The case of dowry and gender equality
Weâve all seen, or heard, or read about the ill effects of the dowry system in marriages in India. Weâve had laws against it  (The Dowry Prohibition act,1961), but the practice continues unabated and unabashed. With the education we have been handed down, we continue condemning it, without once thinking on the reason of itâs origin? How did such a thing start off? When we look around, practices like bride price also exist. Two opposite things exist in different cultures. Do any of these make sense? If they do, when do they? Rantasur is going to voice his personal take on the matter. I am the declaring the conclusion first and the reasoning next.
Conclusion: Dowry/bride price etc. makes no sense if gender equality is practiced in letter, word and spirit. Some precautions (which one may infer from the reasoning presented below), if taken, may totally do away with the practice altogether.
The reasoning follows:
If gender equality is in force, then women have equal rights to their parental inheritance. That used not to be the case in India.(This article is written in the context of Hindu laws, as it is the mostly widely practiced faith in the country). Mostly, sons would inherit the parental property. The argument cited for this was that the daughter was a part of the family of her husband. Twisted, this logic was.In such a setup, to maintain some sort of equality in inheritance, it became imperative that the daughter receives something from her parents before she became a part of her husbandâs family. The mindset of people being that when the daughters would not serve them after their marriage and hence at the time of split of property at the demise of parents, since the daughter would not serving them then, she should not receive the a share of the property. The daughters would serve their parents only till the point they are not married off, and hence they should get their share (or something in lieu instead..) at the time of the marriage itself. (It sounds like compensation till end of tenure, but that is how it is).
Now lets get to a society where the daughters are pledged by law the inheritance of ancestral property at par in share with sons, whenever the inheritance is split among the heirs. The daughter would then, be joining her husbandâs family with her inherited assets. This eliminates the requirement of some form of inheritance to be presented at time of marriage. There is a problem here though..When should she be able to withdraw her share of inheritance? Ideally she should be able to withdraw her share of inheritance any time she wants to after marriage. This is something difficult. The sons may refuse/ create hurdles in releasing her part or taking care of her part of the inheritance till the time she decides to withdraw her share. If this be ensured however, that she can withdraw her share at any point she decides to, this should not be a problem then. One can easily see, dowry avoids this complication altogether, by placing the daughterâs assets at her disposal for use in whatever manner and at whichever time she deems right.
The second alternative comes with itâs set of complications. (What if the sons create a legal dispute involving the inherited property later? What if they make decisions that reduce the total worth of the property? ) Dowry, instead, if not be arbitrarily demanded, is far easier to implement. A dowry which puts the to-be-married daughter on the same pedestal as the sons should be what is demanded. Nothing more, nothing less.
 Sadly, after long prevalence, this method of ensuring equality began to be abused. Greed overpowered justice, and arbitrary amounts began to be demanded. Greed is the root of all evils..and all the ill effects of dowry may be attributed to greed, mostly on the side of the bridegroom, and sometimes on the side of the bride.













