From: sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (M. Sundaramoorthy)
Subject: Dowry
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:05:10 GMT


	I think dowry system was prevalant only among few upper castes
and rich class to begin with. But it slowly entered the middle class. 
Till recently this phenomenon was predominant among the 'educated' middle
class  and to be precise in the 'salarised class'. In communities, doing 
traditional jobs, labour class with low income etc. it was not that 
common. 

	Now it has entered every section of the society, thanks to
our commercial movies and popular magazines. One in every 10 movies or 
stories in the magazines will be on 'dowry' (the statsistics may not be 
accurate). They pretend to criticise the system and the heroines are 
projected as 'revolutionary' women fighting and also winning against this.
There will be 'hot monologue' at the climax by the heroine against the 
system, against men etc. and finally the 'hero' will realise and accept 
her without dowry. But in reality, how many women (are allowed to ) do 
this?.

	Similarly, there is enormous number of emotional stories on
'bride burning'. When a story appeared recently on this theme
in a Tamil magazine in US, a friend commented "nijaththula ceththadha
vida kadhaila ceththavanga thaan adhigamaa iruppaanga".

	Now the tone of dowry stories has changed slightly, supporting the
system in a very subtle way. A principled youth, who has vowed not to take 
dowry, is compelled to take, only to give it to his sister's
groom. If taking or giving dowry is a crime of single count, these 'principled
heros' commit two count crime, without actually getting anything.  
 
	These kinds of stereotype themes in the movies and stories have 
been rather counterproductive. Any issue when blown out of proportion will
produce only negative results. In the same way the movies and the stories 
played a big role in pouplarising the dowry system to sections of 
population, where it was not known before, rather than curtailing it. 
They taught about the concept of dowry to the people who didn't
pracitice before, rather than uprooting the where the evil existed. 

	The system which was only in the upper class and middle class of 
the urban population has entered the rural area also. This is one of the
many urban practices being emulated by the rural masses to show themselves 
more 'civilised'. This is a result of equating urbanisation with
developement. 

	Another reason for this is the 'scarcity' of grooms. Assuming that
the sex ratio is 1000/1000, there shouldn't be any scarcity as such. But
in a modern society a male qualifies to become a groom only when he has a 
secured job. A male without a secured job, particularly a white collar
governement job, even if he is self employed with meagre income, doesn't 
qualify. With the growing unemployment rate, the 'artificial scarcity'
of grooms grow. This demand makes those with jobs more valuble in the 
society and the parents of girls ready to pay to get these 'valuble grooms'.

	There are many forms of dowry these days and some are very innovative,
in fact. Money and jewellary are traditional. Scooter, car etc. are the
results of technology developement. Expecting 'working bride' is a recent
phenomenon. But most recent and funniest of all is the 'unemployed grooms',
demanding a 'job'. Apart from other things, it is a responsibility of in-laws
to find a job for their son-in-law, by some means (bribing is the usual way). 

(more later, when I get time). 

M. Sundaramoorthy
sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu