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

 

Family courts uphold family ideologies, not gender justice

Demands were made to establish family courts, and the Family Court Act was enacted in 1984. The law provides for specialized forums to deal with ‘matrimonial conflicts’ and not domestic violence. These are designed to adjudicate matters such as divorce, custody suits, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, and connected issues. The goal is to make the courts accessible and less intimidating for women through dispensing with lawyers, legalistic jargon, strict rules of procedures, and standards of evidence.

These courts depicted mediation as an alternative to the patriarchy-inspired adversary system. This is preferred by many because of its reputation to provide for a better hearing. Yet this system could not aid in reducing violence or enabling justice for women. Studies have shown that the family courts are not free from difficulties like backlogs, the exploitative commercial approach of lawyers, long drawn-out battles, multiple court proceedings, and the insensitive approach of officials.

Family courts were created with a view to avoid cumbersome litigation and replace it with samjhauta, or ‘brokering compromises’, in order to achieve efficiency and to shed the burden of the law. These courts mandatorily offer coercive persuasions to forcefully push women back to the violent families, to ‘adjust’, to ‘compromise’ to ‘preserve marriage’, even if it endangers their life and limb. An idea that is constantly being pushed is that the family is equipped to protect women while underplaying violence in it. Perhaps it is easier and more economical to compel women rather than question a man’s violent behavior. What is erroneously strengthened is the belief that women prefer to stay within abusive households, and therefore through ‘forced compromises’ they are compelled to accept the violent situation without any guarantee of their safety or security. No options are offered outside the domain of the ‘sacrosanct’ family. The rhetoric of ‘counselling’, ‘mediation’ or ‘settlement’ reiterates the regressive family ideology rather than protecting women from violence or providing psycho-social support to victims. The focus on settling ‘family disputes’ could not deal with the serious violence women face. Family courts negate women’s experience of violence rather than providing justice. Theoretically, an adversary system is replaced to resolve matters expeditiously and harmoniously, but in reality, the criminal justice system is twisted to adjust to the tenor of the patriarchy.

The alternative dispute resolution system diluted the seriousness of domestic violence in various ways. The language itself deliberately lessens the gravity of an offense committed within the chardiwari of the household. The term ‘dispute’ entails that two parties are equal, as compared to the term ‘violence’ which implies an abuse of power. The concept of parity among parties on unequal footing is introduced silently by the slyness of the patriarchal forces. No attempts have been made to question the inequality in the relationship. This misconceived approach overlooks the fact that conciliation as a technique poses grave problems, as it overlooks the concept of power within the relation. It expands the state’s control over individual behavior within families, and more specifically, it is at times being used to cement the norms of a ‘good wife’, ‘good mother’ or a ‘bad woman’. Further, denial of anger and the command to forget the past and live in the present generate dissatisfaction and give rise to a feeling of injustice. The law has reinforced patriarchal oppression while discriminating against women.

Mediation avoids questions relating to power, property, and violence within a relationship. The use of coercion in a situation when two parties are not on par creates problems rather than resolving issues. This process of ‘coercive harmony’ as explained by Laura Nader destroys rights by limiting discussion of the past. It prohibits anger, curtails freedom, eliminates choices, and removes protection of the law. It ignores a ‘victim’ status and compels a woman to compromise her health, life, or limb. Mediation within marriage does not address the structure of power located within the relationship and ignores the fact that parties in conflict in no way operate within the universe of ‘balanced bargaining equity’. It does not satisfy the survivor’s need for justice. Rather, it normalizes and trivializes the violence in everyday lives and compels survivors to curtail their emotions and hide the resentments that arise when they face abuse. During the process of mediation, a woman is vulnerable to threats and harassment and is under extreme stress and pressure, yet the reconciliation procedure does not consider these facts. Mediation overlooks legal entitlements and ends up denying justice to women who have less bargaining power and perhaps lack the capacity to negotiate.

Another choice offered is ‘settlement’, where a victim is left with no other alternative but to fend for herself and her children in lieu of a meager amount of money, if any, offered by the violent husband, or she may stay at her maika or remarry. Therefore, these so-called ‘women-friendly’ adjudication spaces failed to address the concerns of the victims of violence. In other words, these courts are ‘family-centric’ rather than ‘victim- or survivor-centric’.

This approach rejects the notion of making survivors economically self-sufficient or offers options to lend socio-economic support to victims. The patriarchal imagination failed to provide distributive justice or material relief and support to the abused wives through a single-window mechanism despite the knowledge that a comprehensive rehabilitative package is essential to remedy the situation of violence. The bold notion of challenging male dominance while improving the status of women or providing innovative solutions aiding survivors has not been imagined as an alternative by the state or society.

From my book Women and Domestic Violence Law in India: A Quest for Justice, 2019 Routledge

p 59-60