DOWRY AND MARRIAGE

Another glaring instance of social injustice is the custom of dowry. This is a real disgrace in a civilized society. If we go deeply into the reasons for such an injustice it will be clear that there are two main reasons behind it.

First, dowry occurs where males and females earn disproportionate incomes. The Na'yya'r and Izave communities of Kerala follow the matrilineal order and hence no dowry is claimed by the males. The Khasia community of Assam follow a similar system. In Burma, though the patrilineal order is in vogue, women are economically independent so they get a dowry.

Secondly, dowry occurs where there is a disproportionate number of males and females. If the number of males is more, females get dowry and vice-versa. In Punjab, the number of males is more than the number of females so the females get a dowry. The situation is similar for Muslims.

The false vanity of the aristocracy also causes dowry. Aristocratic people think, "Our family is a high class family, hence we should get a dowry." In a Proutistic structure there will be no scope for dowry.

When people's ideas are so fixed that they will not entertain any discussion or argument, it is called "fanaticism". It is said that religion is a question of faith, not logic. In India, there are many religious fanatics. Due to religious fanaticism and bigotry, there have been innumerable violent clashes in the past. How repugnant that thousands of people were killed on the pretext of a single strand of hair! These fanatics never bothered to listen to the beliefs of others, and moreover, for them it is a sin to listen to others. In one sense they are worse than animals, because animals do not harbour any communal feeling. Physical sentiments are predominant in such religious expressions. People should keep aloof from the bondages of religion. Behind all religious dogma, physical considerations are dominant. One community considers it a sin to eat beef but not goats or deer. The custom of wearing a vermilion mark on the head and forehead by Indian women is an expression of religious sentiment. The women of other countries do not follow this practice. It does not matter at all if Indian women stop using vermilion. All religions exploit people by appealing to religious sentiments. (May 1970 RU, from "How to Unite Human Society", Prout in a Nutshell Part 21)

GIVING AWAY THE BRIDE

Kukuda. Kuk + un' + da' + d'a = kukuda. Kukuda means "one who picks something up and gives it to another". In its specific sense, the kukuda is the one who gives away the bride in a wedding following the Puranic system. In ancient times, there were different customs of marriage, and they are still prevalent even today. Among the many Shaeva, gandharva, ra'ks'asii and other marriage systems, one common custom was this: The daughter was dressed in expensive finery and placed on a wooden seat. The father or male guardian of the bride then lifted the seat and handed her over to the bridegroom. This guardian was called the kukuda. And the koka was the one who accepted such an offering, that is, "one who accepts a thing" so lifted and handed over. This sort of marriage custom is prevalent among the upper castes to this day. This definitely lowers the honour of women. Are they so cheap -- like rice, pulse, salt and oil -- that they can so easily be handed over to others Are women cheap like hens or okra that they can be packed in bales and sold or given away Not only is this custom surely humiliating for women, but the honour of all humankind is trampled upon. The cardinal human principles of humanism and Neohumanism are blatantly violated. I earnestly appeal to all righteous people of the universe to think this matter over and be active towards the abolition of this ugly custom. In my opinion, Manu* was not right in supporting this custom.

[* Manu was the author of the Manusmrti, an authoritative collection of social rules, customs and etiquette for Hindus. He lived about two thousand years ago. --Trans.] (By Shrii P. R. Sarkar, 23 March 1986, Calcutta, "Kukuda" Shabda Cayanika' Part 4)

According to an old folk wedding custom, the brides of some parts of Bengal are required to sit on a wooden seat and cover their face with a big Bengal betel leaf with the stem pointing upward and the tip downward. Only at a particular point in the ceremony (called shubhadris't'i, "auspicious view") does she remove the leaf and reveal her face. What a pathetic sight! Here she is dressed in her heavy wedding dress of Benares or Cheli silk, loaded down with heavy jewelry -- just beside her the lucis are cooking and she is baking in the stifling air -- lots of people are hovering around staring at her -- the bridegroom is standing in front on a wooden seat -- the dais is surrounded by water-filled pitchers and plantain leaves -- all eyes are concentrated on the couple -- and she must sit there awkwardly like a lump of clay! Her life is nearly choked out in this atmosphere -- the sweat is pouring down, she is at the end of her tether. I do not know whether this custom is still in fashion or not, but if it is, it is really a painful situation for the bride. (By Shrii P. R. Sarkar, 20 March 1988, from "Gaja'sya", Shabda Cayanika' Part 16)

VARIOUS MARRIAGE SYSTEMS

Vi - vah + ghain = viva'ha. The root verb vah means "to flow, to lead". Viva'ha means "leading one's life in a new way with a special type of responsibility" [in both Sanskrit and Bengali]. In the most correct Sanskrit, however, the word for "marriage" would be formed vi - u'h. An alternative spelling is with u (not u'). Vyuh + kta = vyud'ha' ( meaning "a married person").*

* [Further linguistic information omitted at these points. --Trans.]

An unmarried person remains somewhat free from responsibilities. As a result they get the chance to discharge some greater duties outside their small family. Even though they go outside the house for other work, it is not against anyone's interests. Vyud'ha' means a "married person who shoulders a greater family responsibility and begins a new style of life."*

* [Further linguistic information omitted at these points. --Trans.]

Hence, when an unmarried girl or boy gets married, his or her life begins to flow down a different channel. Various responsibilities devolve on them. They can no longer afford to take their responsibilities lightly. Because of this, many of them become less generous than before. Sometimes a lot of haggling takes place over the ownership of petty things. In the absence of a developed conscience, many women may unconsciously break up the joint family after coming to their husband's house. There used to be a social rule in Bengal that if a son or daughter-in-law was not already initiated into a spiritual way of life then arrangements should be made to do it immediately. I had the chance to observe in certain villages of Burdwan that if a new bride was not initiated, the in-laws were reluctant to accept food from her. They contended, "As our daughter-in-law is not initiated, the water offered by her is not pure."

In Manu's time, there were various marriage systems popular in India. Not only in India, throughout the world many different marriage systems were popular in many countries, but in no country was there a system of marriage prevalent that was strictly social [as opposed to religious]. In one place, the couple would go the Buddhist temple, do obeisances, light candles and thereafter be looked upon as married. In another place -- that is, in particular parts of Nagaland -- the boy and girl would elope for a few days and be considered married when they returned.

Conquering communities forcibly kidnapped the girls of the vanquished. This was considered an acceptable marriage. In the Asura marriage custom, the girls were forcibly abducted and then married. In some regions, the bridegroom would mark some vermilion on the head of the bride and offer cooked food to her. This ritual indicated he was taking responsibility for the food and clothes of the bride from then on. In some upper-caste families in the Hooghly and Burdwan Districts, the marriage is solemnized according to the scriptures, then the bridegroom offers saris and sweets to the bride, indicating that he accepts responsibility for the bride. We can infer from this that the religious aspect of the marriage was adopted afterwards. (In ancient times, marriages were recognized through offerings of clothes and food.)

In a certain village on the Burdwan-Manbhum border, I happened upon a marriage ceremony in a tribal family. The ceremony was quite simple. The bridegroom marked vermilion in the parting of the bride's hair. The village headman came forward and told the bridegroom to repeat one vow: Ya'vajjiivanam' ta'vat bha't-ka'pad'am' sva'ha' ["As long as I live I will provide you clothes and food"]. Then there was a feast with rice and pork. This was how social recognition was extended to the couple's marriage.

Gandharva system: In the gandharva system, rings were exchanged between the bride and groom. The rings could be made of any metal, but usually they were made of gold, silver or copper. A gandharva marriage could be solemnized either in front of the community or in the absence of witnesses. That is, social approval was not necessary for this marriage. The main factor was the consent of the bride and groom. Shaeva [Shaivite] system: Shaeva and A'rs'a [Vedic] marriage systems were quite popular in ancient India. Some of the aspects of those early customs have been included in popular modern customs. In the weddings of Bengali Hindus, some ethnic customs are followed. For instance, the marriage canopy is supported with plantain-tree stalks instead of bamboo, bel-fruit ["wood apples"] are used instead of coconuts, the bridegroom is beaten with thorny kula branches [a form of teasing by the sisters-in-law], scalded milk is spilt at the time a bride enters her new home, milk and red ochre is used to decorate the bride's feet, and widows are excluded [from joining the celebrations].

(It seems that earlier on women's rites were not included in the wedding. Such rituals came later when the desire to assume an Aryan veneer came in the Bengali mind.)

Bra'hma system: Manu did not use Bra'hma viva'ha in the same sense in which the Brahmo Samaj* system is solemnized these days. The present Brahmo Samaj originated during the British period, whereas Manu was born long ago. The Bra'hma viva'ha was a particular type of marriage which was popular in Manu's time. Manu advocated the custom of giving the daughter away dressed in costly ornaments and finery, although this custom is definitely degrading for women. They are reduced to the level of cows, goats, ducks and hens. What audacity do people have to give away their fellow human beings to others? Are women shop goods to be bartered in the open market?

[* A nineteenth century progressive Hindu movement in Bengal. –Trans]

There was in ancient times a prolonged trade in human beings. Both men and women were taken to market for sale. Although this seems shameful today, it was a fact. Even during the early part of British rule the sale of men and women continued in Bengal to some extent. The last sale of a woman in Bengal was for seven rupees, and took place in the Jhalkathi Market in Bakharganj District.

This was what the slave trade in men and women was like. The citizens of "civilized" countries would purchase hard-working black men and women to be used as their servants and maids. The [earliest] buyers were the wealthy merchants of ancient Greece and Rome. Of course, India and various European countries did not lag behind in this regard!

It was a principal occupation of the Portuguese pirates to purchase women from eastern Bengal and sell them in western Bengal. Many of those sold women were accepted as daughters-in-law, especially where the custom existed of the groom's family paying dowry.

I am constrained to say that although some people approve of it, the custom of giving away the bride in marriage is another form reminiscent of the ancient slave trade.* This custom degrades the prestige of women. Meanwhile, those who are taking dowry for their son's marriage are, of course, indulging in the sale and purchase of their sons. In marriage ceremonies in Calcutta, there is a couplet the mother-in-law recites while encircling the bride with a thread:

Kar'i diye kinlum dar'i diye ba'ndhlum
Ha'te dilum ma'ku ekba'r bhya'n kara to ba'pu

[I purchase you with money. I bind you with a rope. I give you a spinning wheel. What do you say]

Judged from the true import of the word viva'ha, none of the above marriage systems can be really called marriages in the social sense, if their individual and social values are considered.

Ananda Marga system: Now, the marriage system of Ananda Marga is a gandharva form of marriage as described by Manu, but it is solemnized publicly. That is to say, an Ananda Marga marriage is a socially-organized, socially-recognized marriage. In legal terms, it comes within the scope of the Hindu marriage law.* But we are not lawyers, we are breathing fresh life into humanity.

[* In India there are separate marriage laws for different religions. --Trans.] (By Shrii P. R. Sarkar, 16 October 1988, Calcutta, from "Gandharva Viva'ha", Shabda Cayanika' Part 19)

In Ra'r'h, the Shaeva marriage custom is still popular among the people of the so-called low castes. The bride and the bridegroom exchange garlands, the bridegroom offers some unhusked rice (paddy) to the bride. The rice-offering indicates, "I take responsibility of maintaining this girl throughout life." He then applies some vermilion on her forehead and says, Ya'vajjiivanam' ta'vat bha't-ka'pad'am' sva'ha' ["As long as I live I will provide you clothes and food"]. Thus, in a simple, unostentatious way the marriage is solemnized within a few minutes. There is no need to call in a Brahman priest. This is an example of the liberal Shaeva marriage system. (By Shrii P. R. Sarkar, 26 November 1981, Calcutta, from Section 4, “Sa'bhyata'r A'dibindu -- Ra'r'h)

DIVORCE

Hindu women and Muslim women, although they are all Indian citizens, do not get equal advantages in law. In Hindu law men cannot have more than one wife but Muslim men can have two, three, four, etc. wives. Both Hindu wives and husbands have to go to court to get a divorce, but Muslim men don't have to go to court to secure a divorce. Moreover Muslim men can divorce their wives but Muslim women cannot divorce their husbands. Also it is [not] necessary for Muslim men to give any reason for their divorce. (By Shrii P. R. Sarkar, 22 September 1986, Calcutta, from "Requirements of an Ideal Constitution", A Few Problems Solved Part 4)

If there are continued conversions to Islam [by disaffected Hindus], women will become second grade citizens, because they are not given equal status with men in Islam. Consequently, there will be further degeneration. Thus, nobody should be forcibly converted from one religion to another. (By Shrii P. R. Sarkar, 14 November, 1988, Calcutta, from "Three Cardinal Socio-Political Principles", Prout in a Nutshell Part 16)

Related News Story

Nation : One woman’s triple-talaq trauma

Express News Service (http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=33547)

Posted online: Thursday, July 08, 2004 at 1238 hours IST

New Delhi, July 8: It’s noon. Nasreen is standing in her balcony bent over a bucket of wet clothes she needs to hang out to dry.

Her bad back makes it tough to even straighten up.

But a victim of a violent marriage and a sudden divorce, Nasreen is not a stranger to pain.

Seated in her clean 15 ft x 20 ft home in Haroon chawl, Malad, her head covered in a dupatta, Nasreen tells her story.

The arranged marriage took place in 1986 when she was 17. ‘‘The first two months were bliss,’’ she says.

But soon, the daughter of a homeopath father found it difficult to adjust to her in-laws’ abusive ways.

Pregnancy came quickly and so did demands for more dowry from her husband—who ran an oil supply store—and in-laws. ‘‘If the demands weren’t met, I was tortured and thrown out of the house,’’ she recollects.

Nasreen went to her parents’ home to deliver her child. But even after the baby was born, her husband didn’t take her back. He kept threatening her with talaq.

When he did take her back, he dumped her in a slum in Malvani and locked her up for 17 days before her father rescued her.

From 1988 to 1993, the torture continued. Nasreen would be thrashed, her parents would rescue her, complain to the police; her husband would convince them to send her back and the torture would start again.

She even had another child but never contemplated divorce. ‘‘Hamare mein gunaah hai (It’s a sin in our community),’’ she says.

In 1993, Nasreen parted with her jewellery and savings to help her husband buy the house he had always demanded. They moved to her present home, but she was not even a joint owner.

In 1997, without warning, he divorced her by simply writing talaq thrice on a paper with a qazi’s approval on it. ‘‘I got to know from the judge hearing my case. I was shocked. My first worry was shelter for my kids,’’ she says.

After divorce, Nasreen’s ex-husband wanted her out of the house. But she got a court order against it.

Seven years later, with help from women’s welfare organisation Majlis, Nasreen is still fighting a case for her house and maintenance.

She has not received any money for six months and gives tuitions for a living.

But she refuses to speak against triple talaq as it means speaking against her religion. She knows the Shariat does not advocate divorcing a woman in one sitting without negotiation or reconsideration.

‘‘Lekin iske baare mein jaanta kaun hai (But who knows this?)’’ she laments.