Dowry involves a triad of oppression

“Dahej naari jaati ka apmaan hai”

"Dowry is an insult to females.”

(A slogan raised against the immoral practice of dowry in post-independent India)

Cameron (2014) categorised the financially abusive partners into three categories: controllers, exploiters, and schemers. According to this study, the controllers use a peculiar combination of abusive behaviour to exert control, the exploiters use various forms of abuse to exploit partners for their own financial needs, and the schemers systematically strategize to steal the women’s money. The despicable goal of the schemers is to shamelessly exploit the relationship and to wrongfully take women’s assets. Using this critical approach to analyse the cases relating to dowry abuse depicts that those who demand dowry are schemers who systematically and brazenly strategize to control not only the women’s assets but also the money that belongs to her natal family. As a controller, the abuser threatens the woman and inflicts senseless violence on her, if the dowry demands remain unfulfilled, he murders her or tortures her to compel her to commit suicide. As an exploiter, the abuser ruthlessly exploits the marital relationship to make arbitrary, irrational demands, to extract resources and wealth.

A critical analysis of several of the reported cases of dowry shows that it is not merely a custom consisting of a simple exchange of gifts; it is a predatory practice that consists of a broader form of violence, which is physical, economic, mental, emotional, and verbal, where the abuser intentionally exploits the element of emotional intimacy and the woman’s economic dependency in the relationship using his position of authority and while taking advantage of a woman’s situation of vulnerability. This acute form of economic abuse inextricably involves a perilous set of oppressive elements, including

1) compulsive persistence, coercive, arbitrary, and irrational demands that are made continuously over an incessant period starting from before the marriage, during the marriage, or even years after the marriage is performed;

2) pressurizing and coercing a woman and her natal family in various ways, including physical, emotional, or mental torture of a woman for consumer goods or cash or other material benefits,

3) killing a woman, treacherously murdering her, or burning her alive, or she is mentally tortured to such an extent that her circumstances become unbearable, she feels helpless, and she is compelled to commit suicide.

All these conspicuous elements may work together or singly, but the purpose is to compel women and their families to arrange for money, cash, valuables, or tangible goods. Arbitrary dowry demands, coercion, and violence are distinct elements that are not yet recognized legally in India. The legal system has grimly failed to recognize that the dowry demands or violence is not a one-time action, but it involves extorting money from the bride and her family by ruthlessly exploiting, torturing, subjugating, and oppressing women in the privacy of the home for years after marriage.

Making compulsive, arbitrary demands for the dowry from a bride is illegitimate, undesirable, immoral, and unethical, as are coercion and violence. The laws and policies on the dowry need to take these various complicated factors into account. The law has failed dismally to deter the attitude of entitlement among men who perhaps opine that it is their privilege that they can extort anything, anytime, from the family of the bride because of the marital relationship, ignoring the fact that marriage in no way entitles one to extract money or exploit women. The state hardly acts efficiently to curb this terrible crime; rather, the police and the courts, in several cases, as the bastion of male dominance, have propagated male chauvinism.

For instance, Mohinder Kaur, a teacher, set herself and her three children ablaze at her matrimonial home on 7.6.1983. Married seven to eight years ago, she was harassed for the dowry. She wrote a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police complaining of ill-treatment and persistently sought police protection. Her manipulative husband frustrated her frantic efforts to seek a transfer from the school where she was working. As per the prosecution, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law instigated her husband and conspired to brutally kill her by sprinkling alcohol, but their sinister plan misfired. Being fed up, Mohinder Kaur wrote a letter to her mother, sharing her unbearable agony, and committed suicide the next day. Her mother lodged an FIR. The trial court convicted her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, but the High Court acquitted them on the ground that the prosecution could not prove that they aided and abetted her to commit suicide. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Iqbal Singh, while taking into account her ill-treatment and the atmosphere of terror created for her, restored the conviction of her husband but acquitted his sister. The legal system insisted on technicalities and the prosecution’s ability to produce convincing evidence, and not on the fact that Mohinder Kaur was continuously and brutally tortured to such an appalling extent that she could not see any other way around but to commit suicide along with her three children.

In Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar the daughter of Phulmati was horribly burned alive. The deceased, before her death, disclosed that her husband and other family members forcibly poured kerosene and set her on fire. The helpless girl was cruelly tortured because she was `ugly looking,’ and the pent-up demands for a dowry of Rs 10,000 and a gold ring could not be fulfilled. The apex court dwelled on the ghastly forms of burn injuries, the technicalities of a dying declaration, the nonexamination of the investigating officer and other evidence, and set aside the imprisonment under Sections 302 or 304B and 498A on the ground that no dowry demands were made prior to the date of the occurrence of the crime. Those who viciously murdered Phulmati’s daughter with impunity burned her, and then refused to take her charred body to the hospital were simply not deterred by the rule of law. The perpetrators somehow knew that the oppressive system upheld the mindset that burning women alive for the dowry is not considered a deadly crime and that they could effortlessly be set free. Perhaps, it is much easier to hopelessly entangle justice in the complicated web of technicalities, nitty gritty, and legal procedures in cases where women are victims.

Harjinder Kaur committed suicide on 7.2.1998 by ingesting aluminium phosphate because she was brutally tortured for not fulfilling the urgent demand for a motorcycle and a fridge (Sher Singh v State of Haryana). Her violent husband bitterly contested that she was hot-tempered,  desperately wanted him to shave his hair, and inevitably forced him to leave separately from his parents. The session judge convicted her husband and in-laws under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted all others except her husband on the technical ground that the prosecution calamitously failed to establish their role.

The Supreme Court acquitted the husband and noted, “What motivated or compelled her to take this extreme and horrific step will remain a mystery, as we are not satisfied that the prosecution has proved or even shown that she was treated with such cruelty, connected with dowry demands, as led her to commit suicide”. The court could not consider the fact that, for a motorcycle and a fridge, an unfortunate woman was barbarically tortured to such an extent that she committed suicide while she was pregnant.

The courts in several cases have emphasized the dereliction of the duty on the part of the prosecution or the negligence by the investigation officers to acquit the accused persons while overlooking the fact that justice is indignantly denied to the tragic victims because of the overall sloppiness by the law enforcement system in its entirety. And while doing so, the courts omit to perform an active role by directing the state to impart training to the officers and the staff to avoid any further such neglect on their part. The courts remain silent in situations where the rights of the victims are at stake.

Chinu Rani married Arjun Acharjee on 13.3.1994, and after their marriage, her husband and father-in-law severely tortured her physically and mentally for Rs 5000 in unpaid dowry out of the demand to pay Rs 20,000 (Nirode Ranjan Acharjee v State of Tripura). She wrote a letter to her father on 18.5.1994 requesting him to meet the pending demand. She tragically died on 30.6.1994. The post-mortem report noted that she died of insecticide poisoning. The trial court acquitted both the husband of the deceased and her father-in-law of the charges under Sections 304B and 306 IPC and convicted her husband only under Section 498A. On appeal, the High Court discarded the critical testimony of her parents, sister, and friend, where they testified that the deceased had told them that she had been subjected to harassment for nonpayment of the dowry, as hearsay evidence. The court also rejected the letter written by her as evidence, wilfully ignoring the dreadful agony the deceased underwent within a short period of her marriage. She died merely because her parents could not pay the money as promised at the time of marriage.

Mamta got married on 21.10.2001. She had a two-year-old daughter when she was found dead on 23.01.2005 (Rohit v State of Delhi). Her parents allege that her husband used to brutally torture her for the dowry and that they gave him cash many times. A day before she committed suicide, her husband sternly demanded Rs. 5000 in cash and a generator for his business. The case was registered under Section 304B and 34 IPC. However, the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the allegations were vague, general, and inconsistent, and no cruelty was committed by the accused. On appeal, the High Court maintained the acquittal on the ground that no proximate demand was made at the time when the deceased committed suicide while disbelieving the convincing testimonies of the witnesses. No one is held accountable for Mamta’s suicide.

Case after case demonstrates how crooked men have coerced, exploited, and murdered women for extorting the dowry. In all such cases, violent men have improperly used the devious mechanism of violence to pressurize, and torture women for months or years, and then murdered them for money or goods. Yet, the courts have upheld the patriarchal assumptions while acquitting the accused. Women have died in compelling circumstances. The testimony of witnesses and other material evidence indicates that women have been brutally murdered or were forcefully compelled to commit suicide because of unreasonable motives or coercive demands. Yet, the perpetrators of dowry violence are released on flimsy and technical grounds.

The courts frequently overlook the material evidence while disdainfully pointing out the faults of women as wives. The oppressive elements such as coercion, exploitation, extortion, or irrational, arbitrary demands are not taken into account while adjudicating the matters. Women are cruelly tortured and brutally murdered for the voracious ravenousness of soulless men, women are subjugated and oppressed by their families, and yet, are denied justice by the patriarchal state.

The United Nations Declaration on Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, clarifies that it is the duty of the state to ensure that the victims of crime should be treated with compassion, respect, and dignity and the judicial and administrative mechanisms should ensure that victims are not denied access to justice. However, in the situation of dowry violence, it appears that victims are deprived of justice and all the provisions and the norms mentioned in the said international instruments are flouted. The courts are seemingly unwilling to consider the varied elements of the triad of oppression deployed against women for the purpose of extracting dowry from them. The rights of women as human beings are still not upheld despite the promises and pledges made at the national or international level.

Excerpt from Dowry is a Serious Economic Violence: Rethinking Dowry Law in India, 2023, Amazon p. 104-106

 Hail Patriarchy! Of Supreme Judges And Elite Law

07 November 2015

Since the Supreme Court of India pronounced its verdict in the matter of Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association versus Union of India also commonly known as NJAC judgement where the court consisting of five judges bench by the majority declared the National Judicial Appointment Commission to be formulated under the 99th Constitutional amendment as unconstitutional, a debate has been initiated. Opinions are expressed in favor and against it, and a fierce discussion has been initiated regarding the manner in which transparency and accountability may be maintained while appointing judges. However, the Supreme Court of India on November 3, 2015, moved ahead and conducted a hearing to work on suggestions to strengthen the Collegium system. By coincidence or by choice, I somehow got the chance to be present in the courtroom where these proceedings were conducted. The room was packed with advocates, senior advocates, elite advocates, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the members of Supreme Court Bar Associations besides a few law interns and reporters. Every inch of the small courtroom is occupied where lawyers with their keen ears and watchful eyes were waiting to know how the system of appointing judges will be made transparent and how accountability will be ensured to provide a fair chance to all eligible to be appointed as the keepers of justice. Rubbing shoulders with most of the male advocates and a few female lawyers in the tightly packed room, I as a woman advocate and a feminist, was eager to find out not only about the transparency and the democracy in the selection of judges but the manner in which more women could find a place among judges and lawyers thus bringing in diverse views and opinions which reflect on different perspectives including that which is favorable to masses.

Though the literature exhibits different views about the issue regarding the presence of women judges in the courtrooms, yet I assumed that the mere presence of women in the Supreme Court or the High Courts may add diverse voice within the system. As Carol Gilligan in her famous work `In A Different Voice’ explained that women judge reason in a different manner from traditional male thinking and analysis. Though this tendency of constructing adjudicators into dichotomous non-intersecting categories has been criticized by several scholars based on the fact that not all women experience similar situations or think likewise, yet, it is through construing binaries an effort may be made to deal with the issues like discrimination, devaluation, and backlash. Also, though it may be said that the category `women’, in itself is not homogenous and has layers to it, and also sex as a biological category has to be differentiated from gender as a social construct, yet, bringing the gender lens into judging is significant besides creating a gender equal judiciary.

However, the discussion on Collegium for Appointment of Judges started once five male judges arrived in the courtroom and take on the seats earmarked for them on a high pedestal. No attempt was made to ensure the participation of female judges while discussing such a significant issue. The lawyers from both parties sat directly in front of them. Further, the Attorney Generals, the senior lawyers, and the advocate arguing the matter were all males. Though there were a few female advocates, yet either they choose to remain silent or those who even tried to raise their voices were not given the opportunity to speak. `Queen’s law’ in fact failed to give fair opportunity to women. The cultural norms of masculinity prevail shattering the myth of gender equality or progress and legal apartheid evidently was clearly visible. The proceedings went on to discuss `Apples from Uttaranchal and Oranges from Nagpur’ i.e. difference and manner of induction of a judge from a high court in a smaller town to a higher pedestal in comparison to induction of a judge from a metropolitan city to a apex court. However, the inclusion of more females among judges was a point that was not raised probably because the discussion was done by men, of men, for men, and among men. Also, may be because the discussion was focused on sharing power, and making decisions about the important aspects and relates to supremacy, authority, and control of the judiciary, female exclusion therefore becomes inevitable. The trend, as always, is to fiercely up keep the male prerogative. And when several of the female lawyers got the opportunity to raise this issue it was trivialized, marginalized, normalized, and refuted while drawing the focus on the ratio of male and female advocates on bar[1]. Tokenism and backlash operate to exclude those women who dare to raise their voice against male domination and highlights the manner in which gender bias is ingrained in the judiciary.

Even otherwise, women’s voice in the legal system of the biggest democracy is almost miniscule probably because shattering the glass ceiling is not an easy job. Additionally, the old boy network has a stronghold which prevents women to enter into the domain of supreme law. Nepotism, corruption, irregularities and other biases operate to prevent transparency[2]. Out of 28 judges in the Supreme Court of India, currently, there is only one woman judge who represents half of the Indian population[3]. Also, if one sees historically, since independence, only six women got the opportunity to be appointed to the Supreme Court as judges in India out of a total of 229. Further in High Courts, too situation is not good and there are 62 female judges in comparison to 611 male judges all over the country. In several states, women judges found no place in the High Courts. The judiciary, on a whole, does not reflect the entire community it is meant to serve. Sexism and misogyny within the system resist women's entry or sustenance within the legal system. The reservation system guaranteed under Article 243 of the Indian Constitution as applicable to introduce 33% women in Panchayat, Municipalities and other state institutions is not made applicable to the Indian Judicial System – including the Supreme Court of India or for that matter the High Courts or the lower courts. Alas! The judiciary, the courts, the protector of fundamental rights, and an upholder of the tenets of constitutional principles like equality, democracy, justice and dignity could not apply the provision of women’s reservation on itself.

In no way at any point of time while writing this I am saying that because women's representation is less in the judiciary or that a few women could sustain themselves in the legal profession or that they are paid less than their male counterparts, therefore, NJAC may be preferred over the Collegium system. What is meant here is that prejudices, biases, and stereotypes are deeply entrenched in the system that is meant to ensure justice for men and women. Also, the judiciary does not reflect the values it is expected to uphold and the situation is no different in many of the other countries. East or West, for a woman as a seeker of righteousness, to access justice is equally as difficult as for another woman to enter into the echelons of law as a provider of justice. Patriarchy prevails from top to bottom to crush and defeat women’s voices as providers or seekers of justice as well as a survivor of crime.

However, there are those women lawyers, judges, scholars, and common women who are not willing to give up and continue to fight as warriors against patriarchy within the law. Though moving from a `minority to parity’ within the domain of law is an uphill task that requires organized efforts towards mobilization yet these women are politically striving to resist patriarchal oppression by raising feminist consciousness and interpreting law from varied perspectives. 

Or as WH Auden, an Anglo-American poet in his famous poem Law Like Love illustrates that law though is stern, strict, lofty, hegemonic, orthodox, and disciplinary yet like love it is inexplicable, dynamic, diffused, and incommensurable and may be interpreted differently:

Law, say the gardeners, is the sun,
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
Tomorrow, yesterday, today.

Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers feebly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.

Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.

Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.

Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.

Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.

And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.

If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,

No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyway:
Like love I say.

Like love we don't know where or why,
Like love we can't compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.

The author is a practicing Advocate, Activist and Researcher working on gender, governance, and law issues. 

[1] Nair Harish V (2015) Supreme Court Keen to Appoint Women Judges Now, India Today, November 5 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/supreme-court-keen-to-get-women-judges-now/1/516459.html
[2] Live law news Network (2015) SC Notice to successful candidates of Delhi Judicial Exam, Live Law dated November 6 http://www.livelaw.in/sc-notice-to-successful-candidates-of-delhi-judicial-exam-naming-of-ex-judge-for-revaluation-deferred/
[3] Details as Available on the Website Supreme Court of India http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/judges.htm