Misogyny and Women’s Rights

 

Misogyny and Women’s Rights

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

Many times, I hear people (males) grumbling about special facilities to women. That “positive measures” to achieve “positive discrimination” for women sometimes goes berserk is beyond doubt: people (whether out of excessive zeal born out of deep convictions, or purely out of ulterior motives) do often tend to go to extremes in what they do in certain matters. But positive measures are very definitely needed to make the lives of women less of a hell, or more worth living. And it is necessary to understand exactly how much of a great need there is for pro-women measures to be rigorously pursued.

Women constitute, to put it simplistically (since the ratio is never exactly fifty-fifty) Half of Humankind. How does this Half of Humankind fare in human society?

A. The Work of Nature or “God”.

B. The Work of Society.

C. The Other Side of the Coin.

 

A. The Work of Nature or “God”.

Let me begin by stating that it is not just human society which has contributed to it being a punishment to be a woman in this human world: Nature (or “God”) has contributed to a more fundamental extent than human beings themselves:

To start first of all with the most glaringly prominent and blatant aspects, women suffer from four very troublesoms and fundamental physical handicaps, disadvantages or problems that men cannot even begin to understand, since they do not face these problems:

1. Menstruation and Periods, with all the attendant inconveniences.

2. Many months of tiring Pregnancy.

3. Painful Childbirth.

4. Menopause and the physical and mental ailments associated with it.

In my opinion, these four things alone justify women being given special privileges over men, to compensate the injustice of Nature. Incidentally, that most people, including women themselves, would probably not exactly treat the above points (especially the second and third) as disadvantages, but as something special and blessed, is a different matter. But I know that I consider myself lucky that I am not “blessed” in these ways!

 

But there is more. A search on the internet produced the following list of additional physical handicaps:

“Muscle Strength and Mass

Upper body strength: Women generally have less total muscle mass and lower average upper-body and handgrip strength compared to men.

Muscle growth: Female bodies typically experience less muscle hypertrophy (enlargement of muscle fibers) in response to resistance training.

Cardiovascular and Respiratory Capacity

Heart size: A woman’s heart is typically smaller than a man's heart, which influences blood flow volume and circulation dynamics.

Oxygen carrying: Women generally have a reduced oxygen-carrying capacity in the blood because of lower average hemoglobin levels and smaller lung volumes.

Bone Density and Joint Health

Bone mass: Women start life with a lower peak bone mass and smaller bones than men.

Osteoporosis: The drop in the hormone estrogen during menopause accelerates bone loss, making women significantly more prone to osteoporosis (brittle, porous bones) and related fractures.

Osteoarthritis: Women experience higher rates of osteoarthritis in the knees, hips, and hands as they age.

Anatomical and Infection Risks

Urinary tract infections (UTIs): Women have a much shorter urethra (the tube for passing urine) that sits close to bacteria sources, making bladder infections much more common than in men.

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs): Female urogenital anatomy features a larger and more delicate mucosal surface area, which can increase biological vulnerability to certain bacterial and viral transmissions”.

 

For some reason (perhaps because I knew female lions did most of the hunting) I had thought that this physical weakness at least was there only among human beings, and this was perhaps not necessarily so in the animal world as a whole.

However, a deeper examination of the subject brought the following to my notice (in respect of lions and lionesses to begin with):

Male lions are larger, stronger, and more powerful than lionesses.

Size and Weight: Adult male lions weigh between 330 and 550 pounds, while lionesses weigh between 265 and 400 pounds.

Muscle and Power: Males have heavier bone structures, thicker necks, and massive muscles built for fighting rival males.

Manes: Males grow thick hair manes that protect their necks from sharp teeth and claws during fights.

Lionesses do most of the hunting (about 90%) apparently not because they are more physically powerful than male lions, but because they are faster, lighter, and more agile. Male lions do less hunting, but their superior strength allows them to protect the territory, fend off rivals, and steal or defend heavy kills from other predators like hyenas.

In fact, even in the world of animals, birds, reptiles and insects, the only species where females are physically more powerful than the males, are apparently spotted hyenas, killer whales, praying mantises, black widow spiders, bald eagles and green anacondas (and perhaps a few rare others)! And in most species, the females do not even have the superficial advantage of being considered more spectacular to look at than the males: consider the peacock and peahen!

 

But it is a fact that women, perhaps because of all these natural disadvantages, weaknesses and handicaps, are generally the stronger of the two genders: their capacity to bear pain, troubles, tensions, uncongenial surroundings, etc. is generally far superior to that of men. I still remember a quaint way of putting this from the book “Gone With the Wind”: “The man roared like a bull when a splinter was in his finger, and the woman muffled the moans of childbirth, lest she disturb him”. But then perhaps this innate “strength” is also one which is really a forced one: forced on women by society?

[But, for the record, there are rare species, e.g. bees and ants, in which the females are not only more strong and powerful (having stingers as weapons which are missing in the males), but are practically the only important gender; and males are present only for the purpose of mating with the “queen” of the colony to further the propagation of the species; and, incredibly, the males do not live for long after they complete this duty (such also notoriously being the case with black widow spiders!)]

This brings us to the multiple ways in which society itself has contributed to intensifying and worsening the life of women, already made a punishment by Nature/God!

 

B. The Work of Society.

Human society itself, instead of trying to mitigate the disadvantages of being born a woman imposed by Nature, has always done everything to enhance the disadvantages. Almost every religion in the world has had a hand in worsening the condition of women, and making it a punishment to be born as a female human being. The first thing that will come to the mind of most people is of course the iniquities imposed on women by Islam: polygamy, the burqa, triple talaq, concubinage, a “half-ratio” as compared to men in matters of property and testimonial value, and some other issues. Dr Ambedkar, even in the midst of his very sharp (and mostly correct) critique of Hindu socio-religious malpractices, found it necessary to write the following:

“There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils which afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of Purdah for Muslim women.

As a consequence of the Purdah system a segregation of the Muslim women is brought about. The ladies are not expected to visit the outer rooms, verandahs or gardens; their quarters are in the backyard. All of them, young and old, are confined in the same room; No male servant can work in their presence. Women are allowed to see only their sons, brothers, father, uncles and husband, or any other near relation who may be admitted to a position of trust. They cannot go even to the mosque to pray and must wear burka (veil) whenever they have to go out. These burka women walking in the streets is a one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects, upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They are usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhoea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic deformity is untimely death at the time of delivery. Purdah deprives Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment. Being deprived of healthy social life, the process of moral degeneration must and does set in. Being completely secluded from the outer world they engage their minds in petty family quarrels with the result that they became narrow and restricted in their out-look.

They lag behind their other sisters, cannot take part in any out-door activity and are weighed down by a slavish mentality and an inferiority complex. They have no desire for knowledge, because they are taught not to be interested in anything outside the four walls of the house. Purdah women in particular become helpless, timid, and unfit for any fight in life. Considering the large number of purdah women among Muslims in India, one can easily understand the vastness and seriousness of the problem of purdah.

The physical and the intellectual effects of purdah are nothing as compared with its effects on morals. The origin of purdah lies of course in the deep-rooted suspicion of sexual appetites in both sexes and the purpose is to check them by segregating the sexes. But far from achieving the purpose, purdah

has adversely affected the morals of Muslim men. Owing to purdah a Muslim has no contact with any woman outside those who belong to his own household. Even with them his contact extends only to occasional conversation. For a male there is no company of and no comingling with the females except those who are children or aged. This isolation of the males from females is sure to produce bad effects on the morals of men. It requires no psychoanalyst to say that a social system which cuts off all contact between the two sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways.

The evil consequences of purdah are not confined to the Muslim community only. It is responsible for the social segregation of Hindus from Muslims which is the bane of public life in India. This argument may appear for fetched and one is inclined to attribute this seggregation to the unsociability of the Hindus rather than to purdah among the Muslims. But the Hindus are right when they say that it is not possible to establish social contact between Hindus and Muslims because such contact can only mean contact between women from one side and men from the other.*

Not that purdah and the evils consequent thereon arc not to be found among certain sections of the Hindus in certain parts of the country. But the point of distinction is that among the Muslims, purdah has a religious sanctity which it has not with the Hindus. The evil of purdah has deeper roots among the Muslims than it has among the Hindus and can only be removed by facing the inevitable conflict between religious injunctions and social needs. The problem of purdah is a real problem with the Muslims apart from its origin which it is not with the Hindus. But, of any attempt by the Muslims to do away with it, there is no evidence.”  (“Thoughts on Pakistan”, B.R.Ambedkar, Thacker and Co. Ltd., Rampart Row, Bombay, 1941; pages 226-228).

 

But let us not get side-tracked. This article is not about Islam or Muslims, it is about the iniquities and injustices that women face all over the world, and – what matters most for us − in India. As I wrote above, “Almost every religion in the world has had a hand in worsening the condition of women, and making it a punishment to be born as a female human being”; and Hindu texts are absolutely no exception, and Hindu society no more so.

Women are discriminated against in almost every sphere, either by intention or by circumstance. I will deal in this article only with genuine discriminations, and not with superficial ones (like considering the distribution of pedhas when a boy is born, and barfis when a girl is born, as “discriminatory”) or equally superficial woke-inspired ideas (like Shabana Azmi objecting to being called an “actress” and insisting she be called an “actor”). These involve half-witted ideas, such as that barfis are low-grade and pedhas are high-grade (instead of merely that the two sweets are respectively male and female in the sense of grammatical gender); or that the word “actress” is degrading while the word “actor” is uplifting!

And, by the way, let me most specially make it clear that if anything expressed in this article seems to bear affinity to things said by “woke” “feminists” or “human/women’s rights” activists, then that would be a wrong impression. The above-mentioned “activists” are basically more misogynistic than the most misogynistic of chauvinistic men. See my article about how these “activists” were hyper-active in their defense of the “minor” boy who had tortured “Nirbhaya” in the famous Delhi case:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/05/rapists-child-rights-left-and-right.html

 

So, as I said, “society” starts its work of making the life of a female human into hell from the moment of her birth. People usually feel the joy of having a boy-child is much greater than the joy of having a girl child! In fact, in the more blatant cases, there is no joy but only sorrow/disappointment felt/expressed when a girl is born. [This attitude is certainly wrong; but we will see, in “Section C. The Other Side of the Coin?”, what could be the social factors responsible for this kind of attitude, and, given the state of society, how far it is possible for even the most non-misogynistic parents to feel completely happy at the birth of a girl-child].

The main sections of women who suffer discriminations and injustice are usually the following categories: older unmarried women, childless females, widows, rape/molestation victims, divorcees and abandoned wives, “tomboys”, The list could be widened by including female orphans and street-dweller children, or (physically/mentally) handicapped females (all of whom suffer much more dangers, victimizations, harrassment and injustice than their male counterparts). Also, girls kidnapped and trapped into prostitution or (usually after being crippled), into begging. But the truth is that, while these categories do face particular or special additional discriminations and injustices, the very fact of being female is, in general, itself the basis of discrimination and injustice in every sphere. Note that of the following points all may not apply to all parts of. and social strata in, India, and some have almost faded out for various reasons (but must be noted), or will not be seen (or seen to the same extent) in certain truly modern and progressive households (and in any case every rule can have exceptions), and some apply only to the particular “special” categories mentioned above:

1. To begin with, with the advancement of sex-determination procedures (and I assume that before that there must also have been other more traditional methods of pre-natal sex-determination), female foeticide, has been common in many parts of India. From a more “religious” angle, and in the absence of sure knowledge about the gender of the child-to-be, there are of course, all the special mantras, rituals and rites, and medicines, intended to ensure the birth of a male child.

[That this has resulted in extremely skewed ratios in certain parts of the country, where marriageable males outnumber marriageable females to such an extreme extent that it has created all kinds of new social problems, and even criminal activities like kidnapping of girls, etc., is a separate issue].

 

2. Then there are various methods of getting rid of unwanted female babies after the baby is already born and it is too late to do anything to prevent its birth. First and foremost of course is the ghastly method of female infanticide: simply killing off the baby. Other methods include abandoning the baby on some orphanage steps, or even in some isolated area; or using the pretext of religious procedures to “offer” the child “in marriage” to the deity of some temple (i.e. to become a devadasi).

 

3. If the above things do not become feasible, and the girl child is born after all and has to be kept as a member of the family, then (especially if the girl child is the first child, or if earlier children are also girls and there is no male child in the family), then often begins a race to beget a male child; with a repetition of modern methods as well as special mantras, rituals and rites, and medicines to bring this about. Needless to say, sometimes a male child can follow a long line of girls!

[Of course, as with all these points, there can be exceptions in this matter also. I know at least two families where, after three boys, there was finally a desired girl child].

 

4. Once a girl child is born, begins a series of discriminations within the family, especially when there are boy children also in the family:

a) There was always a big difference in the amount of money spent and importance given to the boy child over the girl child in matters of food, clothes, education, medical treatment, pocket-money, etc.      

b) Likewise, in the matter of doing jobs and chores in the house, there was always discrimination, with girls being saddled with cooking, cleaning, and caring for younger siblings from an early age, effectively depriving them of a carefree childhood, and boys escaping all this.

c) In matters of many religious “rights” (i.e. the right to perform many religious rites and rituals) also, there were discriminations restricting these “rights” to boys only, and girls were barred from performing them.

[As my use of inverted commas must have made clear, while these are certainly discriminations, and the objectionable part is in the compulsion behind it (in preventing girls from performing these rites and rituals, if they want to perform them), I personally do not feel that such “rights” are fundamental rights except in the eyes of those people believing blindly in the particular rites and rituals. It is the discriminative aspect of “barring” girls from doing what a boy is allowed or expected to do which is objectionable].

[Further, at this point, let me point out that all this has no bearing at all on the woke politics of making a militant, discriminatory (i.e. discriminating between Hinduism and other religions) and propaganda issue out of particular rites in particular temples, as in the Ayyappa temple case. But that would be a subject for a separate article].

But, on the other hand, there are religious rites and rituals and social practices, usually of restrictive or troublesome type, which women are expected to perform, and men are never expected to: wearing special marks of their marital status (kumkum, sindoor, mangalsutra, etc.), performing special rites (including compulsory fasting, etc.) for the longevity of their husbands, etc. [It is true that traditionally girls have been conditioned into being proud rather than resentful of such practices].           

d) Even in all kinds of normal activities, there are restrictions in freedom of movement, attire, choice of life-partner, sports and social activities, etc. (beyond those necessary for basic safety and security of the girls themselves) in comparison with boys. [Many times, when I enter a restaurant alone to have something, or sit alone in a garden or on a bus-stop, etc., it strikes me that a girl would, traditionally at least, not have even this basic freedom to go it alone without attracting unpleasant attention].

[At this point, again, let me point out that there are rare exceptions to the rule. My own family was one such exception]

 

5. Traditional laws discriminate against girl children. As in almost all societies, traditional inheritance laws have heavily favored male heirs. Female children rarely had any legal claims to ancestral land, wealth, or property, and, even where they did, they were certainly not equal claims, ultimately making girls economically dependent first on their fathers, then their husbands, and later their sons. 

 

6. Certain “categories” of females in traditional society face constant and massive verbal abuse, sharply critical social gossip, physical harassment, and branding as “inauspicious”, along with various massive imposed personal restrictions, and usurpation of civic/legal rights, and even denial of “salvation”, in matters where males usually escape similar treatment (or treatment of the same kind or to the same extent):

a) Being unmarried till an old age: a woman's value is considered entirely dependent on her role as a wife and mother, and remaining unmarried into old age is considered a massive social failure and a deviation from cultural norms. and such females are branded as inauspicious.

b) Not having children: special words of abuse are applied: e.g. “vāñjh” (followed by physical/mental/social insults and ill-treatment).

c) Widows: apart from the now-almost-extinct (and geographically very restricted, but much publicized) practice of sati, and the ban on widow-remarriage, a widow’s life was always hell. In many communities (including my own) there was the evil practice of permanently shaving the heads of widows and forcing all kinds of restrictive rules on them in matters of social intercourse, food, attire, freedom of movement, etc. They were held to be inauspicious and malignant and often kept isolated within the house with all kinds of behavioral restrictions.

d) Females are often characterized, on various grounds, as “witches” (daayan/chudail) and held directly and deliberately responsible for misfortunes taking place around them.

e) Newly married females can often face accusations of bringing bad fortune into the house (by their “paaygun” or inauspicious entry-steps), and there are often special abuse-words in this connection (e.g. pandhrya-payachi in Marathi).

f) “Body-shaming” (on grounds of weight, height, skin color, complexion, hair-issues, etc.) is more common in respect of women than men.

g) A married man having an affair with another woman faces completely different reactions from a married woman having an affair with another man. In earlier times, it was not uncommon for a rich man to have a “kept women”, but very uncommon for a rich woman to have a “kept man”. [Note how Gandhi kept his wife in a state of enforced celibacy while himself “testing” his own celibacy by sleeping in the nude with young girls, and was considered to be kind of “saint” of sorts by the general public].

h) In traditional Indian society, female victims of rape faced severe social, physical, and psychological iniquities that shifted the burden of guilt, shame, and punishment from the perpetrator onto the victim. [I will anger many of my Hindu readers when I point out, not for the first time, that the interpolated story of Rama punishing Sita by sending her into “vanavas”, exhibits just this same kind of mentality].

 

I could go on and on, pointing out the countless different ways in which human society has degraded women and made it a punishment to be born a woman: chastity belts, virginity tests, excommunication, concubine slavery, public humiliations, physical mutilations, enforced prostitution, etc., etc.

We see two kinds of trends in modern times in respect of women: on the one hand, we have the woke or ultra-liberationist trend among sections of women which practically amounts to a hate-ideology in respect of (the other half of mankind) men; and, opposed to it, a male attitude which borders on a misogynistic trend of holding all talk of misogyny and women’s rights as “woke” activity.

My purpose in noting all the above (and probably there is plenty still to be noted) was to point out that half of humanity, the female half, has been extremely badly treated by Nature/God as well as by Human Society, and that however many measures are taken to try to right these wrongs and to give justice to women will always be inadequate and insufficient.

 

C. The Other Side of the Coin.

Yes, this coin has another side − of issues that need to be taken into consideration and kept in mind:

1. Abuse of Special Provisions.

2. The Internal Enemies.

3. The New Form of Dowry: “The Wedding”.

 

1. Abuse of Special Provisions:

The first and biggest hazard of acts and laws designed to protect the rights of women is that they can be misused/abused as personal weapons to set the dogs of war on to completely innocent people. Laws to protect women, as I have been emphasizing throughout this article, are absolutely necessary. But equally necessary is the need to protect completely innocent people from becoming the victims of such laws.

I had made this point even in my earlier article “Rapists, ‘Child Rights’, ‘Left’ and ‘Right’”:

“what exactly constitutes rape? This is significant and important, because the fashionable definition of “rape” today fudges and obfuscates the definition to an extent which makes this question not only relevant but crucial to the issue.

 

Note: the point being made here is not about the potential misuse of any potential laws on punishment for rapists. That is, the question here is not about whether any particular accusation of rape would be true or false: that is a different issue, and the honest and logical conclusion would depend on an examination of the facts and evidence in each individual case separately. Any law can be misused, and fake accusations be made. For example, dalits – that is people belonging to castes which have traditionally been dominated, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against – are indeed still being dominated, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against in many or most parts of the country. But that does not mean that every “dalit” is being so treated, that every “dalit” grievance is genuine, or that every “dalit” accusation is true: there has been widespread blatant and unjustifiable misuse of laws, designed to punish discrimination against dalits, by “dalits” who are in powerful or safe positions, or who seek to make hay while the sun shines and benefit through blackmail and extortion. Both these situations are equally real. But they do not negate each other: and discussion cannot be about the principle as a whole, either way, but about the facts and evidence in each individual case. Likewise, while rape is a horrible reality, every accusation of rape need not necessarily be true: it could, in individual cases, be a case of malice or blackmail. That question cannot be discussed here in the abstract, even while it cannot be used to derail or sabotage stringent laws against genuine rape: the guilty person in each individual case, whether the genuinely accused or the fraudulent accuser, deserves the most stringent punishment imaginable.

 

The point being made here is: how do you define rape?

 

As Subramaniam Swamy pointed out in the above debate, you can not in any way compare a rapist, juvenile/minor or otherwise, to a bicycle thief or a person stealing a pastry from a bakery. That would be a monstrously gross insult to the rape-victim, and an extreme case of injustice.

 

In a similar manner, you can not compare a person, child or adult, who has really been  raped, whether an individual rape or a group rape, to a woman who comes up and files a complaint of rape against a person on the ground that that person has been “raping” her on various occasions, or over a length of time, by promising marriage, whether or not after divorce from an already existing wife, or promising her a job, or a role in a film or serial, or some other monetary, financial or social benefit, and is now reneging on this promise. That would be an equally monstrously gross insult to the genuine rape victim and an equally extreme case of injustice. Obviously, leaving aside for a second the more valid rights of the wife if any in such a case, the woman making the accusation could genuinely be having a case, but it would be a case of fraud or of breach of contract, not of rape. In a male-dominated world where nature, society, religion, tradition and laws everywhere have conspired to make the lives of women a hell (and women themselves, as pointed out above in the discussion on the women “human rights activists”, have not lagged behind in contributing to this position where other women are concerned), any and every injustice against any woman requires full and urgent redressal. But not by calling a case of fraud or breach of contract a case of rape. That would be the biggest injustice to all rape victims.

There should be a proper definition of rape, full and speedy justice, and very stringent punishment against the criminal in every case (the genuine rapist, whether or not a minor, or the false accuser, as the individual case may be). And mischief mongering politicians and activists should not be allowed to interfere in the process of exposing the Truth or to succeed in derailing the wheels of Justice.”

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/05/rapists-child-rights-left-and-right.html

 

Today, laws intended to protect oppressed castes from oppression and injustice are being used as weapons for blackmail and extortion, and terror, leading to an officially sanctioned and enforced reign of terror against innocent individuals (just because they happen to be “upper caste” individuals):

https://x.com/ajeetbharti/status/2104886776536154249

 

The same can, but should not be allowed to, happen in the case of laws intended to protect the rights of women. [But perhaps they won’t, because the votes of women cannot be as easily and massively manipulated as the votes of caste groups, and so there is less profit for mercenary politicians in enforcing laws for protecting women].

 

2. The Internal Enemies:

Another point to be kept in mind – and although it sounds like a cliché it is absolutely true – is that more often than not, women are the biggest enemies of women. As always, the internal enemies are the most dangerous.

In traditional or rural areas, especially the more feudal ones, where the society is often misogynistic by practice, all the women are generally oppressed, and perhaps it would not always be right to say that in those cases also women are the biggest enemies of women, since all the control is in the hands of (usually very misogynistic) men. Even if some woman wants to come to the aid, rescue or support of another oppressed woman, it is not easy to do so. Usually the women are merely passive bystanders watching their sisters being subjected to injustices. To what extent a united female populace would be able to prevent injustices to women would be a matter of speculation. Though here also, we can see sections of the female population joining up with the men to attack other women.

But it is within the families and homes that we see the biggest illustration of the principle that women are the biggest enemies of women. Again, another cliché proves to be true here: the perception that (in general) it is easier for a group of men to stay together in harmony in a house than for a group of women to do so.

Of the different relationships which cause disharmony and conflicts within a house/family, the most obvious and most consistently visible relationship which almost always seems to result in conflicts is the saas-bahu (mother-in-law-daughter-in-law) relationship. Is it any wonder that saas-bahu conflicts constitute the central and omnipresent theme in Indian “family soaps and serials”? Then there are of course the corollary conflicts between co-wives, between the wives of brothers, between the wife and sister-in-law, etc. [Perhaps conflicts between the wife and husband’s lover/girl-friend do not come within the class of domestic conflicts].

Even most of the gossip, verbal abuse, ill-treatment etc., in the case of the various special categories of women already referred to earlier, is usually carried on by other women.

I think this point needs no elaboration, but I will just narrate a personal incident illustrating this. In the seventies, when I was in school or college, I had (as was common in those days) gone to spend a few days of the vacation in the house of my aunt (mother’s sister). Once I was alone in a room with two senior relatives of my aunt; her mother-in-law (who was a normal widow) and her aunt (i.e, my aunt’s, as also my own mother’s, mother’s sister, who was a sad reminder of the evil old “shaven-headed-widows” era, widowed and disfigured at the tender age of twelve years!), who were talking together. I don’t know what exactly the subject of their talk was, but somehow there was a reference to Indira Gandhi (who was then the Prime minister of India). Immediately both of them joined together in disapproval. I still remember them indignantly declaring that it was not right for Indira Gandhi to be gadding about all over the place in public: their rationale was: “She’s a widow!”!!

 

3. The New Form of Dowry: “The Wedding”:

People may wonder how the issue of dowry can become part of the “Other Side of the Coin” when I am writing against the iniquities heaped on women by Human Society and in support of women’s rights: surely it is still on the same side of the coin as just one more of those iniquities?

The general verdict on the Dowry System (which I saw somewhere on the internet) is roughly: “Marriage turned daughters into a massive financial liability. A bride's family was forced to pay hefty dowries (cash, jewelry, goods) to the groom’s family, which further fueled the perception of daughters as burdens”.

Surely it is on the same side of the coin: as one more of the injustices heaped on the girl child, and the reason for “the perception of daughters as burdens”?

Well, in order to understand this, it is necessary to understand what exactly “dowry” represented/represents.

Today although dowry is as prevalent as ever, the awareness that it is somehow wrong (or a “social evil”) is also present in everyone’s mind. But the point is: what exactly is it about dowry that makes it wrong and a social evil? Basically, it means the father of the bride giving “(cash, jewelry, goods) to the groom’s family”. The various “wrong” aspects of this were:

1. It was not given to the daughter herself to be used at her discretion and as per her wishes (which would have been perfectly understandable, since as a daughter of the house she would naturally have a right to a share in her father’s wealth) but to the groom or his family to be under their control and discretion.

2. It was given out of fear of possible repercussions as per demands from the groom or his family and not as per the father’s own wishes.

3. It was given without reference to, and usually far in excess of, the actual giving capacity and affordability of the father.

 

Yes, everyone knows the evils of dowry. And especially in the increasingly growing educated and literate families, and “modern” families, the outright “dowry” menace may actually have become less than earlier. But in spite of that, why is it that a daughter has not become less of a “burden” to the family, but probably much more of a financial burden, making a girl child undesirable and (in my opinion) making general evil practices like female foeticide not just understandable but even justifiable in the case of poor and middle class people?

The answer is that from a direct and open social evil being imposed on the bride’s side by the groom’s side, dowry has reinvented itself into becoming:

a) A desirable and vitally necessary expense, not as a massive expense to provide financial capital for the after-wedding period of married life, but as a super-extravagance to be splurged and expended on the actual wedding event(s) itself.

b) And not necessarily always “demanded” by the groom or his family (though that could also be a silent and invisible factor), but indulged in by the bride and her family out of their own desire to fulfill their own dreams of a memorable “grand wedding” to show the parents’ love for their daughter and/or to maintain their image in society.

 

Wedding events were always a waste of money, even in the traditional days, often sinking the father of a girl child into the death-trap of poverty and debt. The typical expenses (not counting various types of actual dowry) in a traditional wedding in most parts of India, for the bride’s family, would include (starting with the printing and distribution of the invitation-cards) things like the marriage-hall-rent and venue decorations, accommodation for guests coming from distant areas, refreshments (breakfast, lunch, etc.) at the venue, the bride’s outfit (dress, make-up arrangements, etc.), increasingly photograph(-video) arrangements, and many other things (e.g. shehnai players, flowers-and-scent for the arriving guests, etc.), apart from gifts and presentations (“aaher”,  “maan-paan”, etc.) for close relatives from both sides and for the officiating priests.

But, starting perhaps with films and serials (like “Ham Aapke Hain Kaun” and “Saas Bhi kabhi Bahu Thi”), and very actively and increasingly propagated thereafter by commercial businesses and media (films, serials, advertisements), weddings turned into mega-events. Apart from the actual wedding day programs (the cost of which could be multiplied several times over by having “destination weddings” in exotic places), there used to be relatively minor religious ceremonies even earlier. But now completely new special mega-events on different days (“haldi”, “mehndi”, “sangeet”, etc.) started become the “in-thing” all over the country. Almost every one of these special mega-events had all the same or similar paraphernalia (special invitation cards, venue expenses, expensive clothes and food, etc.): and consequently the cost of “marrying off” a daughter has become countless times more expensive and money-incinerating than ever before.

And the main point to be noted is that in the case of most of these “events”, it is the bride herself (and not necessarily also the groom or his family) who craves all these replications of wasteful filmy extravaganzas. 

Note that none of this is classified as part of the social evil that is “dowry” which leads to daughters becoming a financial burden on the family of their birth. But in effect it is exactly that: imagine the plight of families with daughters (with emphasis on the plural form).  

 

What can one say of a highly “moral” and “modern” Society which piously frowns on pre-natal sex-determination and female foeticide (and classifies them as shocking crimes to be punished by law), but creates and practically enforces an environment where marrying off a daughter becomes virtually equivalent to courting financial ruin.

[As neither has anyone from among my family-members, relatives, friends and neighbors ever indulged in pre-natal sex-determination and female foeticide, nor become financially ruined, so far as I know, in getting their daughters married, I can assure the readers that I have absolutely no personal stake in what I just wrote above. Rich people and upper-middle-class people (who set these addictive and destructive trends in society), and even sections of the normal middle-class can often manage to weather these financial storms, but what about the rest of the normal middle classes and those below them on the financial graph on whom social/peer pressures and media mesmerism lead to them trying to ape the upper-class extravagances and ending up with physical-mental illnesses and financial ruin?]

Anyone genuinely wanting to see to it that the birth of a girl child ceases to be thought of as a burden on the family should take strong steps to see to it that dowry, not just in the old sense where it was called “dowry” but also in the new sense where it involves massive extravagant expenditures on “wedding” celebrations, is recognized as a major social evil to be exposed and corrected.

 

It is not as if there have been absolutely no attempts to move in this direction. Many times, different governments and politicians have sought to introduce legal restrictions on the amount spent in wedding celebrations, or the number of guests invited, or other such issues. But, needless to say, these attempts have failed because of a refusal of people to be aware of the seriousness of the matter. Two such examples:

1. Congress MP Ranjeet Ranjan tried to introduce a bill in 2016/2017 called “The Marriages Bill (2016/2017)” which sought to limit number of guests and number of dishes served, and to mandate a 10% contribution to a welfare fund for marriages of poor families if wedding expenditures exceeded ₹5 lakh.

2. Congress MP Jasbir Singh Gill introduced a private member's bill in 2023, called “Wasteful Expenditure Bills (2023)” to cap guest lists (to 100 total guests) and restrict gift values to prevent social debt traps.

However, nothing can happen until Indian Society wakes up. I would even suggest criminal proceedings against people (film-makers, serial-makers, commercial event companies and the countless jeweler and attire companies) which propagate glorified ideas of wasteful wedding expenditure as something desirable and worthy of emulation. Just preaching to would-be parents the idealism of being equally happy whether the newborn child is male or female, without doing anything practical to see to it that the actual situation at least tries to mirror this idealism, is nothing but cynical hypocrisy.