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

 Marriage is tragically not construed as companionship by the Indian state and society

“A wife should be an administrator in purpose, a slave in duty, Lakshmi in appearance, Earth in patience, Mother in love, Prostitute in bed”, wrote the Kerala judge while quoting a Sanskrit shloka to interpret the duties of a woman in a matrimonial relationship. (2018)

Thus, as per the court, a wife should be capable of adopting multiple roles. She must be perfect in work and appearance, should be caring and loving, and yet must work as a slave. The role of a wife is painted with high expectations, whereas no such roles are prescribed for husbands by the court. As per this notion, a woman can attain salvation only if she obeys her husband because, for her, her husband is a lord and a master beyond which she cannot have a separate existence. The traditional conservative notions about the ‘good woman’ who is obedient, compliant, docile, and does not question the norms are still prevalent within and outside the courtrooms and prevent many women from seeking justice using the legal system.  In fact, the conventional stereotype of an ‘ideal uncomplaining wife’ is reinforced by the judicial system that reiterates that a devoted and loyal wife will suffer torture silently. The paternalistic attitude that operates within and outside the courtrooms hinders many women from negotiating for their rights or obtaining justice. In fact, marriage is construed as a sacred relationship and not a tie that is based on companionship. As per this approach, it is dharma or the duty of the wife to look after her family subserviently without question. Marriage is considered to be a pious ‘ Dharmic ’ institution that is ‘made in heaven but broken on earth’. Much emphasis is laid on the performance of ceremonies such as the Saptapadi as per the rituals to accentuate the sacramental nature of the relationship that involves a union of souls that extends not only to one but to seven lives. 

Since the colonial era, the courts have been relying on ancient Hindu texts as coded in Vedas and Smritis. Many of these texts have been interpreted as putting the wife on a lower level, considering a woman to be a dasi or a slave. The intersection of caste and gender hierarchies is reproduced to arrive at the interpretation of ancient religious literature while construing rights and wrongs within marriage, rather than the constitutional values or legal norms. For instance, the Bombay High Court adduced that as per Shastras , in an anuloma marriage, marriage between a man from a higher caste to a lower-caste woman is valid, and children born out of such a tie are legitimate. However, the children born out of a relationship between Shudra men and a Brahmin mistress or a pratiloma marriage, which is declared invalid under the Hindu law, are not dasiputra and therefore cannot claim inheritance in their father’s property. While using the Brahmanical texts, gender and caste parameters are utilized to deprive a Brahmin woman and her children of their rights and penalize her for marrying a lower-caste man. This trend of interpreting rights in marriage narrowly continued in independent India. Contrary to the constitutional values of equality, justice, and liberty, such orthodox ideas and stereotypes are being embedded in personal laws morally, religiously, and socially and are evident in the spate of rulings and verdicts pronounced by the courts. 

Excerpt from my Book Women and Domestic Violence Law in India: A Quest for Justice, (2019) Routledge