DOWRY SYSTEM IN INDIA

Jewellery for the daughter-in-law, blessings from the bride’s family, or casual give and take – we may use a range of euphemisms for it, but the practice of taking dowry in India is still extremely common. Research shows that between 1960 and 2008, dowry was paid in 95% of marriages.

Despite being first passed in 1961, anti-dowry laws such as “The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961” failed to prevent the practice, which is common across different classes and castes, and even bridges the rural-urban divide. Sikhs and Christians see the biggest rise in dowry payment; Kerala is the worst state, a study says.

According to the 2019 report of the National Crime Records Bureau, a woman becomes a victim of dowry death roughly every hour, and the Asian Women’s Human Rights Council estimated that every year, the practice of dowry is implicated in the deaths of 25,000 women between the ages of 15 and 34.

This phenomenon of dowry isn’t merely limited to India. It was a common practice in Europe too. In fact, Portugal had gifted Bombay to the British as part of the dowry of a royal wedding. Moreover, in 1962, a Greek Princess was being given a dowry for her marriage. But it’s interesting that due to economic developments, the phenomenon of dowry decreased in Europe. But rather than decreasing in India, it increased.

Dowry System In India — source: ssmgov.com

So, where does this practice originate from?

Scholars trace it back to the concept of ‘Stridhana’ prevalent among upper-caste Hindu groups in ancient India. Under the Mitakshara system in Hindu law, a woman was not entitled to inherit her parents’ wealth. A handsome dowry was considered a “pre-mortem inheritance” that helped prevent the division of the family estate while providing her with some social and economic security. Many scholars note that this practice of dowry wasn’t necessarily bad and in many cases was handed directly to daughters to enable them to have some kind of financial independence post marriage.

“This phenomenon of dowry isn’t merely limited to India. It was a common practice in Europe too. In fact, Portugal had gifted Bombay to the British as part of the dowry of a royal wedding. Moreover, in 1962, a Greek Princess was being given a dowry for her marriage. But it’s interesting that due to economic developments, the phenomenon of dowry decreased in Europe. But rather than decreasing in India, it increased.”

Gaurav Chiplunkar, Assistant Professor, University of Virginia, who’s written a paper on this subject said, “There are various theories on the origin of the dowry system, but we lack data. So no theory has been able to stress the real origin.”

The Theories

There are several theories that explain this, but the three noteworthy theories:

The first theory was proposed by renowned Indian sociologist M.N. Srinivas, “The theory of Sanskritisation”. In simple words, Sanskritisation is the process by which people belonging to the lower castes seek to improve their status by copying the practices of the upper castes. M.N. Srinivas proposes that dowry was mostly practiced among the upper castes. However, Gaurav Chiplunkar compared the adoption of dowry across four different caste groups, the graph in all the castes are found to be the same. Had the theory of Srinivas correct, there would have been a rise in the lower castes, and not the upper castes.
The second theory was given by Siwan Anderson, which suggests that the economic development led to the increased adoption of dowry in India. Anderson has assumed that a family prefers to marry its woman to a higher-caste groom. But research has shown that families usually prefer intra-caste marriage. In fact, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and other economists suggested in their paper that a bride’s family has such a strong preference of marrying within their caste that they prefer a groom belonging to their caste with no education over a groom with a master’s degree belonging outside their caste group.
Finally, the third theory, which, Chiplunkar and Weaver has called the ‘groom quality’ theory. The theory states that over the years, the quality of grooms has improved. Hence, more bride families have to pay the dowry. As men started getting educated and secured better jobs, their market value increased. But, the catch is, this would happen only if the relative groom quality increases. This means that if women get educated along with men, there won’t be much difference in the practice of dowry. Relativity matters here. Gaurav Chiplunkar asserts that increasing women’s quality through education could be a solution to dowry.

Besides the above-mentioned theories, nowadays, dowry is more identifiable with the concept of “Groom Price” – in which the amount of dowry payment is decided by the “market value of the groom”. This market value could depend upon his caste, education, salary package, or type of job. This “Groom Price” is diametrically opposite to the idea of “Bride Price”, where instead of the groom, the bride is paid. This ‘bride price’ was common in South India during the 19^th century.

The concept of ‘bride price’ was practiced mostly by poor and lower caste families. Because ‘bride price’ was a kind of compensation, for the woman (bride) used to work for her family. As after her marriage, she would no longer be able to work for her family, the ‘bride price’ was paid as compensation to the family. According to the researchers, there hasn’t been much change in the practice of bride price in India, but the practice of dowry significantly increased.

Why is this practice still continuing to persist in 21^st century India?

In modern India, dowry has taken newer forms and is practiced beyond Hindus, among Sikhs and Christians. While traditional dowry could have taken the form of jewellery or clothes, today, families give ostentatious cash gifts or luxury goods during marriage receptions. The obligation to provide a sizeable dowry at the time of marriage then turns a woman into a financial burden for her parents. And this has vast and worrying implications. It plays a huge role in son preference in households and in extreme cases, even leads to sex-selective abortions and female infanticide. On the other hand, a woman’s husband and in-laws feel entitled to this dowry, making her more prone to violence or abuse if she is unable to fulfill their dowry demands.

The, above mentioned third theory, by Chiplunkar and Weaver, according to me is the root cause behind the continuation of this dowry system in the 21^st century India.

However, in modern India, a marriage is seen as a market in which people bargain for a spouse who would give them the maximum social and material gains. Society forcibly ties women’s social status to their ability to secure a ‘successful’ husband, by depriving them of their opportunity to become financially independent or the space to explore their aspirations outside marriage. As a result, dowry is seen as a payment for the lifelong social and economic security that the man will provide the woman with.

But, the problem with this kind of thinking that deems men as more valuable and lucrative partners in marriage because of their higher earning potential, is that it neglects a woman’s value. Women, regardless of being educated or employed, substantially contribute to the economic prosperity of a family. The running of the household, the growth and social status of a family most often relies on a woman’s unpaid care work, which she spends most of her time and effort on. But the marriage market discounts these contributions, perpetuating the belief that women are a liability on their future husband’s family for which it needs to be compensated.

“..in modern India, a marriage is seen as a market in which people bargain for a spouse who would give them the maximum social and material gains. Society forcibly ties women’s social status to their ability to secure a ‘successful’ husband, by depriving them of their opportunity to become financially independent or the space to explore their aspirations outside marriage. As a result, dowry is seen as a payment for the lifelong social and economic security that the man will provide the woman with.”

Remedial Measures

As per the theory of Gaurav Chiplunkar, the high relative quality of men has increased the practice of dowry. So, to decrease this we need to improve women – meaning, that we need to educate them and give them equal economic opportunities, with the help of two factors:

By promoting rural manufacturing
By improving transport infrastructure

A survey has suggested that by building a permanent or makeshift road, women’s participation in non-farm work can increase by nearly 50%. Apart from these, we need to change the mentality of society too. The way to get rid of dowry is definitely by financially empowering women so that marriage is not a financial security blanket that their families are forced to buy. But, maybe it’s also time that we rethink the institution of marriage itself, not as a transaction between an asset and a liability, but a relationship between equals. And that’s crucial.

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.