Hindu Marriage, International Journal
of Sanskrit Research, 2(6) 17-20 https://www.anantaajournal.com/archives/2016/vol2issue6/PartA/2-6-16.pdf
[23] Kakar S (1988) Feminine Identity in India, In Women
in Indian Society Ed. by R Gadhially Sage, Delhi 44-68
[24]
Jeyaseelan, V, S Kumar, L Jeyaseelan, V Shankar, et.al. (2014). Dowry demand
and harassment: prevalence and risk factors in India. Journal of Biosocial
Science, FirstView, doi 10.1017/S0021932014000571
[25] Menski
Werner (1998) South Asians and Dowry Problem, Trentham Books, London
[26]
Palriwala R (1989) Reaffirming the anti-dowry struggle, Economic and
Political Weekly, 24(17) 942-944
[27] Kolsky Elizabeth (2010) The Rule of Colonial Indifference: Rape on Trial in
Early Colonial India, 1805–57, The Journal of Asian Studies, 69(4)
1093–117
Labels: Dowry, Hindu marriage
posted by Adv Dr Shalu Nigam @ September 12, 2023
0 Comments
