Women in Britain couldn't own property till the late 19th century, while British "civilized" us.
In India they made property tradeable and by law only males could inherit it. (same with kingdoms). This made a male child imperative—which they then blamed on "backward Hinduism."
In India they made property tradeable and by law only males could inherit it. (same with kingdoms). This made a male child imperative—which they then blamed on "backward Hinduism."
https://twitter.com/rajatkamath/status/1315340471422517249
The wealth of women was transferred from mother to daughter, as "stridhan." Rural land was generally not tradeable. So a large part of movable wealth was controlled by women.
This stridhan was unlike "dowry" given to men which was a European custom.
This stridhan was unlike "dowry" given to men which was a European custom.
https://twitter.com/ThirdCultureMan/status/1315487761470816257?s=20
Even after "stridhan" went away, "dowry" is a form of inheritance which is paid to the daughter during wedding, rather than at death.
In India, stridhan always belonged to women. Even today parents will say "we will give what we want to the daughter."
byuprideandprejudice.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/mar….
In India, stridhan always belonged to women. Even today parents will say "we will give what we want to the daughter."
byuprideandprejudice.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/mar….
In many Islamic societies, the custom is "bride price"— bride is considered "bought" for money. This leads to considerably lower status of women, they are a commodity.
In contrast, stridhan reflects high status of the woman, she is not "purchased."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
In contrast, stridhan reflects high status of the woman, she is not "purchased."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
As the British imposed patriarchal views on Indian society, status of women in India declined. While British impoverished people, they'd still try their best to celebrate a wedding and provide for their daughters. The British then blamed poverty on "lavish weddings" and "dowry."
We see the same tropes of attacking "lavish weddings" and "dowry" in the colonial Indian state of today. Indian society was backwards and needed to be "civilized." As Oldenburg pointed out, more spouses are killed in the US for money (for insurance) than in India for "dowry."
But no one makes insurance murders in the US a cultural crime—it is simply criminal behavior. But a "dowry murder" in India was proof of "backward Hindu culture" and not an aberrant criminal act—the entire culture needed to be "fixed" and made illegal.
https://twitter.com/sankrant/status/573009706551148544?s=20
Gold was wealth controlled by women. This is why the Indian "obsession" with gold.
Far from "liberating", colonialism and "progressive modernity" pushed patriarchy—with Indian "feminists" who attack Hindu traditions as sepoys for Abrahamic patriarchy.
Far from "liberating", colonialism and "progressive modernity" pushed patriarchy—with Indian "feminists" who attack Hindu traditions as sepoys for Abrahamic patriarchy.
https://twitter.com/sundarmail/status/1315502465094094848?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
