India is often painted with a broad brush as an inherently regressive society when it comes to women’s rights. Mainstream feminist discourses—both domestic and global—have been quick to target Hindu traditions, frequently branding them as “Brahmanical patriarchy,” suggesting that the suffering of women in India stems from ancient religious practices. The dowry system, female foeticide, domestic violence, and other social evils are routinely attributed to a deep-seated cultural backwardness allegedly embedded within Hinduism. But are these accusations accurate? Or are they the product of a colonial and orientalist mindset that reinterpreted Indian traditions through a skewed Western lens?
Let’s particularly examine the dowry system, often showcased as the prime example of India’s supposed gender-based oppression. It’s regularly portrayed as an age-old Hindu practice where the bride’s family is expected to offer wealth, often extorted by the groom’s side, leading to systemic harassment, dowry deaths, and female infanticide. However, a deeper investigation into the history of dowry—supported by indigenous and foreign sources alike—challenges this narrative dramatically. In fact, many respected historians and primary historical accounts suggest that dowry, as we understand it today, is not an indigenous Hindu tradition, but a colonial legacy imposed and exacerbated by the British.
India was A Society Without Dowry
To understand whether dowry is an age-old Hindu practice, it is important to look closely at historical records, ancient scriptures, and the observations of foreign travelers who chronicled Indian society with objectivity. These sources consistently reveal that the dowry system, as we know it today wherein the bride’s family is burdened with providing wealth to the groom’s family was not intrinsic to Hindu society. In fact, what emerges from these sources is a picture of a civilization that accorded a great deal of respect, agency, and economic independence to women.
One of the earliest foreign accounts of Indian life comes from Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya in the fourth century BCE. Though his original work Indica is lost, significant portions survive in the writings of later authors like Arrian and Strabo. Megasthenes was a keen observer of societal structures, and his notes on Indian matrimonial customs are revealing. He noted that Indian women were not sold or purchased in marriage, and that the practice of marriage was not rooted in commercial exchange. Rather, voluntary gifts were common, and it was often the groom’s family that offered presents to the bride or her family. This aligns more closely with the practice of bride-price where the bride is viewed as a valued addition to the groom’s family than with the dowry system, where the bride is treated as a financial liability. Megasthenes further observed that Indian women held a respected status in society, were sometimes educated, and participated in spiritual and philosophical life, echoing the Vedic tradition of learned women like Gargi, Maitreyi, and Lopamudra who debated sages in public discourse.
A millennium later, Al-Biruni, the renowned Persian polymath, spent over a decade in India during the early eleventh century. His extensive writings, especially his magnum opus Kitab fi Tahqiq ma li’l-Hind, provide a detailed and dispassionate account of Indian customs, sciences, religious practices, and legal norms. Al-Biruni observed that Hindu marriages were grounded in dharma and social duty, not material exchange or monetary negotiations. He did not find evidence of a structured dowry system as existed in the Islamic or Christian worlds of his time. On the contrary, he noted that Indian women often had property rights, controlled wealth, and were beneficiaries of inheritance in some communities—particularly in matrilineal societies like those of the Nairs in Kerala. This observation is significant, as it reveals that even by the eleventh century, India preserved traditions that granted economic agency to women—something rare in most of the medieval world.
This broader historical perspective is further reinforced when one looks into ancient Hindu texts. In Hinduism, marriage is regarded as one of the sixteen samskaras sacred rites of passage. Texts such as the Yajnavalkya Smriti, Narada Smriti, and Parashara Smriti outline the duties of husband and wife and describe marriage as a union based on mutual respect, companionship, and the pursuit of shared dharma. Among the eight classical forms of marriage described in these texts, Brahma Vivaha was considered the most noble, where the bride was gifted to a virtuous and learned man without any material exchange. Another form, Arsha Vivaha, involved the groom giving token offerings—such as a pair of cows—to the bride’s family as a symbolic gesture, not a demand. These traditions place emphasis on dharma and virtue, not wealth.
More importantly, Hindu legal and ethical traditions recognized the concept of Stridhan literally, a woman’s wealth. This concept is elaborated in the Yajnavalkya Smriti and the Mitakshara commentary by Vijnaneshwara, a 12th-century legal scholar from Karnataka. Stridhan included all movable and immovable gifts given to a woman during her lifetime from her father, mother, brothers, husband, and in-laws especially during marriage. These gifts could include jewelry, garments, land, livestock, cash, and household articles. Importantly, this property remained exclusively hers, and neither her husband nor in-laws had any legal claim over it. In fact, Hindu jurisprudence recognized a woman’s right to recover her Stridhan through legal channels if it was denied to her.
This acknowledgement of women’s independent economic rights placed ancient Hindu society far ahead of many contemporary civilizations. Unlike in medieval Europe, where married women’s property automatically became their husband’s, Hindu women could own, manage, and even donate wealth. There are temple inscriptions from the Chola and Vijayanagara periods that record donations made by royal women queens, princesses, and even ordinary female devotees toward temple construction, education, and religious rites.
The epic narratives of the Ramayana and Mahabharata further strengthen this portrayal. In the Ramayana, when Sita departs for Ayodhya after her marriage to Prabhu Shri Ram, she is sent with gifts from her father Maharaj Janaka. These include ornaments, clothing, and household goods intended for her comfort not as compensation to Shri Ram’s family. Importantly, these gifts were part of her personal possessions, which Shri Ram never claimed or demanded. In the Mahabharata, Draupadi is a strong-willed, articulate queen who asserts her rights and commands dignity. Her humiliation in the Kuru court is portrayed not as a failure of wealth, but as a deep moral crisis that led to a national war. Throughout the narrative, Draupadi is never portrayed as a financial burden; rather, she is central to the fate of the epic itself.
Vedic literature too acknowledges the intellectual and spiritual equality of women. The Rigveda contains hymns composed by female seers like Ghosha, Lopamudra, and Apala. Women took part in yajnas, learned the Vedas, and were regarded as Sahadharmanis equal partners in dharma. The Asvalayana Grihya Sutra, which details domestic rituals and rites of passage, makes clear that a marriage is complete only when the bride and groom take vows together around the sacred fire. There is no mention of financial transactions or material demands placed on the bride’s family.
Further corroboration comes from epigraphic and inscriptional evidence. Numerous copper plate grants and stone inscriptions from across India especially from TamilNadu, Karnataka, and Odisha show women as both recipients and donors of land and property. These include records of queens endowing temples, establishing schools, and making independent decisions regarding land grants. The Katyayana Smriti, a later but widely respected legal text, affirms that a father could give his daughter immovable property as a gift, and that such property would remain her exclusive right even after marriage, regardless of male heirs.
All these sources from ancient legal codes to epic narratives, from foreign observers to inscriptional records converge on a single point: dowry, as a systemic and coercive practice, was not a part of classical Hindu tradition. Rather, women were respected as autonomous individuals with legal rights to property and personal dignity. Marriage was seen as a sacred alliance, not a financial settlement. Any gifts given were made out of affection and social custom not compulsion.
The degeneration into dowry as we know it today was the result of complex social and economic changes, particularly during the colonial period. British policies like the codification of property laws, the introduction of primogeniture (inheritance by the eldest son), and the marginalization of women in legal and economic matters contributed significantly to this distortion. The alienation of communal and women-centric property rights, once protected under customary Hindu law, led to daughters being viewed as liabilities. Over time, gifting at marriage became coercive and exploitative, culminating in the modern dowry system.
Thus, dowry in its exploitative form is not a reflection of Hindu values, but a deviation from them. The solution lies not in discarding tradition, but in reclaiming its original, empowering spirit. By reviving concepts like Stridhan, honoring Brahma and Arsha marriages, and reinforcing women’s agency as depicted in scriptures and historical practice, we can combat this menace from within our own civilizational framework. Dowry is not our tradition it is our betrayal of it.
Pre-Colonial India & The Stridhan
What existed in ancient Hindu traditions was not dowry in the coercive and transactional sense we see today, but Stridhan a profoundly empowering and legally protected concept that recognized and secured a woman’s financial autonomy. Stridhan, literally meaning “woman’s wealth,” comprised gifts voluntarily given to the bride by her parents, relatives, the groom’s family, and sometimes even by guests and well-wishers from the community at the time of her marriage or during key life events like childbirth, festivals, or religious ceremonies. These offerings could include gold and silver ornaments, clothing, household items, movable and immovable property, livestock, and monetary gifts. But here lies the essential distinction: these gifts were not demanded, not negotiated, and not meant to be transferred to the groom or his family. Stridhan was legally, morally, and socially recognized as the exclusive property of the woman.
Unlike dowry which is essentially a transaction driven by social pressure or greed and is often used to “purchase” the groom or elevate the family’s status Stridhan was rooted in affection, respect, and the intent to ensure the bride’s economic security and dignity. It was considered a form of insurance for the woman, meant to support her throughout her life, particularly in times of distress such as widowhood, separation, or financial hardship. The very idea was to make the woman economically self-reliant and not dependent on her in-laws or husband’s goodwill. This practice, when followed in its true spirit, elevated the position of women rather than diminishing it.
Classical Hindu legal literature offers extensive commentary on this principle. While texts like the Yajnavalkya Smriti, Narada Smriti, Katyayana Smriti, and later digests such as Mitakshara (by Vijnaneshwara) and Dayabhaga (by Jimutavahana) are often targeted by modern critics for being patriarchal, they nonetheless affirm unequivocally the sanctity of Stridhan and a woman’s absolute right over it. These texts make a clear distinction between Stridhan and other forms of inheritance. While inheritance could be contested or shared among heirs, Stridhan remained inalienable a woman could use, retain, or dispose of it as she pleased, and neither her husband nor his relatives had any legal claim over it.
In fact, ancient Hindu law took the protection of Stridhan seriously. Several texts laid down punishments both religious and legal for anyone who misappropriated it. The Katyayana Smriti explicitly states that if a husband, out of greed or coercion, misuses his wife’s Stridhan, he commits a punishable offense. Similarly, Yajnavalkya emphasizes that even in the case of debt or financial hardship, a husband cannot lay claim to his wife’s Stridhan without her consent. Taking or denying a woman’s Stridhan was regarded not just as a civil wrong, but as an act of adharma a violation of ethical and spiritual duty.
Further strengthening this position, temple inscriptions and copper plate grants from various parts of ancient and medieval India particularly from the Chola, Pallava, and Vijayanagara periods bear testimony to women exercising financial authority through their Stridhan. Many royal women and female patrons used their personal wealth to endow temples, donate land, sponsor educational institutions, and commission public works. These were not exceptions, but reflections of a cultural and legal framework that empowered women as legitimate property holders and autonomous actors in society.
Contrast this dignified and protective system with the modern dowry practice, and the degradation becomes painfully clear. Today’s dowry is often a non-negotiable precondition for marriage, where the bride’s family is coerced into giving large sums of money, land, vehicles, and luxury goods to the groom’s family frequently accompanied by veiled or explicit threats of cancellation or social humiliation. Instead of offering security to the bride, dowry often becomes a tool of oppression. Cases of domestic abuse, extortion, and even dowry-related deaths are grim reminders of how far society has strayed from its original cultural values.
Whereas Stridhan was intended to uplift the woman and provide her with dignity, dowry reduces her to a commodity—a burden whose marriage must be “paid for” by her parents. This transformation has not only eroded the sanctity of marriage but has also become one of the root causes of female foeticide, gender imbalance, and generational trauma in Indian society.
It is therefore vital to reclaim the original spirit of Stridhan and distinguish it sharply from the exploitative dowry practices prevalent today. This distinction is not just academic it has real social and legal implications. Recognizing Stridhan as a legal right, educating families about its historical legitimacy, and enforcing women’s ownership over it can become powerful tools in combating the menace of dowry. By revisiting our own Dharmashastra-based legal tradition one that acknowledged women’s financial independence centuries ago we can find culturally rooted, morally legitimate solutions to the problems of the present.
Dowry, in truth, is not a part of Hindu tradition. It is a distortion born of socio-economic decline, colonial legal restructuring, and patriarchal insecurity. Stridhan, on the other hand, is a testament to the deep respect, foresight, and fairness that ancient Hindu society extended to women a legacy worth reviving.
The British Colonial Disruption
So where did things go wrong? The transformation of stridhan into exploitative dowry largely coincides with British colonial rule. The British, in their attempt to codify Indian law, selectively interpreted Hindu scriptures without a nuanced understanding of the cultural context. They froze Indian personal laws into rigid categories, undermining the flexibility and diversity of traditional practices. In particular, the British refusal to recognize women’s rights to ancestral property played a significant role in distorting gender dynamics in Indian society.
The British passed the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act in 1928, which allowed only male heirs to inherit ancestral property. Before this, inheritance customs varied widely among different communities, some of which allowed daughters and wives to inherit land and wealth. With land now being a primary source of wealth, and inheritance rights curtailed, families began to “compensate” daughters by giving them wealth at the time of marriage. Over time, this compensation became an expectation and then a demand from the groom’s side, birthing the modern dowry system.
Moreover, the British Revenue policies required landholders to register property under male names only. This economic shift directly disenfranchised women from land ownership and legal recognition. Without any claim to family property post-marriage, women’s only economic security came through marriage payments now twisted into dowry.
The Dowry System in the West
Contrary to the common portrayal, dowry was never a uniquely Indian phenomenon. In fact, it was deeply entrenched in Western societies for centuries, particularly in medieval and Renaissance Europe. The practice was so widespread that it effectively commodified women, reducing them to transactional assets. In Britain, the notion of “marriage portions” persisted well into the 19th century, where daughters were bartered off with cash, land, or jewels in return for a socially advantageous match. In Jane Austen’s novels like Pride and Prejudice (1813) or Sense and Sensibility (1811), the future of young women hinges not on virtue or compatibility, but on the size of their dowries. Women without substantial portions were often considered unworthy of marriage, irrespective of their character or accomplishments.
Yet, while India is globally vilified for its dowry-related crimes, the West’s history of similar and equally oppressive practices is conveniently erased or romanticized. The irony is glaring European societies institutionalized dowry, and when greed led to domestic abuse or even murder, it was treated as personal criminality, not a cultural indictment. In contrast, every dowry-related tragedy in India is instantly weaponized against the entire Hindu civilization, painting its traditions as inherently misogynistic.
This hypocrisy becomes more egregious when we observe contemporary Western society. In the United States, for instance, there are chilling cases of husbands or wives murdering their spouses for life insurance money. Many cases are there which shocked the nation but no one blamed “Christian marriage” or “Western family values.” Similarly, the infamous “Black Widow” cases where women murder multiple husbands for inheritance are treated as isolated criminal behavior, not reflections of systemic cultural flaws.
And yet, when dowry deaths occur in India often exacerbated by poverty, lack of education, and weak law enforcement they are almost always interpreted as evidence of the innate cruelty of Hindu traditions. This cultural scapegoating not only distorts the truth but also undermines genuine efforts at social reform. It shows how colonial narratives still cast a long shadow, where Western sins are individualized and Indian struggles are essentialized.
The Reform from Within
The fight against dowry in India is not new. Indian reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, and later leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, were acutely aware of emerging social evils, including dowry, and advocated for women’s rights. But none of them described dowry as an ancient practice—they all recognized it as a degeneration. Gandhi went as far as calling dowry a “disgraceful custom” that needed urgent eradication. Roy championed women’s inheritance rights and fought against sati, while Vidyasagar promoted widow remarriage and girls’ education. Gandhi urged Indians to reject social evils from within and restore dignity in marriage. Ambedkar’s Hindu Code Bill laid the foundation for gender equality and property rights for women. Each of these reformers worked to purify tradition, not discard it. Their efforts highlighted that reform must come from a cultural and moral awakening within society.
Post-independence India did take legal steps, including the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, to curb this menace. However, poor enforcement, lack of awareness, and socio-economic pressures continue to allow dowry demands to persist.
But even in modern India, the idea of stridhan survives in some form. In many communities, bridal gifts are still given in the daughter’s name. Empowering women legally and socially to retain ownership of such gifts, and ensuring they have access to parental property, is a vital step toward undoing the colonial damage.
Decolonizing the Dowry Narrative
It is imperative that we reclaim our civilizational narrative from the distortions imposed during colonial rule. Dowry, in its oppressive and transactional modern form, is not a reflection of Hindu tradition but a deviation born out of historical disruptions and socio-economic decay. The true essence of Indian culture lies in the reverence of women, the concept of Stridhan, the presence of matrilineal inheritance in communities like the Nairs of Kerala and the Khasi of Meghalaya, and the celebration of the feminine divine in our spiritual texts.
The Bhagavad Gita reminds us:
“Samatvam yoga uchyate” means Evenness of mind is called yoga.
This principle of balance and justice must extend to gender relations. The idea that a woman must bring material wealth to a marriage was never sanctioned by our dharma; instead, our scriptures emphasize virtue, character, and mutual respect as the foundation of marital union.
Let us stop viewing Indian culture through the eyes of colonial morality. Let us look within, to our own rich heritage, for solutions. By differentiating between eternal values (sanatana) and temporary distortions, we can restore the dignity of our traditions while confronting and correcting social evils. Reform does not require rejection of tradition it requires rediscovery.
As we move forward, may we do so with truth in our hearts, pride in our past, and clarity in our purpose. The path to justice lies not in mimicry of the West, but in the revival of our own Sanatan values rooted in compassion, equality, and truth.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi Ji’s call for “Ghulami ke har ansh se Mukti” (freedom from every trace of slavery) resonates strongly when addressing the dowry system, a modern form of mental servitude. The dowry system reduces women to financial burdens, treating them as commodities to be “paid for” in marriage. This mentality perpetuates the belief that a woman’s value is linked to material wealth, not her inherent dignity. PM Modi’s call for freedom urges us to rid ourselves of these oppressive customs and reclaim cultural values where women are respected as equals. Ending the dowry system is a step toward restoring women’s dignity, independence, and rightful place in society, valuing them for their character and contributions, not as financial assets.
Comments