Read on Twitter
India is famous or rather infamous for Dowry system. I am sure each one of us has heard at least one dowry tragedy that made us shiver. Sometimes it& #39;s broken alliances or wedding day tantrums by the groom& #39;s family due to insufficient dowry or in worst cases a bride burnt +
...within a few months of the marriage because she failed to bring dowry that was at par with the status of her in-laws.
But, is the concept of Dowry specific to India only?
Certainly not.
The custom of wedding gifts from the bride& #39;s family has been a part of many cultures.
But, is the concept of Dowry specific to India only?
Certainly not.
The custom of wedding gifts from the bride& #39;s family has been a part of many cultures.
The British who blamed the dowry system and the pressure that it put on poor fathers and insisted that prevalence of female foeticide was due to the practice of dowry also practiced this so called abhorrent practice of Dowry.
The islands of Bombay, were under the control of the Portuguese and were gifted to the British as dowry when King Charles II married the Portuguese princess, Catherine of Braganza. It was essentially a treaty that enabled the British to have some control over the west coast.
Their holier than thou attitude when it comes to so called evil Hindu practices is plenty hypocritical and stems from their lack of understanding of the Indic values and Sanatani texts.
While we have always recognised women as a heir to her father& #39;s property in part and sole heir to her mother& #39;s property (son/s didn& #39;t get a share in mother& #39;s property), English laws didn& #39;t recognise women as worthy of owning property until late 19th Century.
Yes, it was Married Women& #39;s Property Act, 1882 that enabled British women to hold property independently. Until then, far from having individual rights, they didn& #39;t even have an identity seperate from their husbands. She was treated as a property of her husband, who was her lord.
All her possessions were surrendered to him after the wedding and she ceased to exist independently.
Is it surprising that the British, with their narrow mindset and male supremacist tendencies, saw the beautiful relationship that Sanatan Dharma regards the marriage to be as a mere contract to be solemnised only through dowry? More about this in future threads.
In this series of threads , I will explore the ancient concept of स्त्रीधन which was later dubbed as "dowry". I had recently conducted a poll and while most people who voted knew that the dowry system was not always evil, most didn& #39;t know from which point it became evil.
Many attributed it& #39;s evilness to human greed. Which is perfectly true.
But didn& #39;t the greed exist all along? Why did this system, that has been in practice for centuries suddenly turn oppressive?
But didn& #39;t the greed exist all along? Why did this system, that has been in practice for centuries suddenly turn oppressive?
Why did the people of this land, who are proud worshippers of शक्ती without whom even शिव is powerless,suddenly start killing the girl child before she had a chance to live? When did the position of the woman, who is the लक्ष्मी of the house get reduced to such a pitiable state?
The British attribute the low status of women in the Hindu society to patriarchal mindset.They insist that female foeticide was due to dowry system.A poor father, forced to give exorbitant dowry for daughter& #39;s wedding preferred to kill her instead, was something the British said
As with most of their claims, even this one was erroneous at best and malicious at worst. Whatever that was gifted to the girl during her wedding was dubbed as स्त्रीधन which was an umbrella term and as years passed, many other definitions were added to the word स्त्रीधन.
So, what changed along the way? What was the reason why women became second class citizens in a land where the feminine power is worshipped? Why was a girl child a burden? And was dowry really the reason for it? What do our ancient scriptures say about dowry?
What were women& #39;s rights wrt to the property that was dubbed as theirs? I will attempt to examine these questions and answer them to the best of my ability in the following threads.
