For people who do not know what dowry is, It is a gift in the form of money, valuables or property given to a groom by the bride's family at the time of marriage, generally on demand from the groom/groom’s parents. I have borrowed this definition from the dozens and dozens of essays I wrote during my high school days on the evils of dowry system. This was a favourite subject for all question paper setters, essay competition organizers and off course I was quite happy with their favouritism towards dowry system because having written on the same topic many times, the words just flowed off my pen without any effort from my end.
The first time I came to know about dowry was when I was about 8-9 years old when I watched a Kannada movie themed about this topic. It was a movie about a bride being tortured by her in-laws for failing to bring the demanded dowry. I do not remember the movie but I do remember scenes where the heroine cries, begs and then argues with her in-laws that ’Varadakshine’ (Dowry in Kannanda) was illegal and incorrect. The film didn’t make much sense to me then. I asked my mom what ’Varadakshine’ meant and she gave me the exact definition I gave you. I do remember thinking a lot about this then. I tried reasoning why the in-laws would have asked the heroine to get money from her parents. Finally I came up with this line of thought. If parents sent their daughter to somebody’s house to stay there after the marriage it was quite natural that they had to pay to that somebody to look after their daughter. Why would somebody want to bear the living expenses of someone else’s daughter? Just like the parents paid fees in school for sending their kids to school they had to pay fees to the groom for sending their daughter with him! With this logic I found the torture of the heroine by her in-laws quite ok and very much justifiable. The in-laws were quite right to torture and had every right to do so. I am in the party of the in-laws I thought then. I did feel pity for the heroine but that was only because she seemed very pretty to me then and I dreamt to look like her when I grew up!
I did not stay content with this reasoning for long. Although I hadn’t understood much of the movie, I knew that heroine was right at the end and the in-laws were treated as villains. This meant something was wrong in the logic I had derived. I thought again for days together. I slowly asked my mother again “Is she right? Or are they right in asking dowry?” to confirm my understanding. My mother said “Off course it is wrong to ask dowry.” So my theory was wrong and I had to derive a new theory for the heroine to be right and the in-laws to be wrong. I thought about it again for many days. Finally it clicked. If one buys something from the shop, the buyer has to pay the shopkeeper and not the other way round. When a person purchases a pen, the pen moves from the shopkeeper to the buyer. I found the procedure of a bride moving from her parent’s house to her husband’s house analogous to buying a pen. So, logically as per this theory the in-laws had to pay the bride’s parents for getting her with them and it was absolutely foolish of them to demand money from her parents instead. “Why would the shopkeeper pay when he sells something; he should get something instead. How stupid of me not to understand this simple logic!” I thought. I was very much happy with this logic and stayed with this theory for years together.
The first time I came to know about dowry was when I was about 8-9 years old when I watched a Kannada movie themed about this topic. It was a movie about a bride being tortured by her in-laws for failing to bring the demanded dowry. I do not remember the movie but I do remember scenes where the heroine cries, begs and then argues with her in-laws that ’Varadakshine’ (Dowry in Kannanda) was illegal and incorrect. The film didn’t make much sense to me then. I asked my mom what ’Varadakshine’ meant and she gave me the exact definition I gave you. I do remember thinking a lot about this then. I tried reasoning why the in-laws would have asked the heroine to get money from her parents. Finally I came up with this line of thought. If parents sent their daughter to somebody’s house to stay there after the marriage it was quite natural that they had to pay to that somebody to look after their daughter. Why would somebody want to bear the living expenses of someone else’s daughter? Just like the parents paid fees in school for sending their kids to school they had to pay fees to the groom for sending their daughter with him! With this logic I found the torture of the heroine by her in-laws quite ok and very much justifiable. The in-laws were quite right to torture and had every right to do so. I am in the party of the in-laws I thought then. I did feel pity for the heroine but that was only because she seemed very pretty to me then and I dreamt to look like her when I grew up!
I did not stay content with this reasoning for long. Although I hadn’t understood much of the movie, I knew that heroine was right at the end and the in-laws were treated as villains. This meant something was wrong in the logic I had derived. I thought again for days together. I slowly asked my mother again “Is she right? Or are they right in asking dowry?” to confirm my understanding. My mother said “Off course it is wrong to ask dowry.” So my theory was wrong and I had to derive a new theory for the heroine to be right and the in-laws to be wrong. I thought about it again for many days. Finally it clicked. If one buys something from the shop, the buyer has to pay the shopkeeper and not the other way round. When a person purchases a pen, the pen moves from the shopkeeper to the buyer. I found the procedure of a bride moving from her parent’s house to her husband’s house analogous to buying a pen. So, logically as per this theory the in-laws had to pay the bride’s parents for getting her with them and it was absolutely foolish of them to demand money from her parents instead. “Why would the shopkeeper pay when he sells something; he should get something instead. How stupid of me not to understand this simple logic!” I thought. I was very much happy with this logic and stayed with this theory for years together.
Slowly things changed and I realized marriage was not a buy-sell business and by getting two people married nobody was doing anybody a favour. If at all if someone was getting a favour it was the couple itself and it was for mutual happiness. This weekend I was talking to my husband about the silly thoughts I used to have when I was small and I remembered this. I always used to have my own version of logic for events happening around me which seem very silly and foolish now. My husband’s nephew called him on his birthday to wish him and asked, “Am I the first to wish you? Or is it aunty?” I told my husband to tell it was him. I did not know what was the kid thinking when he asked this, but did not want to spoil his pleasure in knowing he was the first. May be he had his own version of thoughts and might laugh at them when he grows. I think childhood is all about that, living in a world where a different logic rules which is different from the actual world but which seems very right at that stage of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment