Why dowry is not evil as painted by MSM

Dowry is the favourite topic which raises immediate alarm among deracinated Indians, specially the youth who are brainwashed into believing that dowry system is evil and misogynistic and why we need feminism to fight against it. More often than not, these people tend to be young with no sense of real world and live in an urban area. They can be heard and seen writing against how evil dowry is on the internet and how they will neither give nor take it. But dowry is a lot more nuanced issue than many think it to be. It is not all black and white and is certainly not evil as displayed in media, academia and films. It is a sad commentary on how badly the narrative is rigged and dominated by the lunatic feminist academia and mainstream media. Even very simple analysis of the dowry system will poke holes into the whole propaganda, including the claims that it is a war on women. The propaganda is so massive that governments after governments refuse to even look into the issue even though the lopsided 498A law has sent millions of families to ruins since overwhelming majority of cases registered under 498A are false, to the tune of 90%. So, what is the truth behind dowry. Let’s analyse:

Dowry is girl’s share in paternal property

In the original Hindu culture (and indeed most religious customs), sons inherited most of the wealth of the parents. The parents of the bride used to give dowry to their son-in-law, as they would transfer their own wealth to their sons. For example, if a family has a total wealth of 10 lakh Rupees, they will give 5 lakh Rupees as dowry to find a groom of similar status while giving 5 lakh rupees as inheritance to their sons. Of course, the son being the presumed owner of 5 lakh inheritance, he usually received 5 lakh as dowry for himself when he gets married. So in total the wealth remained more or less equal, provided everything was equal- the status of bride and groom. But this dowry system could also be used in a way to give a better life to daughter by finding a better groom for 6 lakh dowry rather than just 5 lakh dowry, thus leaving the son with only 4 lakh inheritance and hence only able to get a girl of 4 lakh dowry for himself. Given that Hindu society of the old was agricultural in nature and had strict laws against marrying within ones village, dowry was a perfect system to keep ancestral property i.e. land with the sons since they did not leave the village. While girl child would get gold and other transferable property, the son usually got the land.

Some people might object to the division of ancestral property in the above example as equal while it is unequal in the real world. But in the same real world, girls were also not supposed to take care of their old parents. Since the sons were supposed to help their old parents, they naturally got higher share in ancestral property. Also if a girl got lower share in her ancestral property through dowry, her husband got higher share in his ancestral property thus nullifying the overall effect on their family wealth.

If dowry objectifies women, it equally objectifies men

While this system on surface seems like it is objectifying women by associating a price for their marriage, it is very far away from truth. The price tag of dowry does not come from wealth alone. If a groom is very good guy with no bad habits, a good job and a good degree, then he is much more likely to get a better dowry than simply because of his family’s wealth. This is exactly opposite for the groom, who is a known alcoholic with no stable job and is general burden for the society. He is unlikely to get any dowry at all for his marriage. Actually it would be a great achievement for such a person to get married!! So if dowry is objectification of women, then it should also be seen as objectification of men. Men are objectified for their behaviour, job, wealth, status and family wealth. The truth of the matter is, the bride’s family is willing to pay the bribe precisely because they think the groom is worth the dowry they pay him. Isn’t that objectification of groom by putting a price tag on him? So why don’t the men go around complaining that they are getting objectified?

The truth is, the world sees someone for what he/she is worth to the world. This is reflected in the dowry system too. A groom with good looks, good job, good status, good family will be more guaranteed to provide a good life for the bride and hence the bride’s family tries to lock him up for their daughter with dowry. Similarly beautiful, more cultured girls, and these days even working girls with good education (specially in more developed states like Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, Gujarat etc) etc will have higher demand than the ugly or uneducated girls and hence would be able to match with ideal grooms with much less dowry than ugly and uneducated girls. While it is politically correct to mince words on this issue and dance around this fact to protect the presumed sensibilities of the easily offended snowflakes, who prefer emotions of how innocent all women are and how evil all men are, it is much more important to confront this issue.

Hence, dowry is a complex system of measuring and price gauging both bride and groom’s worth and is a way for the parents to give their girl children their wealth. But since dowry always goes from brides to grooms, does this not mean that dowry is inherently misogynistic? Of course not. The groom already brings his own inheritance as wealth to the family the new couple will start while the bride doesn’t. So the dowry which the bride brings is only a fair contribution which the bride makes to start a new family. In simple words, grooms do bring dowry to family in the form of inheritance while brides bring dowry and no inheritance.

Changing inheritance laws will change system of dowry

But now the inheritance laws have been changed so that daughters have equal share in the properties of the parents. This largely negates the need for dowry, since bride herself brings inheritance, much like how groom’s used to bring their inheritance for starting a family. Also in some cases, the girls family might give more dowry over the inheritance if they find the groom to be worth it and it should be completely fine. They are not being forced into marrying a groom who asks for dowry but are choosing him after fully knowing that he is asking for dowry and then deciding that it is worth giving the daughter in marriage to the guy because he will take care of the girl better than some other guy who doesn’t take dowry. This is perfectly fine as long as it is voluntary.

This is also another example where it is easier to see the baseless propaganda against dowry. Lets say that there are two families A and B and they want to get married. A has 20 lakh of wealth while B has 30 lakh. A decided to marry off their daughter to son of family B giving family B 20 lakhs as dowry. As per the present propaganda, this practice of dowry is evil. Now let’s take another example where there are two families C and D where C is worth 20 lakhs while D is worth 30 lakhs. Then family C gives their daughter in marriage to son of family D but without any dowry. But after the death of family C, the daughter and hence the son-in-law inherits all the money/wealth of family C which is again 20 lakhs. Is the latter case any good or better? Is there any difference in the reality of former case of dowry vs the latter case of inheritance? Of course not, at least for people with normal logic except brain dead and brainwashed feminist zombies. So why is dowry demonized by media while inheritance of property by bride/daughter is seen as triumph of women’s rights? Does this make any sense?

Is the dowry system perfect?

If dowry is not that evil as it is portrayed in the media, does it mean it is perfect? Of course not. The problem with dowry isn’t what the feminist lunatics and social justice warriors in academia and media cry about. The problems with dowry system is the break of trust after marriage or at the cusp of marriage- whether on the groom or the bride side. Some times, the bride’s side decides to dupe the groom’s side into thinking that they would give a much larger dowry while actually they don’t. This of course is morally wrong for any unbiased observer (except feminist harpies) because it is plain cheating and breach of trust.

To put this into perspective, imagine a groom’s family cheating the bride’s family by claiming they are billionaires before marriage but the falsehood comes out before the time of marriage or after marriage. Wouldn’t the bride’s family be pissed off at groom’s family for cheating? And if the brides family comes to know that the groom isn’t as qualified as it was advertised to them or that the his claim of being a billionaire is a lie, isn’t the bride’s family justified in cancelling the wedding to save their daughter from a bad deal? Fact is neither the society not the law would think that such a cancellation of marriage was inappropriate or wrong. But imagine if the bride’s family makes false claims, including but not limited to a dowry of certain amount, and the groom’s family comes to know about this fraud, why should it be wrong for the groom’s family to cancel the marriage? Is it any different from the previous scenario except for the gender swap? So why is the latter punished for asking dowry, when girl’s family voluntarily agrees to dupe the groom’s family?

Post marriage demand of dowry is unethical

This leaves the last issue related to dowry and the one where state can intervene. The real problem with dowry starts when the groom’s family asks for more dowry from girl’s family after marriage and wilfully creates problems for the girl. This of course is completely wrong from a moral point of view as it amounts to breach of contract. Any such incidents should be punished by law without fail, if proven in court. This is where the article 498A should come into play, even though it needs tweaking in the current form to prevent its abuse. This is the only part of dowry which causes deaths and hence should be strictly prohibited and punishable.

Dowry helps less worthy girls get better grooms

But what about the fate of poor women who can’t give dowry? This is a false question designed in a way to prey on the inherent biases humans have to favour the problems of women over men, the reason why most people in India still support article 498A in current form even though it destroys nine “innocent” men for every woman it avenges, which is completely antithetical to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

There are countless men who would of course marry without any dowry but one does not see girl’s parents queuing up to marry them. Why? Because the girl’s parents want their girls to get a good husband for a cheap price (yes, dowry is objectification of men for their job, wealth, family, status, power etc) and that’s why there is so much propaganda about the poor man not being able to find a groom for his daughter. The proper sentence or issue here is not that the poor man is not able to find a groom because of dowry, it is that the poor man is not able to find a high quality groom as per his wish because he cannot afford the high quality grooms. Of course there are men who are unemployed bums and drunkards who would be willing to marry for nothing. Why don’t the poor guys marry their daughters to them? Wouldn’t that automatically solve the dowry problem without any state intervention?

They want their daughters to marry doctors, government employees, civil servants and engineers at a low cost. But the problem is, there are other girl parents who are willing to pay lot more dowry than what the poor father will pay for these professional grooms from rich families. The statement or complaint that dowry cause poor girls to not find grooms is analogous to saying poverty ridden people in India cannot afford to buy Audi and hence Audi sales is evil. It may not be politically incorrect to say so, but this is the ground reality.

The hysteria against dowry system without actually understanding what it is is another example of how cancerous feminist ideology and women’s groups pushing for more 498A style laws in India are. They just want to increase the power of women at the expense of men. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the same anti-dowry activists who see that a doctor demanding dowry from the girl should be punished don’t ask for the punishment of the girl for insisting on marrying the doctor without bringing anything worthwhile to the table. This is not to say that money is everything and dowry has to take the form of money alone. Money is but one form of dowry, the other being good qualification, good looks of the girl etc. If the doctor demanding dowry to marry a particular bride is wrong, isn’t it equally wrong for the bride to insist on marrying a doctor i.e. a person with lots of money and respect in the society? Should men take the route of these women empowerment groups and start demanding that women marry them regardless of their qualifications and family status? If that position is ludicrous, shouldn’t the position that all dowry is evil also equally ludicrous? And if Indian parents are more than happy to put in effort and money to ensure a better future for their daughters, why should feminists complain? The west has a broken family system, but it does not mean that Indians who have good family support should also reject it.

Also read: The Entitled Middle Class Princess Syndrome

And this is another example of intellectual dishonesty by feminists. They claim that dowry is misogyny and affects only women. But they fail to acknowledge that dowry objectifies men as well, because women and their families see men as wage earning, high status serving machines which come with a price tag. Turning it into gender war is completely bogus. How is dowry, which is for the overwhelming majority, worked and earned by men (brother or father of the bride) and given to groom’s family (usually the mother of the groom) oppression of women?

For all the loud noise made against dowry for the past 50 years, fact is that the propaganda did not change zilch on the ground. This itself should have forced any sane academic to re-analyse their theory but not feminists. The simple reason that dowry still exists is that it provides a good market mechanism to match brides and grooms. For the ivory tower feminists, it might seem as oppression but the parents who want better life for their daughters use dowry as a way to marry them with better groom in a better household. Since they care for reality rather than ideology, they hardly pay any heed to this intense propaganda.

In case you want to know what dowry you should demand, check this. Also watch the below video by Madhu Kishwar to get more nuanced idea about this issue. In one part of the video she calls it groom price rather than dowry!!

  • guest

    Such a beautiful well thought out article. I would also like to state, that although people do not practice it anymore. Once the daughters were married, the parents did not take anything from their daughter, only gave gifts to her and her family. In our family no one from our mother’s side every stayed with us, or had meals. If they had to for whatever reasons, they compensated with money and gifts, much to the ire of our parents. but ‘they never took a grain of anything from their daughters.’
    Here is a non connected video, that someone shared with me a while ago, and i watched it only recently. About holism, how to look at things in a holistic way, in a manner, this article does the same.

    • Yuga Parivartan

      Thanks for your regular comments on our articles. We are glad that you enjoy reading them and provide good summary and videos!

      Problem with the current media led discourse is that we have taken western equality concept on face value without thinking through it. So brother-sister fighting over inheritance is cool, while dowry is completely bad. There have been few rotten apples for sure but state mandated laws like 498A does not really stop criminals, but open a big field for misuse and abuse.

      The world is not completely black or white and our common folks understand it much better than ivory tower feminists.

      • guest

        Yeah, you are right in this, brothers and sisters should fight, but not have a tradition oriented way of sorting out that. That is the sad part people do not understand. I have seen brothers and sisters fight over it. In some cases girls end up getting more. Their wedding costs much, today they are all educated, so education costs money and then they get extra gifts etc. even when they live close. So the guys actually sometimes even get less. But no feminists are talking about it….:((

  • Rupal Srivastava

    I was reading the sub-headings and stopped at ‘less worthy girls’. I thought it would be a logical article and it might as well be, but that sub-heading was such a turn off. I should not judge a book by its cover, but I did. Thanks.

    • MadIndian1

      Translation: “since I am a brain dead feminazi,I don’t want to read and understand logic or reason because it is too much for my brain. ” there, that’s a much simpler way of saying what you said

      • Rupal Srivastava

        Hahahaha only if you knew that technically I am quite brainy ! Scientifically proven ‘brainy’ !!! Now that been said, I came to this article because of the logic that maybe in olden days dowry was a way for a daughter to claim their property rights in their family, but we are not living in ‘olden days’ are we? We are living in ‘nowadays’ where girls are beaten, tortured, burned and in many a cases killed for dowry. We are living in days where the Supreme Court has already given right to paternal property to every girl, but it is up to the society in helping exercise that right. So supporting that ancient logic in today’s world, after reading the word ‘less worthy girls’ hurts my conscience. And just to clear things up, anyone who does not favour a ‘logical’ article is not a feminazi, I have a loving brother, doting father and would never hate men, but I would hate people like you who find it very convenient to label people on social media platforms where it is a piece of cake to tarnish someone’s image. Do think about your actions because judging and branding someone depending on one statement they said is not only an act of defamation but also a cyber crime. Have a good day.

        • MadIndian1

          Good, another brainless rant without actually addressing the real issues discussed in the article. Keep proving that feminist man haters have no brain on their own.

          Btw, u want to not give dowry, marry a begger. A man has no problem marrying a non working wife, so why would a equality Nazi like u would have problem marrying a begger? If all feminist harpies married beggers, instead of getting working high status men, dowry problem will die. But why won’t you do it? Why are against equality?

          Brainless ideological Hypocrites

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Hahhahahhah Btw I know many well to do men who do not support dowry system so I do not think I or anyone for that matter will need to marry a beggar in order to not support dowry system. You seem very agitated just by a comment, remember not to affect your mood by social media discussions.

            I am a feminist and I am sorry for people like you who do not understand the real meaning of feminism and love living in their tiny cocoon.

            That been said, I can only begin to assume why you support dowry system. Anyway, end of discussion from my end, no more time to spend on pointless discussions. Good luck.

          • MadIndian1

            Why not? Why do you insist on someone who is worthy? Why not show that you are a real independent woman who can take care of a man, like how men have been doing for millennia?

            What are you more than a begger when you ask for a working man to take care of you? If men can marry and support unemployed women, why can’t women do the same , since you claim to be for equality? Brainless hypocrite

          • Rupal Srivastava

            You Sir, really need to calm down. Seems you have had some personal experiences of rejection which is the reason behind all this bottled up anger. This was an ok article on which I commented and suddenly you decide to puke all over it with your disgusting language and vent your personal anger on someone you don’t even know. You might need therapy for such an erratic behavior.
            Maybe I will marry someone unemployed, maybe I won’t, whomsoever I marry will be someone with a good heart and a supportive nature, everything a male chauvinist is not. You reallllllly need to calm down and mind your language.

          • guest

            Ms. Srivastava, may I add something here. One of the greatest things about debate and arguing intelligently is not to put someone down and yet make a point. Even when the other person might seem to be doing so. So, this thing about ‘personal experience of rejection’. is not right. Is it not possible that he/she might have some level of wisdom that you could learn from and in that open space, you both end up teaching each other, richer. Rather than being opposite ends, you realize that there is a middle ground? not for the sake of middle ground, but for the sake of arriving at the ‘truth’?

            But having said that it is true that most women, would not want to feed a man….I would not want women in my family to be with a man who does not earn his living. There is dignity in it. At the same time, a woman need not do that. Why? Because she is the life giver in so many ways. Even the west said, ‘there is always a strong woman behind a successful man.’ It is hard to say the other way around. Partly because to be someone’s back you have to forget yourself. And women want men to be their pride. Work and work status is an important part of that work pride. Just pay attention how many divorces happen after women get oscars—Just something I have been thinking about for sometime. As if they think now they are better. Fame demands fame. Money demands money. Education, education. But a common woman can provide her strength of character and mind, which is priceless and make an ordinary man feel like a king. An ordinary man, decently educated can make a woman who may have studied very little feel like a princess because he bows to her character. Where is the equality in it? You know what is there? a quiet, simple recognition, that equality does not from 1=1, it comes from a deep reverence for each other. You cannot regulate those things.

          • guest

            Did not say people go divorced due to fame. Just that divorces happened post oscars. Just an interesting study. Check it out for yourself. Not making it up.

            Sure, a man can be insecure too, that too. Never said that could not be the case. The issue then again comes to, ‘marriage happened without commitment in the heart or genuinely caring for the person.’

            You are reading what you want to read.

            You can be happy that I am not related to you. And the feeling is mutual. ON the other hand women in my life know me to be the kindest person and probably the most open, you can imagine. But here is the difference, discipline is not oppression. Remember that.

            As for culinary skills, know this, it is not something that you get in a day, it is a career. Especially Indian cooking and even today, it is the most important profession. You can live without many other things but not food, and definitely not good food for long. Thanks to the great women, who took pride in knowing the insides and outs of cooking.

            Mark my words, academic achievements will still remain much smaller than getting married, having children and creating a community which requires nothing more than being a caring person.

            And while you are accusing me of being narrow minded, you are doing the same by assuming too much about who I am from a post. The fact remains that you have read very little of Indian texts and have little courage to acknowledge it.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Again, nothing against culinary skills, my mother is the best cook in the world and so is my brother, it is just that I’m not that good. Do not pick up a word, twist it and create a fight for me using one unintentional word.

            I have mentioned several times now, havent read much but read enough to understand the basics. I am not gonna read summaries or different philosophical explanation of each and every scripture, reading the scripture or its translation is enough, other definitions are a person’s way to prove their point and their way of thinking.

            I humble acknowledge that I have not read many Indian scriptures, and I still do not support dowry system looking at the many cases (many of which are first hand experiences) which have brought havoc for families, both for men and women.

          • guest

            You said, ‘Further I have no idea how discussion can be crafted out in such a way that it loses all its relevance’

            I agree. I keep trying to engage you, and you constantly want to say hindu society is all wrong, Indian women are oppressed and its all about choice (deepika padukone slogan. Our wise parents taught us to not follow actors, they are always with weak limbs, they are all publicity, very little work).

            I am trying to have you question some of the things you just believe. But all you are giving me is ‘this is what i believe because this is how it is. And therefore I believe it.’. No, information, no understanding of ideas or having read from texts.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            When Deepika came up with that stupidest of all video I posted it to my FB timeline mentioning how it was all wro g and rubbish. Thanks, because of you I could clear that one too.
            Again I love Indian culture, but not all parts of it. Certainly not dowry system.
            I need not read texts to know how bad dowry system is since I have got first hand experiences, not one or two 4 different experiences to be precise.

            I am not against parents giving gifts of either of the married couple, but I am against the demands that are made.

          • guest

            As for male chauvinists, you know very well that dating is the best system of camouflage. If it weren’t people would not divorce after years of dating and living together.

            You can be nice and kind in the beginning and then change when all is set. Or change because you are bored.

            There was much wisdom in arranged marriages, they came from the point of a commitment. Were some of them bad? absolutely. Were many pure boring, sure. Were some excellent, absolutely.

            Just like life is —but arranged marriages had one thing—you took it seriously from day one. No delaying, no questions. Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, astrology also played an important role.

          • guest

            Do you see how polite I am with you? Do you see even then you have a tone of aggression.

            Brainwashed? You might be ok with arranged marriages. Most feminists consider ‘marriage an oppression’ forget arranged marriage. There are corporations, funded by MNCs in India who teach that mangal sutra is a sign of oppression.

            As for forced marriage, I doubt there were very many forced marriages in India. People married even they did not care for the person, why? 1. They consider they parents wiser. 2. There was no one waiting for them.

            In Bride and Prejudice directed by G. Chadha, Kulkarni’s character says that to Ash’s (lisbet) character. ‘I know he is not the best, but I did not want to wait for my prince charming, what if he never came.’. Ash’s character apologises and realises that what seemed forced was a thought out practical suggestion.

            And also young women, what are you asking for freedom from? Have you been educated? Are you allowed by your parents to have your own choice of marriage? you are expressing your views here? What do you need freedom from? May be your own stuck up ways of thinking.

            Freedom in reality does not exist for anyone, so long as we live in a society. Our parents taught us that, we are interdependent on so many people. We will never know. Humility is the way to go. Or may be you disagree, you want to be arrogant and defiant, for no reason. The damages of that will be seen in two generations and by that time it will be late.

            Why, by the way, do you think everyone is targeting India today? Think about it. If you are a well read, eel thought out person, you should have the answer.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Our defintion of feminism is way different. I do not find mangalsutra as oppresion, i find dowry system an illness which can be cured only if wise people like you try a d understand the problems that come with it, instead of just being a proud Hindu or Indian.
            Yes we are interdependent, but dowry is not interdependency, it is the use of ones weakness for anothers profit.
            I donot think humilty was the answer when Ram or Krisna waged wars, there is a time for everything, I donot have any personal issues with you, maybe when this discussion is over and you become a little flexible, enough to understand the problems of poor women, I would approach you for your wisdom becuase you actually are a learned man, but right now, you are the guy who supports dowry system.

          • guest

            our definition of feminism is different, but you still have not defined it. You have no definition for feminism. In a culture where we always say a Goddesses name before the Gods, we know what feminism is.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            God, I have repeatedly told you my respect for Indian culture. But you are not ready to accept the fact that the religion has been mishandled and is not used or followed in a way it was supposed to be. I have nothing against the Indian culture per se, its just that I can’t turn a blind eye to caste system(again I know it was meant to set an order, but it brought more chaos and cruelty that order, didn’t it?), child marriage, or dowry system for that matter.

            The point remains, you are too proud to accept that once maybe our ideologies flourished and brought order and peace, but right now saying, Radha-Krishna or Sita-Ram doesn’t make someone honest or not a rapist. Again I have first hand experiences with a very corrupt person who prayed for around 2 hours a day and was very learned man, fluent in all the scriptures.

            Aim of life is to be kind to one another, aim of life is to fight against inequality and the bad, it is not to just cram up the scriptures and use them the way you think suits your way of thinking.

          • guest

            your comment: you are too proud to accept that once maybe our ideologies flourished and brought order and peace, but right now saying, Radha-Krishna or Sita-Ram doesn’t make someone honest or not a rapist.

            Respond: How does not talking or stopping to talk about Radha_krishna prevent someone from being a rapist? Please answer.

            All I am saying is, that rape culture is not specific to India. I added s tory that talks about men not getting due punishment. That happens, probably more in the west than in India.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            You do not get the points. You see what you want to see, you understand what you want to understand.
            I meant, EVEN people who claim to be very religious turn out to be worst, so prying and chanting radhe-Shyam need not mean that the person will be a nice one .

          • guest

            Your comment: Again I have first hand experiences with a very corrupt person who prayed for around 2 hours a day and was very learned man, fluent in all the scriptures.

            Response: Not clear. Because I said already that where ever human beings are, there will issues, humans are not perfect, does not mean that it is being fluent in all the scriptures that makes you corrupt. corrupt people are corrupt.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Exactly, so being a learned man doesn’t make you perfect and doesn’t give the default right to ‘correct’ and ‘logical’ opinion.

          • guest

            Your moment: Aim of life is to be kind to one another, aim of life is to fight against inequality and the bad, it is not to just cram up the scriptures and use them the way you think suits your way of thinking.

            Response: Who disagrees with that? Tell me how do you fight against inequality that nature put in? Women have to bear the pain in bearing children…how are you going to make that equal?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            arre bhai, aapse behes karna bekar. Aapko samajhna hi nahi hai. Fine let us leave it when you talk about equality in pain. I think my father has had taken a lot of pain physically and financially in bringing me up, more than my mother suffered one night, that brings equality I suppose. But it is a waste to argue with someone stuck up with the wrong ides of feminism and equality.

          • guest

            Your comment: it is not to just cram up the scriptures and use them the way you think suits your way of thinking.

            Response: Now you make no sense—is everyone who knows about scriptures corrupt? is everyone who does not know scriptures non corrupt?

            Then there is no correlation between the two.

            What you both fail to understand and are too proud to see that you have little logical reasoning.

            Please tell me does a person who knows nothing about scriptures becomes a more trustworthy? and less corrupt?
            If not–then why do you keep bringing that up in a conversation, as if reading scriptures causes a person to be corrupt.

            But all you have to acknowledge which I see you avoiding is that, you are not well read. You have experiences, you know in life. Just like that. Without any concept of sadhna.

            As for degrees and education, I can give you names and women in my family are probably twice as educated as you can even imagine.

            But there is something else that we are raised with ‘discipline’ and learning to say, ‘well, I do not know this, let us have a conversation, and I am ready to learn.’

            You do not want to say that because you are too arrogant. ‘I do this, I know this, I am this, I know it….’

            A zen story, ‘when the student came to the master and kept blabbering.

            The teacher simply asked him to hold a cup. The master poured tea in there. And kept pouring until it was spilling not the ground.

            And the student said, ‘but master the tea is spilling.’

            The master said, ‘you are like the cup, already full, I cannot teach you.’

            Ofcourse, from our conversation, you are going to laugh and say, ‘ha, ha, mr. guest, you the teacher? I would rather….XXX than learn from you.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            1. I was saying that EVEN learned people do not know the true essence of the scriptures.
            2. Twice as educated? Not possible. I can bet on that. But I am saying such a thing because out of nowhere you had to be proud and mean.
            3. In this case I think you are the cup, I have very less book knowledge (as compared to you) but you are so full with yourself you never tried to go out and have a real experience.
            4. You have a bad habit of picking up one word and create an entire fight based on it.

          • guest

            You said: I donot think humilty was the answer when Ram or Krisna waged wars, there is a time for everything, I donot have any personal issues with you, ‘

            Please explain, if you have read the texts, which you insist you have—‘do you know how many chances did both Rama and Krishna give to their opponents so that there will not be any way?’

            And if you do, how do you say that it was Rama and Krishna who waged wars.

            Straight answer please.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Yep I have. The point was to tell you why I’m not being very polite with you, given the fact you support a system I and many Indian women have bad experiences with. The point was not to discuss Mahabharat or Ramayana.
            Secondly, I have seen the ugly face of dowry system when I was just 7 years old, an age when I did not even knew the term ‘dowry’ or ‘system’, so it is not MSM or feminism that has affected my way of thinking.

          • guest

            Your comment: ep I have. The point was to tell you why I’m not being very polite with you, given the fact you support a system I and many Indian women have bad experiences with.

            Did you have a personal experience with dowry? Is the system problematic or is it the people?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            So you are saying is, the people are bad but the system is right? Who actually is practicing the system? It is like, oooh the bangle is beautiful, it doesn’t fit? Cut your wrist to fit it in. Not the fault of bangle, people’s fault. I accept, but then aren’t we supposed to put the bangle down or just use it as a prop to decorate our jewellery box and NOT actually try and wear it. My point exactly, lets leave the system to the scriptures which may be worked in olden times and not in the present society with a swelled up wrist.

          • guest

            Again, you’re not being logical in this. Dowry is not being imposed or asked. Dowry has been illegal since the 1970s. It continues. So, what do you understand by it? and what do you plan to do about it? all that needs to be understood is that it is not completely right or wrong, and not everything can be put in the terms of a law.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Dowry is NOT being imposed or asked? You have really grown up in a ‘all-is-well’ environment. My solution- Start with NOT supporting it.

          • guest

            Btw, nothing to do with scriptures here, so bringing that in this context, completely useless. it has to do with social stability.

          • guest

            Your comment: The point was not to discuss Mahabharat or Ramayana.
            Response: Well, you brought up Rama and Krishna waging wars, and I know that to be untrue, so that needed to be corrected. And still not a word of apology from you, ‘Ah, I did not think that, yes, I did not read much, oh yeah t hey were provoked they did not wage wars.’ None of that….

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Apology for not having read much? Apology for an opinion? One word. Nope.
            And do observe who started with the ‘scripture’ talks and talks about ‘Ram’ and ‘Krishna’.

          • guest

            Ha, ha, I knew!! How about this, Apology or at least humility for having an UNINFORMED OPINION? Opinions are great, but based on some research understanding and studying.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Why don’t you accept the fact that you do not count EXPERIENCES as information enough to form an opinion? Your ego mustn’t allow that.

          • guest

            You know what experiences are important where they are important. You cannot become a phd in chemistry by mixing spices at home. You can have a great understanding of knowing how spice work together. it is an important knowledge.

            When it comes to reading, there are things that happen in how you read and analyse that are important. And sometimes i think hinduism is to be lived more than read. But in today’s world where there is so much misinformation then reading and experiences are both important. One is empty without the other.

          • guest

            Yes, because you do not understand the concept of Rama and Krishna, it took you a minute to say ‘they waged wars’ and yet, ‘i love indian culture.’ Know this that indian culture did not just do anything, it came from centuries of understanding how a society can be stable.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            To “wage war” is to actively engage or participate in warfare, usually after it’s already been declared.

            Nothing wrong in using the term. They retaliated, they did give chance. And YOU need to stop the habit of picking up single words and fighting, labelling and judging people over it.

          • guest

            words are important in an argument and waging war was a wrong term in this context.

          • guest

            Your comment: I have seen the ugly face of dowry system when I was just 7 years old, an age when I did not even knew the term ‘dowry’ or ‘system’, so it is not MSM or feminism that has affected my way of thinking.

            Response: Does the article not talk about the ugly side of dowry system and where law can used? Did you read that part, and if so, then why continue to argue over and over again? With that problem, was just those who asked for dowry who were the issue? or even the ones who felt victimised. Because there has to be a sense. IN rich families dowry is not needed, and if rich people ask for it, there is an issue. But for middle and lower classes it helps.

            Regardless, did you read that the article discusses that? if so, then why continue to argue for the sake of argument?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Not for the sake of argument, but I’m trying to help you acknowledge the evil that comes with such a system. To not justify a system which has done a lot bad in the society. Thank the gods for Raja Ram Mohan Roy, people must have given ‘logical’ explanations for sati pratha too.

          • guest

            Ofcourse, you are helping and I am to learn from you, but you on the other hand should not learn from anyone. correct?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I did learn several things in the process of this argument. But you are not ready to accept the evil side of dowry system, which is keeping this argument going.

          • guest

            Rupal, I explained that somewhere else in the comments. Where I also talked about how it can be bad, dowry can be a curse. But not always, and it can also help people. So, all I am saying and need you to see is, that it can be both.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Thanks for agreeing that gifts are ok, but demand is not. I have been screaming this for a long time now.

          • guest

            You know, if you read the article, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. And that is why I say, you read things with a preconceived idea. You read, but you do not understand. I have seen that with many young people in India who speak english. but oh, they think because they can read, they can understand.

          • guest

            Do you know that Sati was never forced? do you know of other systems where men in the family married widowed women to keep them in the family and take care of them? do you know that invasion of islam increased the cases of sati? do you know that sati was limited mostly to the north of india? and that too in small pockets?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Yep, I know it started with women jumping in pyres to save themselves from getting raped from Muslim invaders, but do YOU know it turned into a cultural thing, where women were forced by learned’ people because it was the right hing to do?

          • guest

            Rupal, here I have little information so will not say that much. I am sure some women were forced but it was all a combination of muslim invasion and women being too proud (a great strong characteristic of Indian women) to be with any other man other than the one they were married to. They did not want to live on anyone else’s charity and were not afraid of ending their lives. Not something I recommend not something I support. And those forced ones are also not right. But seriously when was the last time we had sati. So, we do not let go of customs even when they have ended. there is no sati anymore. has not been for a very long time.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Thank God for RRM Roy. We need some more people to curb the problem of ‘demanded dowry’.

          • guest

            You know what stop idolising Roy, it seems you read one name and keep talking about it. If that were the case we would not had ‘demanded dowries now’. Societies, especially Indian society has always had a self correcting ability. Besides, if you must know Roy did nothing about dowry, he is associating with questioning sati. One should stop at a certain point But you in talking so much has revealed so much of your inadequacies in understanding.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I have come to peace with the fact that it is foolish to keep banging head against a wall. Can’t continue a conversation where people can stoop down to levels of offending, claiming superiority and assuming the other to be an illiterate. I will not give any explanation about my english, why I mentioned RRMR or my reading and understanding of Gita. I will leave it for you to assume. Take Care.

          • guest

            Your comment: Can’t continue a conversation where people can stoop down to levels of offending, claiming superiority and assuming the other to be an illiterate. I

            Response: much of this applies to you Ms. Rupal. But that is fine. If you go back in the comments, when I engaged with you, you were the first one to name call. And conversation always went between YOU and I. it is not about you or I. It is about ideas. And you do not have to explain anything but do say, ‘you do not understand metaphor’ when there is none in your comment.

          • guest

            actually you gave enough evidence, so no need to assume. yes, please take care. I still believe that there is goodness in you but need to drop the anger first. take care and good luck in everything.

          • guest

            And also Roy was one of the first people to help conversions into Christianity and he hated Hinduism. That knowledge young lady, does not come from experience but from reading!!

          • guest

            Please do share which texts have you read, what did you learn and how would you apply those? what solutions did the text provide –or at least the gist of understanding society. Please do share.

          • guest

            there you go, as i suspected. If you say that hindu texts (not religious texts, there you are talking about christianity and islam, they give commandments) then you have not read them.

            And thanks for proving my suspicions –the couplet you mentioned is the most mentioned one I have seen to put hinduism down.

            Also, you forgot the one that talks about pouring molten lead in a shudra’s ears. My god those brahmins are terrible.

            here are a few –if you had cared to read. Tell me again if any book on freedom and political science can match it:

            Where an ordinary person should be fined a small amount, for the same offence king should be fined a 1000 time more.

            A much stricter punishment for the ruler. So the law is not equal there, it is actually harsher for the powerful. You know where that is from? Manu Smriti.

            Another one from ManuSmriti: Where there was a harsher punishment for Brahama:

            A Brahmana, seeking to obtain property from a man who took what was not given to him, either by sacrificing for him or by teaching him, is even like a thief.

            So, you prove my point, that you have not read, not analysed, and are just drunk with the notion that, ‘I know, and it is so great to open about critiquing one’s own culture.’

            This is how feminism works, you criticise hinduism, and Muslim women say all those things with a hijab on their head. And they are protected by feminists.

            Interesting LOGIC.

          • guest

            Here is your problem, ‘people who have read page to page’ You are relying on second hand information.

            Please also tell me if you know the difference between smriti and shruti, then we can move on to the next step. LAWS AND DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE UNDERSTAND INCOMPLETION. YOU DO NOT. AGAIN, YOU DO NOT PICK ONE LINE AND SAY THIS MUST BE BURNT TO ASHES. BASIC WISDOM. Learn to understand the context.

            So, what is a smriti and what is a shruti? what are the differences?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            What are you? An HR? Well I do not want to move on to the next STEP, given the fact I am not prolific in Smritis and Shrutis and scriptures like you are. But then everyone has a different calling, some people like to self absorb in the pride of a lost culture and some want to take steps to change ONLY the bad things in the society (not the entire culture, as you keep claiming that I hate Indian culture, which will never be, no matter how much try to put words in my mouth).

          • guest

            If you are not ‘prolific’ by which you mean you are not well versed, nor have you tried to understand them, then will you be courageous enough to say that you should not hold an opinion about it only from what you have heard?

            And to your comment, whether I am an HR or not. NOT. I am not hiring you. I am bringing home a point, that you are holding opinions about things that you have not explored, nor tried to understand, nor do you have the wisdom. You have much information and some knowledge. Little wisdom. Many opinions. Most of them uninformed.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            HR as in you have a habit of asking more questions than addressing any yourself.
            That is what the fight is against, ‘will you be courageous enough to say that you should not hold an opinion about it only from what you have heard?’. People trying to oppress, trying to convince people to not hold an opinion because they are not a scholar (in olden days we can relate it to how brahmins would not allow outcasts to hold an opinion).
            Well I have had experiences, which many people miss on when reading a book sitting comfortably on a sofa, and that me dear counts. I have seen class toppers being a zero at experimental work, clear example of how society works.

          • guest

            should not hold an uninformed opinion. You did not even know that reason for conflict in ramayana and mahabharta. and said Rama and Krishna waged wars. that is uninformed opinion.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Really, you will just declare that? That I did not know why the wars happened. Go ahead, you won by tiring me out. Repeating myself has taken the toll on me.

          • guest

            Really funny!! No, it is not that you did not know about Ramayana and the related stories that was upsetting. I knew from the get go of the uninformed opinion, it was that you said, ‘I have read the texts’ and then when asked a question and when you could not answer, you did not have the courage to say, Yes, I have really not read them in detail. And I doubt you have read it in any form beyond Amar Chitra Katha.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            You’re a person with pride. I hope you have read Gita before you boast about your ‘wisdom’ and what Krishna says about ‘aham’.
            What questions did you really ask? Let me tell, ‘Why do you think they waged wars?’ ‘ Why do you think they waged wars’, ‘why do you think they waged wars’. You were stuck with this one question and I found it a waste of time to give answers to obvious questions. Keep your assumptions to yourself and your copy of Amar Chitra Katha safe for your future references.

          • guest

            Because I know and I can inform and teach, I have pride? Do you realize that in this interaction you had to get into your own head? Do you see that I did it strategically? That is not pride, I know I was doing. I have done that with many young people as my parents have done it for me. Teachers and gurus are not ‘proud’ they are wise. Waging wars was one question, other were on definition of feminism, myth, pluralistic ignorance, and how to treat dharma traditions, if nature provides equality, and many more. Right…not just one question…

            And here I was thinking that you have wisened a bit. But all upset because I point out a flaw. So, while you are talking to me about ‘aham’ ‘even though I know that you have not read the Gita, why don’t you apply the same principle of ‘pride to yourself?’

            And I doubt you even read Amar Chitra Katha. And sure, I can use them and many other books for references, I do it often.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Again going around assuming that you are the only person to have read Gita. But yes, reading Gita is one thing and making it a way of life is another. You are far from the latter given the fact you preassume things in a blink of an eye.

          • guest

            You know what, I take my words back, I thought you had some decency. You are rude, arrogant, on top of being ignorant. I KNOW YOU HAVE NOT READ the Gita. The one part about ‘aham’ that you talk about is in popular consciousness of India and so everyone uses it. Read your own comments, there is no indication that you have actually absorbed and lived the message of Gita. So, actually, at this point your haughtiness is just ’empty vessel sounding loud’

          • guest

            and I have seen many uninformed people talk like parrots what they have heard from others and think they are very smart.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I guess you love their company to satisfy your ego.

          • guest

            No young lady, I was talking about you and many others. Is it so hard to say, well, I am not that well read and I hold opinions?

          • guest

            Your comment: But then everyone has a different calling, some people like to self absorb in the pride of a lost culture and some want to take steps to change ONLY the bad things in the society (not the entire culture, as you keep claiming that I hate Indian culture, which will never be, no matter how much try to put words in my mouth).

            Response: I did not say that you should have a specific calling. Just that if you know you do not know enough about one thing, do not make comments about it.

            Please explain what you mean by ‘taking pride in lost culture’

          • guest

            Your comment: (not the entire culture, as you keep claiming that I hate Indian culture, which will never be, no matter how much try to put words in my mouth).

            You cannot even come close to understanding Indian culture, ‘if you said, When Rama and Krishna waged wars….’

            If you had read or understood, you would know that they were not waging wars….

            You may love Indian culture, BUT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            To each his own, I will let you have the satisfaction of assuming yourself to be THE one who understands Indian culture.
            BTW if they did not wage wars, what did they do?

          • guest

            SEE THAT IS the question I asked as well. If you had read and understood, you will know that it was not waging wars. It was protecting dharma. Getting back his wife for Rama and Making sure Pandavas got their rightful piece of land in Mahabharata. and in both cases, they approached their opponents and said, we can amicably sort this out. The opponents wanted a war. Many say that it was Ravana’s way of getting moksha. But you would know, if you read. rather than simply hold opinions.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Yep, it was Ravana’s way of getting moksha, some people say, my father does, but let us not believe every single theory. Talking of theories, there is this theory that Mahabharat never happened, that everything is going on inside our human body. But you would know, given that you love theories.

          • guest

            Your comment: Yep, it was Ravana’s way of getting moksha, some people say, my father does, but let us not believe every single theory.

            Response: What is your theory?

            Another question: What is a myth? what is its purpose?

          • guest

            Your comment: Talking of theories, there is this theory that Mahabharat never happened, that everything is going on inside our human body. But you would know, given that you love theories.

            Response: Another indication of your arrogance and not accepting that you are little low on your research and reading area.

            A mere google search would have told you that there are several people who are using astronomical charts to prove that Mahabharata happened.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2010/09/astronomical-proof-mahabharata-war-shri-krishna/

            Another Comment: Whether or not Mahabharata happened, the question still remained that you did not know the basics of the reasons behind the war, and that it was a dharmic reason for fighting and not just war for war’s sake. And that Pandavas and Krishna both tried to avoid the war.

          • guest

            I do not always understand it. What I have found from my experience is that this, ‘that there were always reasons, and we need to learn to use different lenses to understand various aspects of our culture.’ You cannot bring this idea of equality that is a strange western way of thinking they are great. Do you think there is equality when a star son or daughter gets offered acting roles just because their parent is an actor? Both in Hollywood and Bollywood? No, right….but that is highly unequal. What are you doing to do? outlaw it? Equality is almost impossible to attain. Nature creates differences. In IQ, in skills etc. what is important is to learn that every skill has a role to play.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I wish you guys thought of empowering ‘less deserving women’ women than buying men for them.

          • guest

            Rupal, there is sanity and purity and simplicity in marriage. If by empowering you mean she should study. Surely. She should. But that does not take away from the significance of marriage and community that marriage creates. And once again giving dowry is not buying men. And don’t forget not all women want to work. We should not take that privilege from them. See, we need to allow women who wish to stay with their children and raise them to let it be so. Do not, please do not put labels on them ‘like buying husbands..’ Can we not allow them to have that way of their life. That is the problem with feminism. It creates words and labels and does not allow freedom, and then talks about Indian traditions and says they are oppressive.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I agree that women must be allowed whatever they wish for, that is what feminism is about. But sadly there are girls forced to get married and have kids when they do not want to. That is where the problem is. Also some girls have peer pressure to get a job and they do not want to, that is where the problem is. My point is, lets listen to what a girl wants a d not tell her what to do(conditions applied).

          • More whinings. The same thing can be applied to men too. Men also don’t want to work and want to eat and sit in their homes like women but the society and their parents force them to. Hence proved that India needs more meninisms and not feminism. Men are oppressed by making them work while whiny entitled middle class princesses like you get to whine about women oppression while eating from your dad ‘s income.

            Have some self awareness instead of whining and copying whatever your western masters do.

          • guest

            You know what, the problem is not what they are fired the problems is this, MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY WANT. And when they are young they do not realize how stabilising family is. Parents suggest those routes because they know. What do people want to do then? not get married, not have children and do what? have jobs and make merry without being of any use? now if someone wanted to dedicate their life to a cause it would make sense. this empty idea of ‘freedom’ is nonsensical. Look, at this point, I realize you are not capable of understanding much and you have started to become quite rude. I kept decent conversation for this time, thinking may be I was helping or we were moving ahead, but I do wish to continue to talk to someone who has not read, and instead, goes around talking about ‘absorbing the message’ of Gita, even when she is rude. Good bye.

          • guest

            I could young lady, I quoted a few things. I have read both Indian and Non Indian scholars on Hinduism. Houston Smith, is one who tried to work out all religions. There are some others. Carl Jung did some work and Henrik Zimmer. Bhagwad Gita only a couple of times. Ramanayana, not really, but several sections of it. And yet, I consider myself not very well read. Be humble and be honest, that you have to invested in trying to understand them. Like an angry feminist, you are just using words.

            Aisi Bani Boliya, man ka aapa khoy
            Auran ko sheetal kare, app hi sheetal hoye.

            Find out what is sacred in your life, sacred, meaning something you uphold, you guard, you love you surrender to–could be a person, your beloved or your child, your parent and a friend. And when you can understand what that passion can do–you can come close to understanding what the divine is. When you get there, ideas and ideologies fall away. Only action is left. No doing, only acting. That a german philosopher calls a ‘wheel that comes out of its own centre.

            That is the core of Dharma, young lady.

          • guest

            You said: ‘Sure, I am doing action, fighting people oppressing not just women, but children, poor and outcasts. I would like to know, what your dharma is, favoring dowry system? Or else you might not have had such long conversations.’

            Here is the response, if you can understand. By action what was meant was to learn the basic principle of learning. You cannot learn if your head already has opinions and any learning is to fit into those opinions. That is not learning.

            And action here was meant, ‘sadhna’ that comes first. But you have already decided, ‘dowry is bad’ and no amount of reading and understand what others say will change my mind. And Rupal is right, because Rupal believes in equality. There is no way dowry can provide equality. Therefore, I do not need to learn, do any sadhna to understand various viewpoints.

            Then you are talking about outcasts. Seriously? Do not divert the question and let us see how your thinking is both limited and ‘splattered’ Two questions.
            A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE IN THIS CASE.

            1. ‘WILL YOU MARRY AN OUTCAST?’

            2. Are all people equal in their intelligence and physical beauty?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            1. Yes, infact there is a high chance, if my parents have no problem with it, which I do not think they will have.
            2. No. But is that an excuse to promote oppressive practices like dowry or caste system?

            I have not learnt that dowry system is bad, this is getting repetitive now, but you not seem to read this part so I will highlight it this time. I HAVE SEEN MYSELF FOR DOWRY SYSTEM TO BE BAD.

            I keep trying to read more, meditate more, but I have other duties too, I am an amateur in this field, but when it comes to experiences I have many.

          • guest

            See, I asked you only to respond in yes and No. When there is no equality in nature, how do you expect equality in society. There are ways. No one is saying dowry system is for that. Dowry system is for a new couple to start a new life. It is not oppressive.

            Good for you, if you see that you will marry and outcast. I bet the outcast will he highly educated, which in any case, takes away from him being an outcast. coz they are not so, at least economically anymore.

            And so you do rely on your parents’ wishes? Why is it so bad if a girl does not mind her parents giving dowry to her? Your parents wishes are more important?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I would even ask for my friends views. It is not about following a certain protocol, it is about caring for the wishes of your loved ones. I would even ask my mentors before taking a big decision in my life. It has nothing to do with what the scriptures say.
            Equality comes with justice, The least we can try is to bring about a just system for everyone where women are not beaten to death or where men are not accused with fake dowry cases. It is for the betterment of both the genders.

            AGAIN: Giving and receiving gifts I am ok with, demanding and receiving ‘gifts’, I’m not.

          • guest

            Your comment: I would even ask my mentors before taking a big decision in my life. It has nothing to do with what the scriptures say.

            It is not always what the scriptures say, but many times, the scriptures have thought of thousands of years and t here is much wisdom in it that can be applied, if we have taken the time to learn.

          • guest

            ABSOLUTELY AGREED WITH ON THE FOLLOWING AND THAT IS WHAT THE ARTICLE IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH TOO.

            AGAIN: Giving and receiving gifts I am ok with, demanding and receiving ‘gifts’, I’m not.

          • guest

            And here, will you have the courage to acknowledge that you are not completely right in believing that women in the west get justice.

            Here from the guardian.
            http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/stanford-sexual-assault-judge-recall

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I sadly acknowledge that, which is why feminism is for the entire globe, not limited to only Indian women.

          • guest

            You see, if we were to go back to our own culture, we do not need foreign crazy ideas where, they were taught that women came out of man’s ribs.

            There is no comparable concept of shakti in the west. The reason we have problems in India is not because of hinduism, it is because for a 1000 years we have been under foreign rule.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I have been saying that when I said- Let us not connect these practices with Indian Culture, maybe they fit in olden times, but they do not now’. European scholars claimed, women were undeveloped men. We had the likes of Indira Gandhi and Sarojini Naidu way before, when America still struggles to accept a woman leader.
            That all I know and accept, the point is not to overlook the bad things that evolved through time in this culture.

          • guest

            Rupal, you have started to open up. Look, all I am trying to tell you is that equality is not achievable. It is an illusion, it does not exist. Learning to use a lens that is oriented from our community oriented cultures is different. Learn, read and go back. Did the Indian culture get degenerated? yes, but it is open to reform. Always has been. Work from that perspective.

          • guest

            Your comment: I keep trying to read more, meditate more, but I have other duties too, I am an amateur in this field, but when it comes to experiences I have many.

            question: Please explain what you mean by you have ‘many experiences’ and please explain how having those experiences means you are at par with those who read or meditate?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            So now I get the pattern, more questions, less answers. Do you notice all your responses start with ‘Please explain’.
            Someone who has never eaten curd, how much ever you try to explain the taste of curd they will not get it, how much ever they read about the taste of curd, they will not get it. But someone who has tasted the curd will know it forever.

          • guest

            I ‘explained’ what I am asking you. And you are getting irritated mainly because you have not thought that far. All I am trying to do is to point out the gaps in your thinking.

          • guest

            The taste of curd or a lichi…..does not matter. It actually applies to you as well. But mainly it applies to you because you cannot explain what you mean by ‘many experiences’ but you want me to take it at face value, that you have had experiences and so it is ok that you do not go within or try to read and analyse and understand. It is like trying to get a degree by reading magazines and chatting at coffee stands.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I do not find it apt to share personal family related issues, specially which can spoil someone else’s image on a social platform. I myself am bold enough to use my own identity, NOT MADINDIAN, or YUGPARIVARTAN, or GUEST. But when it comes to taking someone-else-from-my-family’s name, I would rather be called a liar.

            I find it amusing how you didn’t acknowledge the beautiful example of how experiences matter.

          • guest

            Agreed on that, and I did not mean you reveal anything. It was a generic question not a specific one. I would never expect you to reveal anything about your family. YOU DID RIGHT. but it was never expected of you.

          • guest

            Ms. Rupal, please explain the meaning of feminism and I can prove to you that better freedom and rights are allowed to women in hinduism. Dharma needs to be understood properly. It is not a dictate, like feminism is, it is a system that rectifies itself from within. Please do explain what is feminism….

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I would say gender equality. I do not support when society tells men to be more deserving to get a better wife or vice versa, or when society tells, ‘real’ men do not cry. I have sympathies for all the wrong the society does against men. It is also disturbing how men getting raped is not as serious an issue as a woman getting raped. But people who have pre-assumptions about the true meaning of feminism are hard to explain. A clear example of pluralistic ignorance.
            Yes, women ARE given better rights in Hinduism, I am talking about how much is being practiced in reality, not just the written words.

          • guest

            First, it is good to debate and talk, and learn and engage. Next, I might be really busy at work for the next few days so my engagement might be slow,but this is a favourite activity of mine. Talking to the young 🙂 Because this has been my path as well.

            So what do you mean by gender equality? Can you force it? Can you agree that men and women have different roles to play in developing and establishing a society? especially a civilisation like India? Do you know that women have a higher status than men in Indian civilisation, because Indian civilisation is feminine?

            As for the practice, well, do you think practice will become better by imposing laws? Has it so far? Women in the west, as was mentioned in a comment here, do not have to bring any dowry, in fact, they may not even have a wedding, intact they may have children before that, you know, just like an accident. Do you think, men stick there better or longer? do not cheat? and most importantly do not beat their women? If it was a hindu problem, why would you have such a high case of violence. in fact, it is a lot less in India.

            Do you realize that in dowry cases it is mostly women against women? it is mother in laws that create the most ruckus?
            Do you realize that today with the dating culture, women will be more against women, because they will be vying for the same men?

            That real men do not cry, is only a western thing, just like saying marriage is a piece of paper. Watch Ramayana, Lord Rama cries, a good bit, first for his father, then for his wife, and then for leaving her, for he has a higher ideal. The subjects. He lets go of his own desires, and needs, and cares for the subjects. Our politicians today could learn much from it. Some men cry and some don’t. See Lord Rama cry when Laman becomes unconscious—-but on the other hand Laxman does not cry, for he is shesha naga, he holds the earth on his head, he is the foundation. Lord Rama is the nurturer. The life giver.

            NOw, this thing of men getting raped not being serious issue. First, many more women get raped. Around the world. Now, even if feminists tell you all is the same, men are generally more easily excitable than women. That is why casual sex hurts women more than men. And so, women are more at danger when it comes to rape. There is such a thing as ‘organic ways of looking at things’. Women getting raped is truly a bigger issues. Prostitution, which is both for men and women is more a women issue than men. It just is.

            Technically, blacks in the US have all the rights, in the constitution, technically, but do they?

            technically, hindus are the majority, but they get no special admissions in places like the christians an in some places, nor special subsidies for pilgrimage like the muslims. Technically hindus are the majority and hence the oppressors, technically…..

            So, now the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION….please tell me which hindu texts have you read, in what language and how many times have you read one text and here is what I would really like to know, can you summarise some for me in a few sentences. And we will take it from there. Thanks for engaging and being open to learning, even if it means questioning your ideas.

          • guest

            Great, I said I knew you and not read much. Please tell me the origin and meaning of the word Myth, and I will explain to you how it is not the way the west has understood it. Please let us have this discussion, One of my favourite topics.

          • guest

            Do you know that in manusmriti (I think, I have forgotten which one now)–it says, ‘ a country that does not respect women will never rise?

            Women were alway the decision makers. Do you acknowledge that the last 1000 years we have had foreign rulers? and hence Hinduism has truly not been practiced?

            And you still forgot to tell me the essence, of the hindu texts that you have read, because if you understood that, you would not be arguing here.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            So when I said that Hinduism is not bejng practiced in its true form, and when I pleaded you not to relate religion with stupid practices, you were ready to rebuke, but now you say the exact same thing. My charm must be working. Charm as in my ‘power of argumenting’.

          • guest

            Ok, problem with words. You never pleaded. And I never rebuked. And no, you never really used your charm. Had you done so, it might have worked. Please this is a perception problem.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            You must be weak at understanding sarcasm and or metaphors.

          • guest

            Actually, this time, it is you who has an issue. Frankly, I did not want to say it because english is really not our language. but you have picked up words, but your command of language is actually quite poor. You throw in words without understanding what they actually mean. Please tell me how when you say, ‘I pleaded’ does it become sarcasm or a metaphor for that matter?

          • guest

            I am going to respond to this comment of yours, in sections. Since you loose the point in a longer note.

            Can we kimdly keep mythology, astrology etc outside of a discussion which talks about ‘is dowry system justifiable in today’s indian society?’

            Please, as asked before, define myth? and do you know the difference in the way it is used in Indian context and another way it is used in western context?

          • guest

            Now to next part in your comment: ‘I respect Ram for many a things but then setting up an example that if society doubts your wife, ask her to leave, that is where i start questioning things. It did hurt him, he did fight a great war just for her, but only to leave her just because the society won’t accept?

            Is that what happened? That he was just caring for society? Please explain to me and I will explain to you what happened, in context, rather than getting angry at something you do not understand and look at it from present sense of lenses.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            You ask more questions than answer. The proper protocol should be ‘Let me tell you that Ram didn’t do it for society, he did it because….’. But instead you will ask questions and enjoy the feeling of self satisfaction of being a ‘learned’ man.

            Btw is reading all the means to learn? Do experiences count?

          • guest

            What experiences will you cite and say, because i have had this experience, I understand Lord Rama better?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Not with Rama, dowry system. You keep getting derailed from the main topic.

          • guest

            NO Ms. Rupal, I did not get derailed, go back and read your comments, you brought one too many things. When I said you have not read, you said, ‘but I have experiences’ what is that supposed to mean? are they connected?

          • guest

            I ask questions because you are making broad generalised statements and not realising how many gaps are there between what you are saying. If you were analytical enough, as you claim to be, you would pick on that. That what i am doing is pointing towards the gap in your ideology

          • guest

            You said: ‘There are somethings you feel only if you are a woman, you won’t be able to relate to the pain Sita or in that case Radha felt.’

            What pain did Radha feel? please tell me and I will tell you a story.

            Have you ever been in love? IN love, you do not think of pain. Loving deeply is pain. The fact that bollywood and hollywood shows it all as happiness is only one tenth of the story. Sita went through pain for a very short time. If you see, she is the Goddess, she evokes mother earth and reruns to her ‘home.’. It is Lord Rama who goes through pain. First in looking for her, then in living without her.

            Do you realize unlike the kings of his time, He NEVER had another woman?

            What pain did Radha go through?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            The problem is you take mythologies too seriously, I believe in Brahm, I follow some customs, but I do not find it very logical to believe all the stories written by mere humans, maybe the Gods walked the earth, maybe they didn’t.
            I believe in higher power, formless, the one talked about in the Purush Sukta.

          • guest

            Did you define myth yet? what is mythology in the western concept and what is it in the eastern concept.. Because when you say, ‘you take mythology too seriously, you are talking from a western perspective.’

            can you define mythology from eastern perspective. Do you know our sanskrit word for it?

          • guest

            Did not ask you about what you believe in, but it is nice to know that you about Purush Sukta. I asked you to define myth.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Lovely how you mock in such subtle way.

          • guest

            what exactly am I mocking here?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Unproven stories= Myth. They can also be called theories(in science).

          • guest

            Not really. Myth has a combination of both truth and untruth. Ramayana is not really a myth. There are many evidences. But it happened so long ago. And yet, the way our culture works, it is not important whether it happened or not. Indians are open minded people so they say that it is ok if someone calls it a myth. is the culture that comes down to us from Ramayana, which helps us understand the value of sacrifice–really a myth? we live it……only in India today we actually live our ancient myths. There are many western myths, but they are not ancient, just a creation of a modern world.

          • guest

            Your comment: But then again these are great mythologies but the problem is that Indian men learn a lot from them and seeing such examples just hurts me and i wonder what our sons are going to learn.

            Response: Sons are going to learn to have only ONLY ONE woman in al lifetime.

            That there is a higher order of things, and they are mere men, in a larger order. And that their personal wishes are smaller compared to that larger order.

            That you will fight to protect your wife, even with the mightiest of kings.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Yes, that they will learn, that is what I am proud of. But not all stories are pretty, are they?

          • guest

            Rupal, what does that mean? Not all stories are pretty? Stories are not supposed to be pretty. That is what makes them. They have good bad and ugly characters. That goes for stories all over the world.

          • guest

            Your comment: Again higher status than men in Indian civilisation?Response: Yes, it is for that reason that people were afraid of Draupadi giving a curse to the clan. It is for that reason that Ravana could not come near Sita.

            It is for that reason that Shiva jumps when Uma says so!! It is for that reason that men brought their entire salaries and gave to their mothers and their wives, who were often less educated, but much wiser then them.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Response: Why a situation like gambling keeping one’s wife at stake come to it? Were only the Kauravas in the wrong when they decided for a chir-haran? Why is it that Draupadi forgave the Pandavas? She wasn’t oppressed, but they did try though. So you see, even in those days there were reason why Sita had to stay within Laxman rekha, because the world outside was not safe.
            As per Shiva, I find him to be the best of all Gods, as in an example set for generations, but maybe it was because he was the ardhnarishwar, so he understood nari more.

            I acknowledge that, but we are not talking about those happy families, are we? We are talking about the families where men beat up women for dowry.

            Yet again I have to repeat: I am not against gifts given by parents of either the bride or the groom, given with love and care. I am against demands made and painstakingly fulfilled. That is what dowry is, a gift is NOT a dowry.

          • guest

            Your comment: Why a situation like gambling keeping one’s wife at stake come to it?

            Response: Now we are talking. A very good point. By the time Mahabaharat happened, there was already degeneration in human character. Draupadi, for that reason is the strongest of characters, as is Karan in the epic. Draupadi condemns the whole clan. That is the point, she stands up and everyone is ashamed. Why does that happen? Because of a point of weakness. And that is one major point in Mahabharata. That gambling and other weaknesses can make us loose the point.

            Now tell me this, what would the story if all had gone well? Or do you mean that gambling is shown in a great light somehow, because it is not.

          • guest

            Your comment:As per Shiva, I find him to be the best of all Gods, as in an example set for generations, but maybe it was because he was the ardhnarishwar, so he understood nari more.

            Response: AGREED. And seriously, this is personal, that is the freedom that Hinduism gives. You will be attracted to different qualities for you it is shiva. Great!!

          • guest

            your comment: So you see, even in those days there were reason why Sita had to stay within Laxman rekha, because the world outside was not safe.

            Response: Young lady, the world outside is hardly ever safe, not in India, not outside. Believe me! Hence the value of family and a support system.

          • guest

            Your comment: Yet again I have to repeat: I am not against gifts given by parents of either the bride or the groom, given with love and care. I am against demands made and painstakingly fulfilled. That is what dowry is, a gift is NOT a dowry.

            response: AS BEFORE, AGREED. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF NAME THEN. IT IS AFTER ALL A GIFT. 🙂

          • guest

            Your comment: ‘but does that give an excuse to girl trafficking, forced prostitution, calling them ugly or less deserving? I am talking about real world and not reel/scripture world. And sinve we are on that better, I preferred reading Ramayana than watching it.

            Response: Is sex trafficking only a part of Indian culture? If not, then this part of the conversation does not belong to our interaction. You are mixing several ideas, and I can see your thinking is not developed.

            So which scripture is promoting prostitution? if not then you saying ‘I am talking about real world and not scripture world is a nonsensical comment.-‘

            Sure Read the Ramayana, I agree with it. I do not think that you will find a happy Rama there, who is happy that his wife has gone missing. He sheds tears and the concept that men do not cry is not an Indian concept.

            Now A SIMPLE YES OR NO WOULD BE FINE IN THE FOLLOWING QUESTOIN:

            1. are all people equally beautiful? both men and women? are they?
            2. Are all people equally deserving? should everyone in a class get an A? just because all is equal? does the real world work that way?

            A simple yes or no please.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Just answer me- Why in the name of god you keep connecting religion to the evil practices in the society?
            Why are all my points regarding the things going bad in the society starts with’Which scripture said that’?
            I am not fighting over religion, I am a proud Hindu who has defended and kept points when people have tried to look upon Hinduism as a pagan religion or called names. So please stop labelling me as someone I am not.
            Also kindly stop saying the same things again and again, I like to reply once, this repeating myself thing is tiring me out. (is that the plan? to tire me out?)

            1. No. But is that your point to support dowry system?
            2. NO. Those who work hard deserve an A. But does that give the A graders the right to demean the ‘f’ graders?

            Do answer me, because you quote my answers more an ask for explanation than answering the questions I ask.

          • guest

            Your comment: Just answer me- Why in the name of god you keep connecting religion to the evil practices in the society?

            Response: Nope am not doing that. You are not reading right. Please tell me how, and I will give you a reason of how that came about. And I will not be shy of even apologising young lady.

          • guest

            Your comment: I am not fighting over religion, I am a proud Hindu who has defended and kept points when people have tried to look upon Hinduism as a pagan religion or called names. So please stop labelling me as someone I am not.

            response: good for you, and proud of you!!

          • guest

            Your comment: Also kindly stop saying the same things again and again, I like to reply once, this repeating myself thing is tiring me out. (is that the plan? to tire me out?)

            Response: NO plan here. But you are assuming that this has been fun for me. Because……….

          • guest

            Your comment: NO. Those who work hard deserve an A. But does that give the A graders the right to demean the ‘f’ graders?

            Response: Ok, so that I agree with. Now, the problem is not the grading system right? We need the grades, and we need divisions, and hence inequality. But yes, we need to learn to respect people and learn that they may have other abilities. That is where the problem lies. So the problem is in the language when we try to create equality. Instead what we need is compassion. Understood?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Exactly my point. Thanks for understanding finally. But still, being an F grader or an A grader does not create inequality, it is just a way to analyse how much student studied and mugged up (specially considering indian educational system )that subject.

          • guest

            Your comment:Thanks for understanding finally

            My response: A very dear quote from a very dear author: When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. Mark Twain

          • guest

            A grades and F grades do not create but reflect inequality. They reflect IQ, and/or hardwork.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Yup. My point exactly.

          • guest

            NO, actually not, that was not your point, you kept ranting that we need to bring equality and I kept telling you that that is an impossible goal. Apples and oranges should be enjoyed as they are —bringing equality is impossible but in wanting that we also kill the natural essence of apples and oranges.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            But didn’ you just say ‘Getting an A or an F brings inequality in class?’ In your previous comment to which I responded to.

          • guest

            See, I said you do not understand or write english very well. I said, ‘Grades mean that there is something about the student that is at that level right? meaning that is an inherent inequality. I never said, Grades create inequality. I said they are a reflection of inequality. As I said, your comprehension power is not very high. You might be able to type and read english, but you do not understand it.

          • guest

            Your comment: No. But is that your point to support dowry system?

            Response: Good, we agree on the first part. So, here is the thing, some people are not that intelligent, and some are not that pretty. No one has the right and no one should put them down. But in a world where everything is weighed, may eb because others are not as nice as you are. Not as kind, and not as thoughtful (I do respect you for engaging in this, so you may also learn some. if you had stopped it would not happen. so good job). Now, some men, are practical and might want a woman of good character and some means, so that they can get a start. They are nice and can start their life together.

            can people abuse that? sure. Can some be very honest, absolutely. There is no way to know.

            But if we outlaw dowry, then the women and men who are simple and have very simple ideas about starting their lives are left on their own, and have little way of starting together. At your age you might think that money is not important, but believe me it is very very important. And so, when the young couple gets something to start, a girl who does not work feels she contributed to the family. Guys parents bring something and there you have a decent life.

            now for those who beat women or kill them or demand dowry, they have be behind bars, for their entire lifetimes.

            Are we good now? see the whole point, which took oh so long, was to make you see that. That dowry serves a purpose but it is important to recognise it. Someone in our family in an arranged marriage situation realized that within months of engagement that the family was greedy. Now, it took foresight, the family talked the connection was broken and a new person found. It worked out. If we had gone with the other ones –the greedy ones, yes they are to be blamed, but so were we, for we saw the problem and did not do anything. In this day and age, we must be very careful.

            if you see the old arranged marriage sy stem, it was always done within families who knew each other or had common friends, that way you and an understanding of family history. Today with the internet, it has become difficult . and it is the duty of parents to make sure that all the procedure is done well.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Wisdom comes from experience, bookish knowledge is not going to be helpful in a long run.

          • guest

            agreed but reading books will make your experience even more exciting and make your arguments stronger.

          • guest

            Your comment: do not really want to get into stats, as in the women who are physically abused in India and those in western culture, who actually get justice in the end, do indian women sue more than western women?

            Response: Stats in this case are important. What do you mean by justice? do you mean that rapists are sentenced? well, they would first have to prove that it was a rape, in many cases women were drinking with their partners and to even prove that they were raped is very hard. That is where statistics and understanding the complexity becomes very important.

            Your comment: Do indian women even accept and say it out loud since it is a family secret? There is more to it than meets the eye.

            Response: You mean the women do not talk about being raped? There might be some truth to it. It is not a secret, but yes it is a taboo. Believe me it is in the west as well. You should read the reports of many women who go through the trial. They feel so exhausted at the end, that sometimes it is not worth it. It depends on how you look at it Rape is an act of aggression. Happens everywhere. Still a lot less in India, even including those cases that people say do not get reported. All in the west are not reported either. Nor is justice served. This is a conversation that does not go anywhere as there are too many things influencing the situation.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Yes I know America has one of the highest number of rapes per year, but why are we even comparing? Our problem is dowry system, let us deal with it. Yes it is a PROBLEM.
            I have never supported western culture, never have never will, I have never supported dowry system, never have never will… again…. why? Experiences.

          • guest

            Great, and also about the dowry explained in another comment. Great we are in agreement over a few things. good.

          • guest

            Your comment: I do not think there is any need to mention books I have read to a person who supports dowry system.

            Response: See the arrogance. You do not want to acknowledge that you are not well read. Instead you are saying that because I support dowry system I am not worthy of your respect. Is that what your parents taught you?

            Here is something to think about. I do not support dowry system. I understand it.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I have by now, humbly acknowledged several times, that no, I have not read as many books as you. But I think it is high time you acknowledge the fact that you have NOT had and bad experiences with dowry, oppression or any other bad side of these practices.

          • guest

            NO worries, you seem young and feisty and ready to learn. Always a good place to start. 🙂

            PS: even though I do not want to talk about, there was one experience that was bad in the family. Only one, but it was there. And it was rectified. I am not saying that dowry cannot be a problem. But you see we have to be vigilant. Shaadi is not a joke. our ancestors put much research in it, and it needs to be done even today. may be more today.

          • guest

            I smiled at your mention of the ‘pluralistic ignorance’ a favourite term of mine!! So do explain to me what you mean by it.

            Also, still need to explain feminism….gender equality….is an issue from countries where they God was a man, not in India….I hope you could understand, feminism in India will ruin the grandness that Indian woman has always been….

            But yes, let us start with definitions.

            Pluralistic ignorance and Feminism. (keeping in mind what I told you about the real men don’t cry not an Indian phrase…

          • guest

            I do not need to google a term that is thrown around and understood little. you did not explain to me either pluralistic ignorance nor feminism. Please display your academic abilities here. Ofcourse, you can have some other person write it for you and I will never know. But that is what it is, too much anger and not enough substance.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Exactly. Because people go around using terms without knowing their meaning?

            The thing is you like mocking people or else if you already know the meaning why would you ask a question like that. I refuse to give in to mockery, I refuse to answer you a question which is clearly aimed at judging my ‘academic abilities’.

          • guest

            You still have neither defined Feminism, nor pluralistic ignorance. That comment about people not understanding the terms was applied towards you Ms. Rupal.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            I am losing this war against repetition now. Done with repeating myself, kindly go through all the comments above.

          • guest

            No one is judging your academic abilities, it is you who kept talking about your academics.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            When in heaven’s name did I say that. I have said I have read a few books, NOT many, I have said I am scientifically brainy (upon being called a dumb, stupid, fool). If defending your views is a sin. I am a sinner.

          • guest

            Look, you are entitled to an opinion, all I said was when holding strong opinions look at all corners of its foundations.

          • guest

            Feminism is equality for both men and women, google it for more.

            how so? this is too simplistic a suggestion. Please tell me when men can start having children that it will be equal—or women learn to do all the things that were not considered good about men, drinking, smoking and the rest to be equal…is that what you mean?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Equality means men having children.
            I thought you were sensible, just a little away from the harsh reality of real life, but now I see you will say anything and everythhing just to keep making points.

            You are not right to support dowry system. Do not relate dowry sytem to Indian Hindu Gods. That is the jist. Have a good life.

          • guest

            You see Ms. Rupal, two things. There are too many ‘I’s’ and ‘You’s in your comments.

            And your level of understanding is not very deep.

            When it was pointed out that equality would mean men having children, the point was that nature does not make things all equal, nature endows us with various responsibilities. We are different. Should we be treated the same. Yes, absolutely. Is it almost impossible, yes absolutely. And do you know why? Please answer this, because again dharma traditions have come up with an answer. For these traditions have studied human consciousness for thousands of years.

            So 2 questions.

            1. do you see equality in nature? because believe me nature is much stronger than any social system you can organize. Do you see equality in nature?

            2. What are the ways dharma traditions say we can bring equality?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            1. No I don’t, but i don not see injustice as well.
            2. I do not belong to the Hindu right wing.

            Those studies, those scriptures that you so proudly refer to, they ere for a different time and era, not when things have gotten out of hand.

            Yes it is impossible to be treated in the same way. Why? Because proud people love oppressing not just women, but poor and children as well.

          • guest

            your comment: No I don’t,(see inequality in nature) but i don not see injustice as well.

            response: what would you call a lion eating a lamb? cat pouncing on a mouse? It happens and it is nature. People are not different. Family, culture and civilisation train us to be different that is when we become human and hence such an important placement on family values in our culture.

          • guest

            My question: What are the ways dharma traditions say we can bring equality?

            your response: 1. I don’t, belong to the hindu right wing.

            is that an answer? so are you not being narrow minded here. to see something through dharma is being right wing? also you still did not answer this. which means you have not thought this far. Ok, now you can start thinking about it….

          • guest

            Again do not twist words. Not supporting dowry system, trying to make you understand how dowry system can support society–

          • guest

            A question was asked, you never answered. ‘How is poverty in India connected to Indian idea of savings’?

          • guest

            What is pluralistic ignorance? please explain.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Being a sheep, in your heart you, me, we all know what is right, but still going on with the teachings of society(because a lot of them say it is right, it might be) and not accepting our own private logic.
            Not let us stop with the mocking shall we? Why not you give your own views before posting questions like “Ms so and so, since you have used this word, explain it’. Not here to give a viva.

          • guest

            You know what, if you are going to exchange in a dialogue and use all these words, you know to learn to engage respectfully. When you start to say, ‘not here to give viva’ you are basically showing both that you are impatient and that you are unwilling to show that your knowledge is limited. Mostly to definitions and from wiki.

            What is the logic in your heart? What is right? to argue about Indian scriptures when you know that you have not read them? is that logical?

          • Rupal Srivastava

            It is pointless to talk if you tell my personal views to be a definition from wiki (now that you are stumped).

    • guest

      may be read, and absorb, before you react would be a wise and yes, logical way of going about it…

      • Rupal Srivastava

        I read, but still there are a few points which I just cannot make myself to agree with. I have had first hand experiences with dowry related situations and let me be very honest when i say that it is not pretty. It is one of the ugliest hidden faces of society which is so deep rooted that it runs through the veins of educated people like you and me. It is also true that we try to look at the positive looking explanation to a cultural system which can also be connected to a religious practice, and when it comes to religion we can even look for logical explanations for child marriage, sati pratha, caste system etc. But at the end of the day the truth is, maybe there is a logical explanation to everything wrong with the Hindu Indian society but right now things aren’t as they were (maybe) supposed to be, the logic did not work out in a logical way, instead it has wounded the system so bad that even if it is healed the scars will take ages to go. The article is logical, just like there is a logic behind why ISIS was formed (for its members there’s a logic) but then we can’t keep caking up the ugly face with fancy (read as logic) makeup, can we? Anyways, thanks for asking me to read, I did, and the article does feel like an oasis in desert.

        • Yuga Parivartan

          You don’t deserve an answer because you brought in the stupidity of justifying ISIS, but lets still try to give a rebuttal.

          1) Dowry is just a way to divide ancestral property. Just because it is ancient does not make it uncool. Presence/absence of dowry would not change much. Some women will still be harassed and some men will still get mental breakdown due to marriages. Look up stats on assault on women in western marriages. There is no dowry but still many men end up beating their wives. So, it is not dowry specific problem. You have given into propaganda.

          2) Why do you want to take away the right of fathers and brothers who want to help their daughter/sister to get a better match. You are brainy as you called yourself in above comment, but not everyone is. I do not see a problem with some family helping their ugly and less smart daughter get a better groom by paying some dowry. It is natural that some people are bful and smart and it is not a mistake of those who lost the lottery of nature to get better iq and looks. Society will always place value on it whether it is arranged marriage market or any other dating market. So don’t be judgemental on people who want to help their daughters and sisters.

          There is too much propaganda around dowry. Most Indian marriages still use some/other form of it. Many people already give away ancestral property during wedding and one should not have a problem with it. We should focus on post marital abuse to get better result rather than blaming dowry for everything. No dowry environment does not give better results as seen by wife beating cases in west.

          • Rupal Srivastava

            My small stupid brain is unable to comprehend the fact that there actually are people in the society who can favor ‘dowry’ or in your words ‘look at it in a logical’ way.

            Bringing ISIS was to compare the fact that people can give ‘logical’ reasons for the most heinous of crimes then why not this.

            Western culture has a total different way of living and bringing up, they are not already burning from the fires of child marriages and caste system, and taking their culture to compare post marital abuse in India clearly tells that you have read less about the history and evolution of the Indian-subcontinent and had more self acclaimed logical thoughts by discussions in closed rooms or even maybe public stages where more or less everyone was a sheep.

            My point is it will be better to have a thorough study of the formation of this modern day Indian culture and what all problems we are facing, and strictly not use just your logic and consider it to be the truest and only argument around by overseeing other inter-connected bigger problems.

            When you call someone ugly you lose my respect as well as of many. I am happy that everyone I forwarded this article to (all the men) they found it as childish as I did.

            Looks like an essay written by a class 7th student. Bring in more stats, get less offended, read more history, then maybe we can talk.

            P.S. The discussion from my end ends here. Good luck.

          • Yuga Parivartan

            Too bad you can’t even refute arguments of 7th class kid!

            “My small stupid brain is unable to comprehend the fact that there
            actually are people in the society who can favor ‘dowry’ or in your
            words ‘look at it in a logical’ way.”
            ———————————————————————————–
            Above quote is proving a result by assumption. Dowry is bad coz I(proud feminist) said so.
            Or in bollywood language-

            Teza main hu, mark idhar hai!!!

          • guest

            what is this reference to? Teza and mark? I was trying to google and understand…..

        • guest

          In some situations surely dowry is not pretty. But in the article addresses that issue. I think you are not getting the point, for women who are not ambitious this is a way of having a decent life. So, the other side, let me tell you from having some societies, mostly India and references from out of India from relatives and friends. The situation that women have to run after men and do whatever they want is not pretty. Most women get used, starting very young. Often they are left with no identity and money is the only identity which they earn. While it sounds all exciting, the end effect is that ‘you need money’ to live on. This idea that it must be earned where everyone in the family must work only breaks families due to stress. Just check out the state of families. The ultimate effect is breakdown of society.

          As for connection to religious practice—not true. Dowry is an important part of many African and middle eastern cultures. And the rich, regardless of religion often give huge gifts to their daughters. It is often the parents of daughters that give gifts, while sons are supposed to inherit. Even in countries where both girls and boys can inherit.

          Here, you also show that you have a dislike for hindu society. I personally have understood it to be a much wiser and better society. While child marriage can be questioned today, it comes from a time when people did not live long. Besides, believe it or not, marriage and family is needed. When you break that, you get societies—like the Prozac nation. Nothing is sacred and everything must be analyzed, and dissected.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QWM_Kni6l0

          I disagree that the system is bad. Especially the hindu society. I am a hindu, took me some time to get there. Men do not follow religion these days. But it was much reading much analyzing and much pondering on society. Have you read any Hindu philosophy? How many books and texts have you read? Not just the religious ones, and prescribed? Have you pondered on it? Much of what we are learning is western knowledge. And look what the 60s gave to the US. Pestilence!! Europe survives on doles. Meaning relationships are dispensable. A good profession to make money is being a psychologist. Imagine a society, where you have to do everything, run looking for a mate, plan your own wedding, pay for your wedding, and then run a household without the help of large families.

          If you are comparing this article with ISIS, what is there to say….

          And for me, I know just as many people who do not want to take dowry or take very little. So, the problem is not the system, it is the people. And even for that Hinduism has a solution. Much of introspection, meditation and going within. But we do not have the time. We use our minds, which are like swords. They cut, and slice, but are lost when it comes to preparing something healthy, and since they are not like ‘ladles’ they cannot serve anything. Only cut and slice.

          Think about it princess, dowry helps many simple, plain women. And it also helps some simple men get a start. How much and the demand of it, is where the problem is. It is the people and their greed, not the dowry. Good, you read it. Thanks for listening ☺

          • Rupal Srivastava

            Thank you for mentioning since I got to mention that yes not only have I read many prescribed and religious scriptures but also several philosophical ones. I have grown up in a very scholarly kind of environment which I am thankful for as it gave me the opportunity to analyse the ‘religion’ and ‘culture’ I belong to. My parents are religious, I on the other hand, spiritual. I believe in god, I visit temples and follow several harmless religious practices like performing aarti daily etc. But when it comes to follow something blindly just because the society told me to or maybe some xyz gave a logical explanation to it, is not my forte.
            You guys are not getting my point, my point is direct and simple. Demand and Supply. This is an endless loop, until we keep giving the option of dowry there will be no searching for any other means to make oneself a better person. Necessity is the mother of invention, everyone knows that and since everyone is giving examples from the western culture, we very well know why they industrialised and are ages ahead of us today.
            I can understand when you say that it gives ‘less deserving’ girls better grooms, that you belong to a class of special people who believe to look for temporary solutions. You are overlooking the main solution, i.e., making ‘less deserving’ girls into ‘more deserving’ girls. Now you think that a guy who has married a ‘less deserving’ girl out of his greed or maybe even necessity is going to give her the kind of respect every human deserves? No. Which is why let us support empowerment of both men and women and stop supporting dowry system.
            Now you said dowry (or as you say parents giving their daughters ‘gifts’) is given even in rich families, which is very true, but then again did you even think about families who are obliged and forced to give dowry? Well those are the people in serious trouble, let us not look at fancy examples since dowry or no dowry, rich people get affected the least, it is the middle class and poor people who are in grave danger.

            In the end, it will be fun if you visit the remotest of Indian village and ask the poor father of a daughter of how happy and stress relieving it is to prepare for her dowry. Also do ask poor kids working in dhabas and tea stalls of how much they love their life. Or a talented poor girl who maybe wanted to be a singer but was married off at the age of 13. Stop giving stupid ancient explanations like dieing young for child marriage, maybe it worked in those days, maybe, but does it work now? Kindly stop being a snob. I have no love for western culture, but i have no love for cruel and cheap Indian practices which are unfortunately connected to religion (by people). I know the society was built up logically but it has turned ugly and it is high time we accept it. We can’t ingest an expired medicine , can we?

          • guest

            Also, you make a good point.’.But when it comes to follow something blindly just because the society told me to or maybe some xyz gave a logical explanation to it, is not my forte.’

            Not asking you to follow anything blindly, and that is why this article explained several things. But you seem to be saying ‘yes, this is logical but no dowry is only bad.’ They are not saying that it is good, they are explaining how in the long run, it can lead to some sort of stability. Remember dowry idea also allows parents to save some for daughters. That ability to save alone is a very asian trait, especially Indian. which has prevented recession from happening in asian countries. Another thing for your research. People in the west know nothing of saving….remember parents will forgo things to save for their children, especially daughters even when today they spend equal amounts on education of their children–things to think about.

          • guest

            First, as I said my responses will be short and quick due to time.

            Your basic premise is that Indian culture is not good, it must break. Family and tradition are oppressive and they must go.

            Tell me again how is saving connected to poverty? or how is saving causing poverty? Do you know that many people living on streets in India actually have a land? Women who work for us have small fully paid houses on the outskirts of the city, while they have pieces of land back in the village. Not to mention, all exemption from taxes. The poverty that you talk about–has to be seen from a different lens. Having big houses with big cars, while being upto your neck with debt, –isn’t that poverty?

          • guest

            Please explain–how come where there is no dowry system, women are still getting beaten up, men leave them at the drop of a hat, and not to mention there is no relationship unless they live with them like a couple and then ‘we’ll see culture’. Please explain how is that better? to live with that insecurity for the rest of your life? And seriously it is the rest of your life. In fact, I see that in Bollywood too, ‘too afraid to tell someone you love them because it is too soon.’. There was a time when that was an honor. and people followed through.

  • Yuga Parivartan

    Teza main hu, mark idhar hai means I am Teza coz I have mark. Similarly Rupal is assuming things by default–dowry is bad because I said so and hence needs to be obliterated.

    – As long as their is nature there will be competition both on looks and iq. There would be ugly and dumb people and no amount of equality chanting will change it. Rupal is under a very wrong impression that “removing dowry” and parental influence in marriage makes everything rose. No. It just increases pressure on individual women, who have no one to assist them. Equality and independence sounds great on paper, but many people still need assistance. But no–any assistance from parents is bad specially if it is based on old customs. Cant do anything about people who assume results by default.

    • Rupal Srivastava

      I have a question. What about acid attack victims? According to your definition of beauty, they are ‘less deserving’ now, they might need to double up the dowry right?

  • MadIndian1

    Lol. Guest, sir you are wasting time with a thoroughly deracinated brainwashed urban elite produced by CBSE, Bollywood and Urban middle class with middle class princess syndrome. If she thinks western society where women live 50% alone(divorced, single, never married) and die with cat urine rather than with kids and grandkids, it’s her choice to make. Let her and the unfortunate bloke who married her suffer. She is a gone case. Frankly, our time is better spent educating the still salvageably girls and boys who can be shown that western society is nothing but rot and it just superficial good for nothing sex life. May be she might learn that she has turned disgusting when she is at her 35/45 when no body gives a damn about her because she is not young any more that feminism has ruined her life, but for now, I don’t see any point in teaching this EMP

    • Rupal Srivastava

      I love how well you tag people without even knowing them. You behave like main stream media, portraying things the way YOU think are right. How did you assume that I support western culture, just because I am against dowry system? Shame on JUDGEMENTAL people like you. It is a good thing that I am loved by the right people.

      • MadIndian1

        Yes judgemental people like me when u have done nothing but sprout unrelated crap after crap. U never answered why if u find dowry to be offensive, then looking for a working middle class/upper middle class wealthy guy is equally offensive.

        You bring in unrelated shut like how acid throwing is related to dowry, as if the society or the government enforces or endorses those practices, failing to note how acid throwing scumbags are persecuted by the state and the society.

        All u have done so far is jump all over the place, changing goalposts and posting no sequitors. Seriously, Fuck you and the unfortunate moron who is going to marry you. Sometimes I wish feminism won in india just to see women here burn, like they have been burnt to crisp in the west- 50% divorce, rapes 1000% higher than India, 45% fatherless children who grow up to be criminals, women becoming miserable because they don’t get long term partners anymore because good wealthy, well earning men don’t settled down since there is free sex around without any need to tie down in the name of marriage and so on. But then I love this country and want to avoid the decay which feminism brought to west here and I do my best to educate the ones with brain and common sense pragmatism and reality left in their brains. Frankly, I don’t have enough time to waste on brainless zombies which ape anything western brown niggers and hence this will probably be my last response to your brain dead arguments.

        • Rupal Srivastava

          Very bad language. I feel sorry for your mother.

          • MadIndian1

            I am sorry that your mother raised you into a piece of garbage which is going to die alone covered in cat piss like your feminist sisters in the west unlike my mother who will be taken care of by me when I start earning

  • Rupal Srivastava

    I have had first hand bad experiences with dowry sytem, it is a shame that the author did not care much about the feasibility and after effects of it. This is an article aimed at many of those cases where the groom’s family demanded dowry or may e the bride’s family gave gifts, evrything worked out in the end and they lived happily ever after. This article does not care about some of those poor women who have been harassed, beaten and in some cases even murdered just for the sake of dowry.

    May be the sytem worked in olden days, but in 2016? I highly doubt.

    • U would not have had a bad experience with dowry if u married a begger instead of trying to marry rich guy to feed ur lazy lifestyle. I 100% guarantee u that beggers don’t take dowry

  • Pingback: Feminism in India will not help the girl child- Part I – YugaParivartan()

  • shashikant mishra

    Dowry in the form of Girl’s Inheritance is fare and should be legal, in today’s legal term, it is called Istri Dhan. But it should not be made as Business, prospective husband and wife should check their compatibility and life aspirations and when they make a decision to get married , this should be discussed by elders. Girls parents should be honest in giving what’s their daughter’s right.Section 498 A is still required because still today everyday a bride get burnt and tortured when her parents do not meet the demand of her In Laws. Its true that 498A is misused by evil girls but still it stands its validity due to condition of women in our society. Women is considered physically weak in every society they need protection from menace of Men who are naturally Physically more powerful than women. Men can protect themselves from the menace of women, they should be strong.

  • Pingback: Equal rights is fine but what about unequal fights? – YugaParivartan()