From: mece21x@elroy.uh.edu (Yesudas, Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.kerala
Subject: Re: dowry
Keywords: dowry
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:15:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct1.225646.7064@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mchundat@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mathai Chundattu) writes...
> 
>I don't think we can blame anyone for the existence of dowry. One major
>reason for the practice is the problem of unemployment. Generally, one
>gets married even before getting a job. To get a job to support his

Is it not true that the demand for dowry is more vehement among the ones 
who are employed. And also the more higher they are employed in the "social"
sense the demands are higher? Like for e.g. Engineer 10 lakhs, Doctor 15
lakhs, IAS 20 lakhs... (These figures are arbitrary. Any semblance to anyone
living or dead is purely coincidence.) 

>wife, to lead a family life without financial problems; desires like
>these are common among the youth, whether he is from kerala or some
>other parts of India. But in the present conditions he becomes
>desperate. The persistent compulsions from parents and the thought that he
>is getting older and older make him give up. Who should support the
>newly formed family? The question of inheritance is to be pointed out
>here. The man inherit his share from the family. In the context of
>kerala, woman inherits nothing. Hence it is legitimate that the woman's

Is inheritance the only way of supporting oneself? Why is it that we see
wealth as a fixed quantity? Is it not that wealth is something that is 
continuously generated and consumed? 

>family should contribute to the new family at the time of the marriage.
>After marriage, in our culture, the woman stays in the husband's house
>for a few years. In many situations the money the woman brought is
>preserved for the new family's future life. Within two or three years
>they separate from the 'thaRavaad' and starts an independent life.
> 

What we see here "...in our culture.." the woman as the helpless individual
incapable of generating wealth, or earning money in the real sense is 
simply a result of what has happened. These inequalities in our society 
has handicapped the woman so that we see the woman only as the stereotyped
person who after the marriage goes to live with her husband. And this 
has become our culture. 
Also they don't start an independent life. The husband starts an independent
life (or so he thinks) And the wife starts her journey to the very heart
of enforced and self accepted serfdom. 

>That is the case with the majority of the youngsters. The few with a
>permanent job, for them the argument is different. Let me say at this
>point that there are only a few who are fortunate to be in that kind of
>a situation. At that point of his life he is considered to be a winner
>in life. The first thing the parents want is to get him married. There

Doesn't it look clear that the reason why the parents want to get him
married is pure economic benefits?? 

>are only very few options before him. He marries his girlfriend, if he
>has one. In that case the question of dowry doesn't even flash in his
>mind.

Don't be so sure!! We can find cases where people are not so straight
forward.

> The second option is available if he is free. Whom should he
>select? The richest? The most beautiful? The most intelligent? Usually
>he considers everything and wants all of these qualities in his wife. He
>

Why is it that only the husband has a right to examine the qualities?
Can't a girl also do the same?  Can't they dream the way many young men
do? Aren't we forcing our views over theirs by simply devising a scheme
where the woman is forced to look INFERIOR to the male race? 

>doesn't go for the highest bidder unless he is a fool. I would say that
>he is justified in selecting the most suitable as his wife.
> 

There is an implicit assumption here. The people value the girl more than
the money. This may not be true. Money is definitely a factor on which
a compromise may be made for a person when it comes to choosing between
two people who are utterly strangers. One does not matter too much from the
other.  
The one thing that our marriages work is simply the thrill of knowing each
other. This holds for the initial years. What happens in many other places
in the form of dating goes on in our place in the initial years of our marriage.
And in our case when the time for fight comes, it is too late.


>The other reason, probably, is that there are more women than men in
>kerala. If we consider the marriage as a market ( it really is!) and
>apply the fundas of supply and demand the result is very clear. Even
>though this sounds strange, I think, this is also responsible for the
>survival of dowry.

True. But this may not be universally applicable. Most other states have
a leaner sex ratio.

> 
>For a moment, let us think about a family. How a husband will treat a
>wife who has brought dowry and one who did not? I would say that the
>wife with dowry will be more respected by him.

That depends and varies from case to case. No generalizations can be made 
here. Now my question is regarding the respect of a man who has no self
respect, expect for the fortunate part that he was born into the dominant
sex, and on the sole basis has "demanded money"? Is it worth it? 
Why is it not possible for the husband to think of winning the wife's repect
and love and affection by treating her as an individual rather than 
bargaining in his own mind about the amount of respect his wife is worth?

> At least she has 'bought'
>the right to stay with him.

Why is it "At least"? Is she already inferior? Or the man who marries a girl
out of his own free choice still thinks that she does not have a right to
stay with him?

> In our culture the wife depends on the
>husband for life.

And that is the result of our own broad-mindedness, that the wife is dependent
economically on the husband and becomes his slave for life.

> I think dowry will remain till husband and wife become
>really equal partners in life. 

I think the otherway. If dowry remains, then the husband and wife will
never become equal partners.

> 
>>  Before, 'sthreedhanam' meant 'sthree aakunna dhanam', and now it means
>>'sthreekkulla panam'.
> 
>I think it is 'sthreeyude paNam'.
> 
>>  Before, according to Muslim custom, the boy had to pay girl's father at the
>>time of the `nikkah' to get the girl as his wife. Now, the girl's father has 
>>to give dowry and the boy might pay a part of that dowry amount to the girl's
>>father during `nikkah'.
> 
>I remember the Jacob from Bible who worked for fourteen years to get
>his beloved as wife. I wish I were like Jacob. But, how many Ratchels
>will be there who will steal golden cups from their father? Or doesn't
>that mean that we need equal share from the girl's side also?
> 

Why is the demand and share more important than the girl?

>>  Even for most of the forest tribes, the boy has to give the girl's parents
>>some sort of 'dhanam' like one bamboo tube full of honey, few sheep and hen, 
>>etc. to get married to their daughter.
> 
>I think we are more advanced than tribes.
> 

I see no signs of the advancement. At least in the actions and not in the 
way the appearance is.

>>  Well, as our `muththassimar' says, `kalikalam thanne!'. 
> 
>kalikaala vaibhavam! ennallaathe!
> 

I don't think that blaming it on Poor old Buddy "kali" can help us to solve
the problem. 

>>
>>PEACE !!!
>>Be cool.
>>Thanks.
>>
>>MJN (Bindu).
> 
>>
>>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
>>nilavinte velichathil thelinja neelakasathile nakshathrangal ennan sramikkunna
>>thu ethra kawthukakaramanu; valiyoru viddiththavum. othiri viddiththangal nira
>>    nja kawthukangalude oru paramparayanu oru tharathil paranjal jeevitham.
>>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
>>
> 
>Regards,
> 
>Mathai
>-- 
> 
> 
>Mathai Chundatt            mchundat@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
>==================================================================

Sincerely
Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Michael Yesudas         |  The control of the means of production   |
|  Mechanical Engineering  |  of wealth is the absolute control of     |
|  University of Houston   |  human life itself                        |
|  mece21x@jetson.uh.edu   |                    --   Hilaire Belloc    |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA