The Origin of Dowry System – British Policies convert Gifts to Bride into an instrument of oppression against women

The modern definition of the Dowry System in India is as follows.

 Dowry is a payment of cash or valuable gifts from the bride’s family to the bridegroom upon marriage.

This menace of Dowry has become a social menace in modern India leading to the oppression on women, physical violence on the bride, causing a financial and emotional stress on the parents of the bride, marital conflict and so on. This menace exists even today in the society even though it is a criminal offence to take Dowry during marriage.

The Status of Women in Ancient Indian Society

But what is the real history of this menace. Did it always exist in the Indian society? Was Indian society always oppressive of its women? On the one hand we have the ancient scriptures which talk about women with such high respect. The most powerful God in Hinduism is the female Goddess. Saraswati is the Goddess of Knowledge, not Brahma. Lakshmi is the Goddess of Wealth, not Vishnu. Parvathi is the Goddess of Power and Energy, not Shiva.

We only hear about Swayamvar in the ancient Hindu marriage traditions where it was the bride who decided whom to marry. There was no Swayamvadhu, the groom could not hold beauty contests to decide which bride to marry. Instead it was the girl who in a Swayamvar, would put all the competing potential bridegrooms to different contests and then select the bridegroom whom she liked. In the Swayamvar of Sita in Ramayana, Rama had to lift the Shiva’s bow to prove that he was eligible to marry Sita. In the Swayamvar in Mahabharatha, Arjuna had to hit the eye of the fish rotating above by only looking at the fish’s reflection in a pool of oil below.

So if this was the importance given to women in our tradition, then when and where did this contradiction of the menace of dowry enter our society? We don’t find any instances of dowry related violence in the literature of ancient times. Not even in the literature belonging to the pre-colonial era of India. So when did the Indian society adopt the evil version of dowry which has created numerous social problems in the Indian society ranging from female foeticide, violence on married women, financial stress on parents of girl child, imbalance in male-female ratio, broken marriages, mistrust between families, etc.

Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime, a well researched book by Veena Talwar Oldenburg tries to answer this question. In this book, the author follows the paper trail left by British bureaucrats during the British Colonial rule of India. And then there are personal accounts from women in India including author’s own personal account on the system of Dowry. And what gets revealed after all this path breaking research and analysis, gives a huge blow to the very theory of Dowry being directly responsible for the status of women in the Indian society and goes on to prove how a system meant to actually benefit the married woman got converted during the British Rule into a system which ended up harming the very woman who was supposed to benefit from it.

The Original Institution of Dowry in Pre-Colonial India

Yes, the system of Dowry existed in India even before the British Rule, but not in the format that is prevalent in the society today. In the pre-colonial period, dowry was an institution managed by women, for women, to enable them to establish their status and have recourse in an emergency. In this ancient system of dowry, the parents of the bride, even her kith and kin, all gave wealth to her in the form of valuable gifts etc. It was just like how parents used to give a part of wealth to their sons, so did they give it to their daughters too during the daughter’s marriage. What is very important to be noted here is that, the valuables or the wealth was given to the bride, and NOT to the groom or his family. In other words, the dowry wealth continued to be owned by the wife and not by the husband or his family. This gave the required financial independence to women who would even manage the income from their agricultural land , etc.

So in the original system of dowry prevalent in India, women were gifted wealth from their parents during marriage and this served as a tool of financial independence for the bride even after marriage.

Even during the initial days of the British rule, contemporary European writers Orme, the French Catholic missionary Jean-Antoine Dubois who came to India in 1792, Malcom etc have praised the status of Hindu women in India. Malcom says that the Hindu women “have a say in the affairs of the state, have a distinct provision and estate of their own, enjoy as much as liberty they desire”. Malcom also praises women rulers like Ahalya Bai of being great administrators.

Angry Brides - angrybrides.in - An Anti-Dowry Game

So when did the wrong turn take place?

The Permanent Settlement of Bengal – The British Land Reforms of India

It all started with the Permanent Settlement of Bengal in 1793 by the British under Lord Cornwallis. This enabled private ownership of land which was unknown in India till then. Private ownership of land was never practiced in India in the past. The land always belonged to the government and people only settled in the government’s land. If there was a flood in one place, people used to move on to another place in the kingdom. By introducing the permanent settlement, the British enabled the private ownership of land in India. All modern day real estate related violence in the country could hence be traced back to this act by the British. People there after started fighting over land.

It was this system which also created the system of Zamindars or landlords in India. Very few realize that the Zamindari system of landlords who ill treated peasants was created by the British rule. Till then, the zamindars were not land lords, but only tax collectors, collectors of land revenue who used to collect it from the farmers and hand it over to the local government. The Britishers converted these tax collectors into zamindars giving them the ownership of that land, and using them as a means to loot the farmers in the name of more tax. The zamindar or the landlord now owned the land, and it was hereditary ie the children of the landlords became the inheritors of the land.

The peasants on the other hand, suffered from this Permanent Settlement. They were left entirely at the mercy of their landlords, who also had share a in the production and which was not fixed! In the Pre-British system, kingdoms collected tax only during the times of surplus or sufficient growth, and the tax was used for the betterment of the society. But in the British rule, tax or Lagaan was collected irrespective of whether there was a famine or a flood, and tax rates were extremely high. It was looting in the daylight. Remember the movie Lagaan?

Prohibition of Property Rights for Women under the British Rule

But the move which affected the status of the women in the Indian society was the rule imposed by the British which prohibited the women from owning any property at all! And this was what created the menace of dowry system in India.

In the existing system, parents used to give wealth and valuable gifts to their daughters during marriage. And the bride continued to own this wealth even after her marriage and it provided the wife financial independence and there was usually no need for a wife to depend on her husband for her financial needs.

In fact, the situation even in 1870s was that,

In 49 separate volumes of customary law covering colonial Punjab, which today comprises Pakistan and Indian Punjab, Haryana, Jammu, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh, dowry has been described in the 1870s as a collection of voluntary gifts comprising clothes, jewellery, household goods and cash bestowed on the bride by family and friends at the time of the girl’s wedding. Nowhere was it described as the prerogative of the groom to make demands on the girl’s family. But the British at that time had not granted their own women property rights, so it was highly unlikely they would do so for Indian women. - Dowry murder as a legacy of British policies

But once the British prohibited women from having any property rights, it meant that all the wealth that a woman got from her parents would be owned by her husband instead. And the moment, this system of husband owning the wealth of his wife was created, the traditional dowry system got converted into a menace creating an institution of greed that oppressed, victimized and suppressed women. The greed that kicked in created a system where husband and his family started looking at the incoming bride as a source of property and wealth, the male dominated society became greedy, husband and in-laws started demanding more dowry from the bride and her parents. The social harmony and the bonding created by the institution of marriage was gone. Marriage became just another business deal, where making wealth was more easy. Male child became an additional source of income, and female child became a financial burden on the family. This led to the creation of the social problems like female foeticide and an imbalance in male-female ratio in the society, which further led to more crimes on women.

After the British prohibited women the right to own or inherit property, until 1956 the women in India did not have the right to inherit property from their parents. It was only in 1956 that the Hindu Personal laws were amended giving the right to women to inherit ancestral property.

But again those rights were not equal to those of men. Sons had an independent share in the ancestral property, while the daughters’ shares were based on the share received by their father. Hence, a father could effectively disinherit a daughter by renouncing his share of the ancestral property, but the son will continue to have a share in his own right. Additionally, married daughters, even those facing marital harassment, had no residential rights in the ancestral home.

IT WAS ONLY as recently as in 2005, when the Hindu laws were amended again, now providing women equal status with men in terms of ancestral property.

Please note that, we are only talking about Hindu women here, because that is how the law system we inherited from the British is. The British based on their divide and rule policy created different laws for different religions. Prior to that the laws in India varied based on geography, and not based on religion or caste of the person.

Successive governments in independent India have retained most of the laws we inherited from the British without much amendments. Hence today unfortunately, personal laws are different in India depending on which religion the person belongs to. For Muslim women and Christian women, the rights are even less. In fact, the Rajiv Gandhi government while in power in 1986 passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act just to nullify the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shah Bano Case which had ordered the husband to provide maintenance money to his divorced wife, Shah Bano.

The marriage of Christians in India is still regulated by the Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872 and and the Indian Divorce Act 1869. These acts were considered unfair to women, and the Christian Marriage and Matrimonial Causes Bill 1990 was proposed as a replacement, but no progress has been achieved into converting this bill into a law.

Strange that while we call ourselves a civilized society, we are fine with the personal laws being different for men and women depending on which religion one belongs to. And even strange is the fact that the calls for a Uniform Civil Code in the country which seeks uniform laws to all citizens irrespective of their religion is being frowned upon as being communal! How logical is it to say that the law of land applicable to a person depends on which religion he belongs to? Vote bank politics in the name of caste and religion continue endlessly in our society in the disguise of secularism and upliftment of the downtrodden. Even after 60 years of independence, we are still unable to uplift the marginalized sections of the society, they are being merely used as vote banks for the political class, and all that gets heard is the mere rhetoric every time an election approaches.

A Practical Solution to end the menace of Dowry

Yes, there is a law in India which makes taking dowry illegal and a criminal offence. And yet we keep coming across so many dowry harassment cases in the country on a daily basis.

I propose a simple solution to practically end the menace of dowry in the modern Indian society. There should be a law which would state that, upon marriage all the property of the husband would be automatically owned by the wife, ie there would be no property rights for married men, at least for a period of 10 or 20 years. This would make dowry meaningless because whatever wealth the bride brings in will still belong to her, and also does the wealth of her husband. So this would discourage all those men who marry merely for the sake of dowry. The pros and cons of this law can be debated upon, but I am pretty sure that this law, if implemented for a limited time period of say 30 or 50 years would be n times more effective in eradicating the menace of dowry from our society. What say? After all for a good husband, why should it matter if he owns the property or if his wife does? Ain’t it?

The above solution proposed has been discarded as it is prone to misuse, and instead a new solution has been proposed below which sounds more efficient and effective.

The solution is to create an anti-dowry cell similar to the anti-corruption wing in the legal system, where in the bride or her parents can inform the police about the dowry being demanded and make an arrangement to catch the groom or his family red handed while received dowry. Even if it is not possible for the police to arrive at the location where give-take of dowry happens, the same could be monitored by say hidden cameras provided by the legal system to the girl or her family members, which could even be monitored in real time by the police.

There is very little chance of misuse of this provision to harass the groom’s side as the proof gets recorded as and when the crime takes place. This also helps the problem be nipped in the bud, rather than being carried over into the post marriage scenario. There can be no solution without the victim refusing to be victimized. As an additional caution, it would be advisable for the legal system to be run by women officers, well trained in handling the menace of dowry.

Girls should also be educated and well informed about the negative impacts of dowry, and should be taught that they can lead a better life with more independence and happiness by being single rather than marrying a man demanding dowry. They should also make bold moves towards exposing families demanding dowry using the help of the legal system, at the same time the legal system should be made more accommodating to make the girls and their family members comfortable. Government can also announce rewards for girls and their families who expose those demanding dowry.

References:

  • itzguru

    Hmm yes, this solution is like the reservation system, a reverse discrimination, and is prone not just to misuse, but cause more complex side effects. Not sure what I was smoking when I proposed it. Had a re-thought and have proposed a new solution. I am in sane mind now, and the solution sounds effective if implemented wisely.

    • reep

      i am afraid, even though the idealism surrounding dowry might be quite straight-forward, economics of it is horribly complicated. Try this practical problem for instance:

      suppose
      a newly-married couple wants to buy a new flat. in south kolkata (where i am from) a decent 3BHK flat would cost ~50 lakh. in delhi, mumbai, bangalore, hyderabad, pune, chennai it would probably be significantly higher than that. Assume the guy is 28 years old, earns 50K to
      60K per month. yearly savings would be atmost 2 lakh. so, if he is in job for 4 to 5 years, he has a savings of at most 10 lakh. so the rest 40 lakh, either his parents need to pay, or he has to take a loan. In case he takes a loan @11% ROI, for 20 years, he has to pay 41K (checked it from an EMI calculator). So, obviously it is not possible for him alone.

      So, either the guy’s dad has to pay the entire sum, or the girl’s side needs to make some contribution. This contribution, if made at the time of marriage one-time, is called “dowry”. however, is it fair that only the guy’s parents have to pay to set up a family that is also the girl’s? i think not! you might ask, isn’t it possible to involve anyone’s parents at all? yes, that is possible, if you are ready to borrow more money to balance it up, and banks are ready to make subprime loans, knowing fully well that the guy might not be able to return it. it inevitable leads to a financial crash like the one in US in 2008.

      Thus, the only viable option is if one generation sets the next generation up. Now, whether it is fair to have this “setting up” one-sided, you decide that. As far as I am concerned, a dowry is an economic deal. Like all other economic deals, it proceeds only if both parties are satisfied that it
      is fair….otherwise not. Government has no need/right to involve itself there.

      • itzguru

        And what if the girl’s parents cannot afford that much?

        The issue with dowry is not about economic co-operation, had that been the case there would have been no need for any legal intervention at all. What about all the violence that takes place in the name of dowry? That is the actual issue.

        It is about the harassment of the girl and her family that is taking place in the disguise of this “your daughter’s life”. It is not one time either, most dowry related issues start AFTER the marriage, many times a year or two later. And it is drive by greed most of the time, the demands keep ever increasing testing the threshold.

        How many guys or their parents who demand dowry talk the way you have described when demanding dowry. Do they say, we will give 10 lakh to my son, is it possible for you to arrange 10 lakh as well? Do they ever speak like this? No it is always, “how much can you give for your daughter”, which sounds like “this is my son’s rate.”

        And again coming to the house which both live in, how many husbands register the property in the name of their wife?

        • reep

          I was merely trying to give an economic justification of “contribution from the girl’s side” aka dowry in the times we live in. Since you have not contradicted that point, I assume you agree with me. As far as misuse of this economic deal is concerned, it is difficult to ascertain which side misuses it more. 498A is the most misused section of IPC. So much that Supreme Court had to call it “legal terrorism” recently. Just like “your daughter’s life”, it is very much “your and your son’s life” as well….do not forget that!

          Also, another way of curbing the menace is to curb female hypergamy. One thing that drives dowry, is 80% of women lining up for the top 20% of men. That gives the men a huge pool of women to choose from and get an artificially inflated position to bargain from. Girls can easily avoid dowry by marrying horizontally or downwards instead of vertically up. That gives them a much stronger position to bargain from. As much as money demanded from the girl’s side is driven by greed….don’t you think that the girl’s side seeking a better economic status than they are currently in, is not driven by greed? tell me, otherwise why there would be such a huge demand for IAS/IIT-grads and so little for average school masters! Isn’t that also greed?? Why is one form of greed so dishonourable while the other is accepted so unquestionably?

          • itzguru

            No, I dont agree with the economic justification, I have clearly said that since marriage is between two mature adults, any such economic deal prior to the marriage should be done between the bride and groom, not their parents.

            Dowry is not an economic agreement where both sides are equal, it is bullying and blackmail from the groom’s side. How many times have you read about husband committing suicide or being burnt alive by in-laws because of dowry harassment by girl’s parents?

            Of course there are incidents of misuse of legal provisions against dowry, and this happens in all legal provisions. But the amount of genuine dowry harassment cases far outnumber its misuse.

            Haha, greed is from both sides, and of course everybody wants a better life with their life partner. Its not limited to girls alone. How many guys are willing to marry an unemployed girl these days? How many guys are willing to marry girls who have not passed out of college? How many guys are willing to marry girls whose parents are not well off?

            Looking for a better life through marriage is not greed, it is hope for a better future. Nobody is forcing guys to get married to any girl A or B. For that matter, on the contrary because of increased female foeticide resulting in an unhealthy male-female ratio, many guys are not getting girls in the first place. And thanks to good employment opportunities most educated girls are making better choices of not marrying in families demanding huge dowry.

            A student looks for good marks, a graduate looks for good employment, girls and boys look for great partners, all this is not greed. What is greed is “demanding” money. Dowry is not just demanding share to buy a house as you are trying to make out. Guys’ side demand car, jewels, put pressure on girls’ side for a lavish wedding etc.

            Almost every marriage it is the girl’s side which has to bear the marriage expenses. Why are we not talking about equal sharing by both sides here?

      • itzguru

        Even more importantly, this discussion about the economic co-operation should be between the girl and the boy getting married, because it is their life and future that they are discussing about, and they are mature adults, not kids to bring in their parents in this issue. They should only take suggestions (if they are well intentioned) from their parents, not decisions about how much your wife should bring and so on.

        Also by this logic a rich boy cannot marry a poor girl, or a rich girl cannot marry a poor boy, isn’t it?

  • itzguru

    You are right, updated the article and proposed a new solution…

  • Vinaypunnaku


    There should be a law which would state that, upon marriage all the property of the husband would be automatically owned by the wife, ie there would be no property rights for married men, at least for a period of 10 or 20 years.”
    This is the most stupid thing i’ve ever read. If you think all men are bad and all women are good, then you are delusional. My friend is currently a divorcee who got swindled by his ex wife and is currently fighting court cases and trying to save his property and wealth.  If you think only husbands can screw the wife and vice versa is not possible then I think you haven’t talked to families or you don’t live in India.
     Husbands and Wives should have equal right to their personal wealth. 
    Kindly let the law makers decide the law, don’t come up with foolish thoughts. BTW if the husband and wife were to decide to divorce after a period of 2-3 years after marriage how would your stupid law work? will the wife get to swindle all of the husbands life earnings?

  • Sanjay

    Good and information shared here must be true since so many masters have worked on it, and there is no doubt we belong and are part of the most richest culture on this earth.
    But Guru, the solution to it is not that the husband hands over all property to the wife, at the age of 25-30 where normally an Indian boy gets married, does not owe anything of his own. And if someone is lucky enough to be owner of some property belongs to a family who is rich and well settled, and is hardly heard in dowery case.
    I regret to say this as it may sound against my own country, but I love my country too, and the way I am proud of my country and I am blessed to be born here, wouldn’t hesitate to say to take an example of any country where there is prosperity and less crimes, for example countries in middle east, In Asia for example China and in west like USA , the law is very strict.
    Punishment is almost instant on any smallest to smallest and worst to worst crimes. When I say instant, it does not mean instant but literally  instant when compare to the number of days/months/years/and some times generation it takes to bring in judgement and the country where crime rate is low.
    What India needs desperately is the way our judiciary system works.
    I am not saying, they should hang a person blindly, but then there should be a way to work with it.
    You must be watching Crime Patrol on Sony, and also recent hit show of AAmir Khan’s Satyamev , I remember in recent broadcast of Crime Patrol which is always on real stories, I wonder a poor guy was jailed for 6months for Rs.200 stealing, which he never stole and it was never proved.
    The final verdict came, when he admitted Rs.200 were stolen by him, which was out of the frustration, the judge said the punishment for this sort of crime is 3months jail, and the convicted has already spent 6months in jail, he should be freed from then on.
    So any judge who kept increasing his dates of hearing, should have realised after 3months, even if the convicted admits, he is going to be released, should have warned him and release. So where does he go now to account for those 3months extra he spent in jail ?
    In Satyamev, we all saw , there has been so many doctors heard about their evil act, leveling down the nobility of the doctor’s profession, the medical counsil of india has not even cancelled license of any single doctor.
    The opportunity an innocent finds by our law to protect himself, the same opportunity a criminal finds for himself.
    Our law do protect all of us, whereby it should have been protecting only the innocents.
    A red handed caught criminal is given full opportunity to prove himself innocent, I mean how ??? Where does this happen on this earth ?

  • Sachin Purohit

    Interesting and very informative. It certainly changed my perspective on gender bias in Indian society. 

  • Sachin Knk

    Similar situation was there in South korea few years back …but not called as dowry….
     now there is a rule in south korea according to which entire husband salary goes to wife’s account. … this rule was bought in there to prevent lavish spending by men and less family importance…

  • Lupita

    Very nice and informative blog, just like all your other blogs. The solution sounds logical, however extra steps need to be taken in order to avoid misuses, which can be fatal for married men :P

    • itzguru

      True, this solution can definitely be misused, have updated proposing a new solution to nip it in the bud.