fbd: Dowry

Dowry--- the issue keeps on coming in debates and discussions and we always find a lot many of us publically saying no to dowry. Yet I have found that equally good number of us are a little uncomfortable with the pledge. And I must confess I find it a little uncomfortable to take such a pledge. Frankly speaking if someone tells me that I should not give anything in marriage of my daughter, I’m afraid I might not agree. I can’t imagine marrying off my dear daughter and not giving her anything in marriage. She would be starting a new phase in her life and nothing should prevent me from giving her gifts as per my capability and affection for her. But if my would-be son-in-law has taken a public pledge not to accept anything in marriage then what do I do? I strongly feel we have to reconcile the two situations. One man’s gift could be other man’s dowry. We need to clearly differentiate between the two….. a ‘voluntary gift’ within one’s capabilities and a ‘compulsive dowry’ under pressure, either from the groom’s side or from own relatives.
Dahej I feel is a very pious word if taken in the right spirit. It is something given by a caring father to a daughter or by a loving brother to a sister on her marriage. However if any such exchange is under compulsion then it is not Dahej. Under pressure it is extortion and its perpetrators be tried and prosecuted accordingly.
Sometime back there was a heated debate on the subject in Sheel Bhai’s blog. I had posted a comment there. Since the readers in this group are different, I am posting extracts from those comments below:

“This menace of dowry has made many a lives miserable. To carry the debate further I am mentioning here what the law says on this issue:
THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 defines Dowry as:

‘any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage.
The act makes an exception as below:
Nothing above shall apply to: 
presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride or bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf) and such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.’

Thus it can be seen that the law also makes a distinction between the dowry under demand and the presents given to a beti by her father or to a bahen by her brother or other members of her family. The law does not prevent exchange of items as far as the same are of a customary nature and within the financial status of the person by whom presents are given.

Thus all gifts and presents given in marriage are not bad. And in view of the financial status, an item could be dowry in one case but a normal gift in another. We should not feel apologetic about the customary items received by a couple in marriage. But yes the line is very thin and we have to understand the spirit behind it.

I have highlighted this legal aspect here as I felt that without proper understanding of the legal aspect we would not be able to carry out the required reforms. How can you tell a father not to give anything to his daughter? But you can always motivate one not to give, or demand, anything which comes anywhere close to dowry ie which is under compulsion or beyond one’s capabilities or simply a shameful display of wealth without any sense. While I very strongly oppose giving anything in marriage on demand, or under compulsion and pressure, or beyond one’s financial capability or merely as a show-off, I whole heartedly support voluntary exchange of gifts in marriage, as it shows care and affection towards the bride, towards a bitiya, towards a sister. I gave her agift on her birthday, on her going to school, on her successful project in school… why shouldn’t I give one on her marriage?

Another reason why I have mentioned about this legal aspect is the need to educate and counter the forces which continue to support such evil for their own personal interests. And to justify their illegal demands in marriage they compare the same with justified gifts received by others in their marriage. They would oppose reformist attempts by any means. Many a times they would say something on your face but then comment differently behind your back.”

I had made this comment last year and I stand by it. I request you all to give it a thought and exchange your ideas on the subject so that we can help our youth take a well-considered stand on the issue which she/he feels by heart rather than committing herself/himself on sentiments and abstract ideas without any convictions and later find it difficult to support one’s own ideas. 
Thanks.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/gurjarpratihars/permalink/199618846742564/

 Lets put it in a different way. If one has a son and a daughter. The son will inherit all his property. Does his daughter has a right to his property? If no.. then why not? And if yes.. then when and how to give her that fair share of the property? Before marriage through division of assets? During marriage by means of gifts and presents? Or after marriage through division of assets? Or not at all at any stage?

2 May 2011

 In such case (where dahej is demanded) it should be treated like extortion and its perpetrators be punished for same.

2 May 2011 

facebook discussion: "Satya Sai Baba" of Puttuparthi and his chamatkars

I fully agree with 90% of what have been written but this 90% belongs to just 10% of satya Sai Baba's life. I have never been a fan or follower of satya Sai Baba but still I admire what he has done for the masses. Apart from water, health, electricity etc it includes giving them 'faith'.. a firm believe in a god. And you'll agree faith is a great healer. I look at his numerous magical skills otherwise. In our childhood our parents played lot of tricks on us and later we played those 'magical' tricks on our children and made small balls, coins, pens etc vanish in thin here. We did it not to be-fool our kids but to either amuse them or to lead them to something better. And btw 'rebirth' is yet to be disapproved by science. Regards..
25 April 2011

The issue is.. many more have wealthier trusts. The important thing is what are they doing with that. And well proclaiming himself as GODMAN is part of his shady 10 % I mentioned earlier. Some of his followers are well educated and respected personalities, thus I doubt if education has much to do with it. But lets spread education so that at least some of the superstitions are taken care of.
25 April 2011

Let's not miss wood for the trees. His past is shady, his activities smack of frauds, murders and other crimes. But, may be at a very late stage though, he filled a vacuum in spiritual aspirations of his followers. I grade him higher than many more with similar pasts or presents, Pawar for one, who have equal or more money but no philanthropy. Bill Gates after duping crores by his restrictive trade practices donates a fraction of his wealth and is lauded. Lets give devil his due. At least on his last journey. Amen
26 April 2011

facebook discussion: Badalta Bharat: Adhunikta banam Vikas

There are two issues here. Aadhunikta and social values.
Aadhunikta is just being in sync with today. Sending emails and SMS to announce birth of your child instead of sending letters by post, using computers in place of type writers, driving cars ipo bail-gaadi, using plates ipo pattals, using piped gas ipo gobar ke uple etc is being modern. These are aadhunik cheezen. Use them and be contemporary or don’t use them and be out of sync with today’s world.
And social values are Kaal-Desh specific. One social value may not be relevant at a different place at the same time or at the same place at different times. And in society one may choose to be one with social values or at confrontation with the same.
As far as kissing one’s wife in public is concerned I feel it has got nothing to do with modernity or aadhunikta. It is more a matter of social values. Some societies have adopted it in their values as neatly highlighted by Sachinji others have not. Today our society does not permit it. One has to stop somewhere. From not even walking together in public to just moving together to holding hands in public to kissing in public to… what next…. Members of the society set their limits. I love my wife… I need not make it a matter of public display… yet I am ready to kiss her in public.. Is my samaj ready to accept it? Are you ready?
25 April 2011

I feel modernity is just a change or departure from recent past. It is comparative by means of time and progress not necessarily by means of thoughts. I consider it different from open-ness of
mind. Do we mean that the society has been most open and forward looking today than it was 2 years ago, 200 years ago or 2000 years ago. I refuse to accept that society as depicted in Shakuntalam, in Ramayan and Mahabharat, in various other books of past was comparatively narrow minded than it is today.I feel it was as open or perhaps more open to new ideas then than it is now. Being traditional ie not being modern does not necessarily mean being less open-minded. Bhai I would still walk a mile to eat a chulhe ki roti and I can vouch for it some of them living in far flung villages away from electricity and cell phones are more open minded in their approach than most of us living in our so called modern cities.
25 April 2011

facebook discussion: Medical Tests Before Marriage

A suggestion in facebook by a member:
"...... on medical check-up of the boy and girl before their marriage, specially in context of possibility of transfer of genes. If medical check-up be done before marriage, the possibility of Thalassemia, Haemophilia, Celiac or Hemoglobinopathy will be known to us. Henceforth, the prevention can be done.Aids and other hereditary diseases can be prevented by just a simple blood test of the couple before their marriage. After a certain period of time it becomes impossible to cure hereditary diseases. So its better to avoid marriage of a couple who have presence of a same gene. Many problems can be avoided by just checking the RH factor of the couple. The children of the couple where girl is RH negative and boy is RH positive, are found with big ailments.
The only solution to prevent /stop diseases like Thalassemia is medical check-up of the couple before their marriage. Actually, there are 23 pairs or 46 chromosomes in one body. If one gene is defected/abnormal, then the other genes of the couple cover this problem. This gene is called as regressive and the patient is called as silent carrier. If both the husband and wife are silent cariers, there is a 25% possibility of Thalassemia in their child.
We can avoid such problems/diseases by medical check-up of the couple before marriage. Hereditary problems are leading to a long list of diabetic and cancer patients today. Doctors believe, if the couple have any gene of such hereditary diseases, there is a great possibility of their children being born patients."

A thought provoking issue. Generally one can see that though we all agree on the importance of such a test the point of contention is -how to go about it. Some of our brothers & sisters have raised some very reasonable issues from ethics to social values....... I just discussed the issue with a Medical Officer and he has informed that this genetic disorder is permanent. Like a blood group it also remains the same throughout one's life.... And here lies the solution. One can get his or her children tested at any stage, even when they are in school years before any talk of their marriage. And subsequently at later stage we can match this report just like we match the gotra at initial stage itself before further talks between two families. I think it will address all embarrassments and other ethical issues. Regards....
24 April 2011

facebook discussion: LOVE MARRIAGE या ARRANGED MARRIAGE

I don’t see any marriage without an arrangement. Two strangers meeting by the road side do not get married instantly. Either it is arranged by the families of the two by checking various compatibility factors or is arranged by just the two of them on a single factor of LOVE between the two. As I see it both are two different versions of arranged marriages. One arranged by experts and other by novices.
Both can succeed or fail. But a prototype developed by experts has greater probability of succeeding over the one developed by amateurs, I suppose.
24 April 2011

Drinking: Where does it stand in the books of religion?

Satbir Singh posted on his wall on facebook today:
Peene Ki Aadat Thi Mujhe,
Usne Apni Kasam De Kar Chhuda Di,
Baitha tha Mehfil Main Yaroon ki,
Aur Yaaron Ne Uski Kasam Dekar Pila Di 

I commentedTabhi to Ghalib ne kaha tha 'Ghalib chhuti sharab to lekin kabhi kabhie'. 

More comments are pouring in but the couplet set the ball rolling and made me ponder, “Where does drinking stand in the books of religion and spiritualism”? As we see it most of.. rather almost all the religious books have something to say against drinking. All those religious books say that one should not drink.. that it is 'sin' to drink.. it is paap. Whereas most intellectuals have a different take on it. Ghalib's shayari, Bachchanji's 'Madhushala' are just a few of many examples.

But is there really something against drinking in the original scriptures? Here I consider these religious books different from the scriptures. Scriptures are the real and authentic compilations of very basics of a particular religion and these 'religious books' are the guidelines, do's & don'ts based on the understanding of those scriptures. So basically, or scripturally, is any religion really against drinking?

I find drinking or non-drinking is not really an issue with any religion. No religion actually prohibits or promotes drinking or use of other drugs or intoxicants like tobacco or even 'afeem', 'bhang' etc. In fact why it should? An intoxicant for one could be a medicine for other. Even for same person different quantities of same drug or syrup could mean different things under different conditions. One spoonful of an expectorant is medicine, two is an overdose and more could even be fatal. It is said that even wheat has intoxicant effects... one might remember Sany Kabir's couplet:
'Kanak Kanak te sou guni maadakta adhikaye,

ek khay bauraat jan, ek paaye bauraay'

So how would any religion differentiate and quantify something as a life saving medicine or as a mere drink or as a narcotic drug and intoxicant. And also why would any religion get involved in such nitty gritty. Even simple food can make one feel sleepy at a particular time during the day. To quantify the dose universally is not an easy task and, as stated earlier, not the real issue with any religion. Bhagwan Mahesh or Shiva is known to use all these different Som Rasa's and regularly consume all sort of intoxicants like Bhang etc. So why would he stop his followers from using the same?

We can very easily see that no religious scripture actually prohibits consumption of intoxicants. What any religion really warns against is 'getting drunk'. And actually that's the real matter of concern. Drinking is not considered bad, only getting drunk is. Loosing one's senses is bad. And though almost everything has its quantity of intoxicants in it, the degree varies from one item to another. From water to milk to tea to beer to rum etc the degree of getting drunk differs, quantity of drink remaining the same. Many a medicinal syrups have alcohol. Using all these drugs and many other such things can not be bad as long as it improves one's health and well being or atleast does not adversly affect one's health, finances or senses. If one loses all one's senses even after a glass of milk then even that glass of milk is not good and will fall under the prohibited category.

But yes intoxicating effects of certain items like alcohol, narcotics etc spread much faster and can even be fatal if not controlled. It requires a very high degree of discipline and control to stay within the limits. Such items are included in religious books and guidelines under prohibited category. It is not simply drinking which is feared... mere drinking is no vice.. but the real fear is that uncontrolled it may make one lose one's senses, lose his powers of discretion, 'vivek'. And in that condition one might not be in a position, albeit temporarily, to distinguish between a good act and a bad and may actually committ an act by body or by mind which might be sinful and, in which one would not have got involved under one's full senses.

Drinking alcohol in itself is not a sin- nor even a dangerous thing but only as long as it is within limits. But only a small quantity of it comes within the category of limit. It is very easy to cross limits with an alcoholic drink. And when the limit is crossed then the faculty that is affected the most is our power of discretion- our 'vivek'. And when 'vivek' is gone one may actually committ a sinful act which one might not have committed otherwise.

So cheers all ye tipplers. No problems with drinking... just be careful of getting drunk...

Republic Day: Is it "An Unnecessary Ritual"?

    




As we celebrated our Republic Day this year and as I went through those numerous greetings in person, on phone, through SMSs, facebook and twitter etc, I was reminded of an article in the Times Of India some time back written by Commodore C. Udaya Bhaskar titled “An Unnecessary Ritual”. In this lead article Cdr Bhaskar had argued that we need to review the relevance of Republic Day Parade. Cdr Bhaskar is of the opinion that this parade has outlived its utility and that ‘clinging to a tradition where the symbolism becomes an inflexible ritual, and the spectacle masks the glaring inadequacies of the state ought to be dispassionately reviewed’. To support his argument Cdr Bhaskar has cited many reasons including –Delhi’s babudom coming to a halt for almost a month, -the frustration of commuters and irate motorists due to traffic diversion, -the considerable resources expended annually, -acute anxiety about terrorist attacks and VIP security.. etc, etc.

On Republic Day this year I thought about it. Do we really need to stop celebrating the Republic Day as we do it today? Has it actually lost its relevance? Is it really wastage of resources –men and material? Is the frustration of motorists or the fears of terrorist attacks reasons enough to bid good bye to these festivities? I beg to differ. Yes it is a predominantly military symbolism but then have we reached a stage where we can do away with our military? I think more than ever we need a strong military now. Not so much during the days of colonialism, not so during the early days of the consolidation stage as we need a strong military today. So first and foremost we shall see whether we need military, - a strong military at that- or no. If we don’t need any military then well we won’t bid for a military parade too. But if there is smallest justification for having our own strong military then well I see no reason as to why we should stop that traditional way of celebrating the Republic Day with that ‘predominantly military symbolism’. And as Cdr Bhaskar has mentioned himself, -the composition of the parade has already changed to reflect both the military and the developmental profile of the Indian State.

So where do we stand on the question of the need of a strong military? Events in Iraq and Afghanistan, -threats to Iran and North Korea, -military intervention in many Afrikan states, -withering away of USSR, -developments in Pakistan etc, etc are that many reasons for us NOT TO DO AWAY with our military power in haste. These are perhaps sufficient reasons to have a strong military profile. And yes if we have a military then let’s give it a day to showcase its teeth and skills… or the symbolic power if not exactly the teeth and skills. So Cdr Bhaskars’s argument about the military or military symbolism having outlived its utility does not hold ground here.

And now, in front of this requirement, all the other reasons put forward by Cdr Uday Bhaskar, a retired officer from the Indian Navy, a renowned defence analyst, surprise me having been published under his signatures in a newspaper of national repute ‘The Times Of India’. Shall we stop celebrating our National Day just because we have not been able to manage our affairs elsewhere? Just because the babudom at Delhi comes to a halt for almost a month shall we adopt the escapist route of withholding the parade itself rather than motivating the babudom not to ‘come to a halt’? Shall we stop the parade or mend our ways and retrospect why babudom comes to a standstill? Why does the commuter suffer if there is a parade once in a year on our National Day? Is there anything else that can be done without stopping the parade? Can we otherwise improve the traffic conditions so that a diversion to celebrate our National Day does not ‘frustrate’ the commuters and ‘irate’ motorists? Is it really a wastage of considerable human and material resources? Shall we then stop all celebrations in life? Does it have no positives? Does no body –no civilian –no Indian at heart, wants to watch it?

I feel it is not the kind of situation as Cdr Bhaskar has painted. Yes there is ample scope for improvement and maybe we can add more non-military developmental aspects but it has to have that military symbolism for it to be a different and special type of a celebration. More than the nation, I feel, Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar needs to review his views about the Republic Day Parade. Lets celebrate ‘our’ Day with more enthusiasm and interest than ever.

Jai Hind ..