Home Asiatica IJTS JSAWS Search Links
IJTS Logo
ISSN 1084-7478
 
  JSAWS Vol. 2, No. 1
January 26, 1996

  Editorial Note
   1. Introduction...
   2. StrIdhana According to...
   3. Property or...
   4. Hindu Succession...
   5. Conclusion
  News
 
  Search
   
 
  Register
  Create Your Profile
  Recover Password
 
  Log In
 
 
 
  Institutional Sub
  none
 
Stridhana: To Have and To Have Not 
by Enrica Garzilli

1. Introduction: Dowry and Property.1 Dowry is an ancient element in almost all South Asian cultures but the problem of brides' homicides connected to dowry is a very recent phenomenon. It has been known as an epidemic disease only for the last eighteen-nineteen years, even though already A. S. Altekar in 1938 discussed the term and the custom of dowry.2 In India the terms "dowry death" and "dowry murder" first began to be used in 1977-78. Three years later, Parliament introduced the criminal provision S.304-B which penalizes perpetrators of dowry deaths. The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 introduced S.304-B in the Indian Penal Code which defines dowry deaths.3

Dowry should be regarded in the wider context of the problem of women's property. In fact, dowry has been, for centuries, the only property of Hindu women. Nowadays the term itself has at least two broad meanings: the gift (usually jewellery, household goods, fabrics, and so on) given to the bride before or during her marriage rituals; and the gift (usually in form of huge amount of money and household goods) demanded by the future husband, or more often the husband's family, in order to marry the woman or to keep her after the marriage. If these two kinds of property are intertwined and can hardly be separated -- how is it possible to make a sharp distintion between a free gift given by the bride's family as an anticipated share of inheritance, as a warranty inside the joint-family of her husband, as a fund for a new household unit, and a demand made by one or both spouses? -- the problematic issues around the concept of dowry arise from the latter understanding of the term. In fact, in the case of dowry as a gift demanded by the future husband and/or his family, dowry is compulsory and is considered by the bride-groom or his family as part of the marriage transaction.4

It has actually become a conditio-sine-qua-non for marriage itself, and installments of dowry payments given in the years following the marriage have become the main reason for the wife's homicid by her husband or his family. Dowry has become not only a form of extortion but the reason (not) to kill a wife until dowry is fully paid!5

As it has been written by Jethmalani and Dey,

"Dowry is, and has always been essentially, that property which has been obtained under duress, coercion or pressure. It is in fact property extorted from the father or guardian of the bride by the bridegroom, his parents or relations. It does not consists of voluntary gifts given to the bride and bridegroom. The confusion that "dowry" is a concept of Hindu Law has arisen from the concept of "Varadakshina" which was associated with an approved Hindu marriage considered as "Kanyadaan"....The modern practice of dowry has no resemblance to the original concept contained in Hindu Law as it originated in ancient times".6

[This is a preview of the full page; if you are a member of the Asiatica Association and have access to the JSAWS, please login using the box on the left menu; non members: please become a member to support the Asiatica Association, and get full access to our publications.]