seervarisai

[Guest guest]

I am thrilled at the response to my querry on dowry.

I am proud of the young men who have been so forthright

on the topic. To equate dowry to a share of the family

wealth, as suggested by J is not valid. One inherits

after the demise. Women should have a right for

inheritance ( recall all the second and subsequent

sons in UK had to leave for Australia etc. to find

a fortune since they could not inherit!).

The problem with dowry is it is conditional.

I think, "arranging" a marriage is the root

cause. In such a method, alliances are based on

economic status, caste, looks etc. In a

unarranged marriage except by the boy and girl

involved, the prime questionof interest is

compatibilty and they find it for themselves.

The seervarisai is practiced with more

conditions than just dowry, vessels, saris,

suits, cars and so on. Can't a young man start

on his own?

Krish

[Guest guest]

> on the topic. To equate dowry to a share of the family

> wealth, as suggested by J is not valid. One inherits

> after the demise. Women should have a right for

> inheritance ( recall all the second and subsequent

 

I just want to point out something here. According to modern

Hindu law, that went into effect after Indian independence, daughters

inherit equally after the demise.

 

But this is not the case in most of the dharmaSAstras, which detai;

inheritence rules. MM P. V. Kane's 5-vol work "History of the

DharmaSAstra" gives all necessary details.

 

Daughters were simply not considered in the case of inheritence after

demise by most authors of the dharmaSAstras. In the case of the widow,

opinion was divided. Additionally, even the sons did not have to wait

for demise to come into inheritence. There were rules for partition of

family property between the father and his sons, even when the father

was alive. The father's share of the property is then divided among the

sons after the father's demise.

 

If I remember right, there is some evidence in the dharmaSAstras to

consider strIdhana as a kind of inheritence for the daughter. The

unequal treatment lies in the fact that propoerty is viewed as belonging

to the family, not just the individual. The daughter becomes part of

another family after marriage according to all traditional thinkers.

Therefore there were rules for allocating a share of property for

unmarried daughters on the occasion of the father's death. This share

is clearly stated to be towards the strIdhana of the unmarried daughter.

 

In my opinion, the evils of the dowry system stem mainly from the fact

that the family of the bridegroom *insists* on certain amounts of money

and jewelry to be given to them at the wedding. This must go, and the

responsibility lies solely on prospective bridegrooms themselves. Such

insistence by the groom's family is just pure greed and wholly unethical.

 

Vidyasankar