Dowry

Dowry among Indian Muslims:
Ideals and Practices

ABDUL WAHEED
The discourse on dowry in India has generally been confined to non-Muslim

communities, with little research undertaken on dowry among Muslims. This article,
based on secondary source material, surveys the practice of dowry among Indian
Muslims as it has existed and continues to exist in different forms and in different
regions. ‘Dowry’ is an ambiguous word that does not have a uniform or standard de-
finition, and there are wide-ranging regional variations in people’s understanding of
it. Technically, it is the property of the bride but, in practice, the husband’s parents,
brothers and sisters have access to it. Indian Muslims commonly use the Arabic
word jahez for dowry and, very often, justify the practice in terms of jahez-e-fatimi.
Islamists classify jahez into two categories. The first comprises some essential articles
for the outfit of the bride as well as for conjugal life. The other is made up of valuable
goods, clothes, an amount of money settled on after bargaining, and lavish food and
hospitality for the barat. They say the former is a very old and established practice,
while the latter is a recent phenomenon among Indian Muslims and mostly prevalent
in south India—in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. How-
ever, this article takes a contrary view, saying that the practice of jahez has not been
voluntary but coercive among Indian Muslims for a long time. It has its origin in the
Muslim social structure and the lifestyles of the nobility in north India.
Introduction
There has been a growing interest in India in the last three decades
to explore and highlight issues concerning the status of women.
One of these is the practice of dowry, which—although with a
long history in India—came into the limelight only with the en-
actment of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Since then, a vast
Abdul Waheed is Reader, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aligarh

Muslim University, Aligarh 202 002. E-mail: waheed_so@yahoo.com.
Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/097152150801600103
Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

48 • Abdul Waheed
literature, mostly popular and impressionistic, has grown around

the issue. Laws have been made, social organisations formed and
the mass media used to contain the practice. But no effort, so far,
appears to have succeeded in curbing this fast-growing practice.
In fact, it has given rise to serious social problems, which probably
led the eminent sociologist Professor M.N. Srinivas (1984) to call
dowry ‘the Sati of the twentieth century’.
However, the discourse on dowry has generally been confined
to the non-Muslim community, especially to Hindus. Muslims have
been completely ignored in this context, and practically no re-
search has been done on them. This may be due to the assump-
tion that Muslims do not have dowry problems, with cases of
‘bride-burning’, notoriously associated with dowry, not generally
reported among them. Further, as Islamic marriage does not
recognise the ‘institution’ of dowry, it is presumed that Muslims
do not practise it.
However, contrary to these assumptions, Muslim women, too,
are victims of dowry practices, facing much harassment if not
bride-burning. As is well known, Indian Muslims do not absolutely
follow Islamic ideals in their social life. Their customs, traditions
and social institutions are, indeed, more ‘Indian’ than ‘Islamic’.
The practice of dowry is not a new phenomenon among them,
having been in existence for centuries.
This article is based on secondary source material. It is a survey
of available literature, both in English and Urdu, and of the pre-
and post-independence periods, on dowry practice among Indian
Muslims. The article does not merely aim at exploring and analys-
ing the social fabric of dowry, but also at highlighting the problems
it has spawned among Indian Muslims. This attempt, I hope, will
contribute to filling the vacuum that prevails in the sociology of
dowry in India.
What is Dowry?
‘Dowry’ is an ambiguous word, having no standard and uniform
definition, and connoting different meanings in various socio-
cultural contexts. In order to define it, it is necessary to distinguish
it from another English word: ‘trousseau’. Even though there is

Dowry among Indian Muslims • 49
merely a latent connection between these two, many people use

them interchangeably. A trousseau consists of items like clothes
and ornaments for the bride for her personal use. These gifts are
presented by parents and kinsmen out of affection and love and
are her personal property. Any kind of excess or compulsion in
presenting gifts to a bride may lead to a change in the character of
the trousseau. Van der Veen (1972: 31) says, ‘The richer a women’s
kinship group, the more her trousseau can have the character of
dowry. It is but a small step from a trousseau of a very expensive
personal property to a dowry of land, valuables, goods or even
money.’
Towards Equality, the report of the Committee on the Status of
Women in India says:
Technically, dowry is what is given to the son-in-law or to his
parents on demand either in cash or in kind. There are baffling
regional variations in people’s understanding of dowry. From
the point of view of women’s status the custom of dowry has to
be looked at as constituting (1) what is given to the bride, and
often settled beforehand and announced openly or discreetly.
The gift, though given to the bride, may not be regarded ex-
clusively her property; (2) what is given to the bridegroom before
and at marriage; and (3) what is presented to the in-laws of the
girl. The settlement often includes the enormous expenses in-
curred on travel and entertainment of the bridegroom’s party.
(Government of India 1974: 71)
Dowry, thus, includes gifts and valuable assets both to the bride,
and to the groom and his parents. These are presented or paid for
by the parents and kinsmen of the bride in consideration of mar-
riage. Technically, it is the property of the bride but, in practice,
the husband’s parents, brothers and sisters have access to it. Such
gifts and valuable assets are generally called dahej or dan–dahej in
north India, which, according to Sylvia Vatuk (1975: 160), includes
‘the series of gifts presented by the household or agnatic extended
family of bride to her and her prospective groom and his kinsmen’.
Dowry or dahej is contrasted with gifts presented to the bride by
the bridegroom and his parents for her outfit. These gifts are called
vari in North India (Jammu 1976: 3).

50 • Abdul Waheed
Like any other social phenomenon, dowry is not static. It

has changed in form and substance over a period of time. As
M.N. Srinivas (1984: 11) observes:
In the dowry of today large sums of cash—frequently amounting

to a few lakhs of rupees are transferred along with furniture,
gadgetry, costly clothing and jewellery, from the bride’s kin to
the groom’s kin. In addition [the] bride’s kin have to meet the
expenses of the wedding including travel expenses of groom’s
party. An element of unpredictability may be regarded as inte-
gral to modern dowry; [for example,] the bridegroom’s kin may
demand that the male members of the barat [procession of
groom and his kinsmen to the bride’s house] be given real Scotch
and not to be fobbed off with Indian whisky.
Bargaining and unpredictable demands for more dowry make the

situation of the bride’s parents precarious. They always remain
on tenterhooks, unsure what the groom’s people might demand
next. They generally succumb to the pressure for presenting more
dowry.
Sociological Perspectives on Dowry
Dowry has deep roots in social structures and is linked with vari-
ous social institutions. Sociologists and social anthropologists have
pored over different factors of the practice of dowry in different
societies. Some social anthropologists have attempted to formulate
overarching explanatory schemes. M. Spiro (1975) is of the follow-
ing opinion:
Marriage prestations are found in those systems where the cost–

benefit ratio of marriage to its principals is unbalanced.... The
type of payment is determined by which of these principals—
bride, groom, bride’s family, groom’s family—is the most dis-
advantaged. When the cost–benefit ratio is balanced so that no
party stands to gain or lose either materially or socially, presta-
tions are unlikely to be transferred. (Cited in Comaroff 1980: 4)

Spiro’s views appear naïve and simplistic, for social practices

are complex and cannot be reduced to a commercial explanation.
Jack Goody and S.J. Tambiah present another overarching explana-
tory scheme of dowry practice. Goody (1973) suggests (as cited in
Comaroff 1980: 7) that:
it is the enduring social and economic structure, not the com-

mercial logic of conjugal transactions, which gives form and
meaning to these payments. His argument is that straightfor-
ward bride wealth and dowry involve the redistribution of pro-
perty at marriage, and must consequently be analyzed in the
wider context of property relations. But such relations are them-
selves entailed in encompassing social order.
For him, dowry is a type of ‘pre-mortem’ inheritance of the bride.

It is part of a familial or conjugal fund, which passes down from
holder to heir and, usually, from the parents to the daughter (ibid.).
While applying the ‘property redistribution at marriage’ model,
or that of the inheritance of parental property by daughters, in
India and Ceylon, Tambiah (1973: 46) defines dowry as a property:
given to the daughter to take with her into marriage. Technically,

it is her property and in her own control, though the husband
usually has rights of management. A husband cannot transfer
the dowry to his sister, partly because he requires his wife’s
consent but importantly because it is against the spirit of the
dowry institution, which is that the dowry given to a wife and
in her legal possession should form part of the conjugal estate,
to be enjoyed by husband and wife and to be transmitted in
time to their children.
Thus, Tambiah finds the roots of dowry in the laws of inheritance.

He writes:
In Hindu Mitaakshra Law females do not have right at least

[to] immovable property of parents. They are only entitled to
maintenance, which includes residence, food, clothing, medical

52 • Abdul Waheed
attention, education, etc. For in addition to the right of main-

tenance until their marriage, they are entitled to their mar-
riage expenses and dowries (which they take away with them).
(Tambiah 1973: 64)
Therefore, Tambiah presumes that dowries are being paid to com-

pensate daughters for the absence of their right to parental pro-
perty. He states, ‘By and large we can say dowry in India and
Ceylon stresses the notion of female property (streedhan) and
female rights to property which is transferred at a wom[a]n’s mar-
riage as a sort of pre-mortem inheritance’ (ibid.).
The notion of dowry as a pre-mortem inheritance is contradicted
by scholars like Lucy Mair (1972: 67) who argued that this could
not be accepted in the Indian context ‘because in the wake of
traditional system women have no formal inheritance right’.
T.N. Madan (1975: 36), in his study of a Kashmiri village, argued
differently. For him, dowry is not anticipated inheritance, but ‘a
compensation for daughter’s lack of inheritance equivalent to those
of men, and it is given to oblige her to go to live with her conjugal
family’.
M.N. Srinivas (1984: 8) holds the view that an economic inter-
pretation of dowry, which misses out on crucial social facts, can-
not be understood without reference to the caste system and the
emulation of higher castes by lower ones. Dowry practice is caused
by different social factors in north and south India. For example,
he says, the north of the Vindhyas are characterised by either
hypergamy or hypergamous ideology, and dowry seems integral
to hypergamy: ‘The major consequence of hypergamy is status
asymmetry between affinal groups, the boy’s kin being higher than
girl’s kin. The latter improve their status through marriage, while
the former secure cash, jewellery, costly clothing, furniture and
other goods’ (ibid.: 9).
He further elaborates by quoting from the work of McKim
Marriott (1955) who says:
Behind this organization of marriage is the feeling that one’s

daughter and sister at marriage become the helpless possession
of an alien kinship group. To secure her good treatment, lavish

hospitality must be offered and gifts made to her husband’s

family throughout life. (Srinivas 1984: 9)
There are some other social factors that play a role in dowry
practice, like demonstrating or displaying one’s wealth and
asserting or establishing one’s prestige, hoping to secure prospec-
tive grooms for other daughters. Dowry, in fact, ‘is a long estab-
lished practice and is part of ideology and lifestyle of higher castes
and classes in India’ (Karve 1968: 46). Adivasis and people of lower
castes and classes used to practise a system of bride-price, which
they have given up, having adopted the higher castes’ practice of
dowry in the recent past (Srinivas 1984). Thus, dowry has now
become an all-India phenomenon.
Dowry among Indian Muslims

Muslims constitute about 14 per cent of India’s population, and
are spread over the entire length and breadth of the country. Con-
trary to popular belief, they are a heterogeneous and stratified
community: ‘There are over 350 regional or ethno-linguistic groups
of Muslims in various parts of India’ (Singh 1992). These groups
‘display an enormous variety in their social organization, religious
beliefs and attitude and values’ (Ahmad 1976: xx). Marriage cere-
monies, therefore, are not uniform among Indian Muslims and
differ from region to region and within regions from one social
group to another. However, dowry is, generally, called jahez among
Muslims of north India.
Meanings and Ideals of Jahez
Jahez is an Arabic word derived from the root word jahz or jahzah,
meaning ‘to make certain things available for a purpose’. There
are many variations of this root word, such as tajahaz-ul-safar, which
refers to essentials for travel; tajheez, referring to essentials for
burial; and jahz-ul-urus, referring to the essentials for the outfit of
a bride. The word is now commonly used for different kinds of
gifts presented by the bride’s parents in consideration of her mar-
riage (see Ghori 1985; Kondu 1989; Qasmi 1986).

54 • Abdul Waheed
Ghori (1985: 29), an Islamist, has classified jahez into two cat-
egories. The first, he says, consists of some essential articles for
the outfit of a bride as well as for conjugal life. The other category
of jahez is made up of valuable goods, clothes, an amount of money
settled after bargaining, lavish food and other types of hospitality
for the barat (people accompanying the bridegroom to the bride’s
home for the marriage). This classification is akin to the distinction
between trousseau and dowry, as has been explained earlier.
Ghori further says that the first kind of jahez is a very old and
established practice among Indian Muslims. Although Muslim
ulema (theologians) have allowed this kind of jahez, they always
advised Muslims not to cross a limit (Ghori 1985: 5). However, we
do not have any evidence for the prevalence of the practice of
jahez among Arabs. Prophet Muhammad did not receive jahez in
any of his marriages, nor did he present any in the marriages of
his daughters except for the youngest, Fatima, who was married
to the Prophet’s younger cousin, Ali. While quoting many bio-
graphies of the Prophet, Ghori explains the contents of the jahez
and the reasons for presenting it. The jahez of Fatima, or jahez-e-
fatimi as it is popularly called, consisted of very simple articles,
like a cot woven with jute twine, a leather mattress stuffed with
date leaves instead of cotton, a flour grinder, two pitchers, as well
as leather bags used for carrying water (ibid.: 30). There were two
major reasons that probably led the Prophet to present jahez to his
youngest daughter. First, Ali was living with the Prophet since
age 4. Therefore, the Prophet was not merely his older cousin, but
also his guardian. Second, Ali did not own anything when the
Prophet married his daughter to him. He did not even have an
independent house. Thus, a companion of the Prophet, Haris Bin
Noaman, offered one of his houses to Ali. Given these circum-
stances, the Prophet presented his daughter some articles essential
for starting conjugal life. This was not intended to either establish
or legitimise any practice of jahez. Hence, it would be unIslamic to
use this as an example to justify the practice of jahez, prevalent
among Muslims in contemporary society (ibid.: 31).
The second type of jahez, Ghori says, is a recent phenomenon
among Indian Muslims, and mostly prevalent in south India, in

Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.

It is also reported from some parts of Bengal and Bihar. This sort
of jahez does not have any connection with Islam, nor has it ori-
ginated in any Muslim society anywhere in the world. It is purely
a Hindu practice also found among Indian Muslims (ibid.: 32).
Ghori’s classification of jahez is not new. This distinction is also
made by Srinivas, who has distinguished between the traditional
practices of streedhan and varâdhakshina, and the practice of dowry
today. For him, the former are rituals of presenting gifts out of
love and affection, whereas the latter is compulsive, highly monet-
ised and involves intense bargaining (1984: 11). Even if we accept
such a classification, many questions remain. Why did the practice
of presenting a trousseau evolve into the practice of dowry? Did
people present a trousseau without any social considerations? Do
people not legitimise dowry in terms of the traditional practice of
presenting a trousseau? Although Ghori has accepted the idea that,
contrary to Islamic ideals, people legitimise the practise of dowry
in terms of jahez-e-fatimi, he has failed to identify the factors that
may have transformed trousseau into dowry. He simply assumes
that dowry is a recent development among Indian Muslims, which
has emerged due to the imitation of Hindu practices and adoption
of a hedonistic and consumerist culture.
Just as the trousseaux of women belonging to the rich class as-
sumed the form of dowries, presenting an expensive trousseau
became characteristic of the feudal class of India. Therefore, I think
that the change from trousseau into dowry was promoted by the
nobility and feudal class of Muslims, whose lifestyle was luxurious
and extravagant, and the presentation of expensive trousseaux was
for the purposes of demonstrating their wealth and prestige. This
implies that the practice of dowry is not a recent development
among Indian Muslims, nor is it confined only to the Muslims of
Bihar and Bengal. Apart from the Islamic ideal:
jahez or dowry is common to Hindus and Muslims. Jahez comes

from wife’s family and usually takes the form of money and/or
movable property (e.g., jewellery, household furnishings and
appliances, a motor cycle or car, etc.). The jahez is transferred

56 • Abdul Waheed
before, at the time of, or shortly after the marriage, and tradition-
ally goes to the husband, his family, the bride and/or the bridal
couple (local customs defining recipients). (Carroll 1983: 218)
Dowry among Muslims in

Pre-independence Days
While writing about the social life of Muslims during the 18th
century, Professor Mujeeb (1985: 510) says:
In the celebration of marriages, the princely and noble families

displayed the utmost extravagance, and other classes and fami-
lies could not but regard it as a point of honour to emulate them.
In North India, the marriage ceremonies took over a week, in
Gujarat somewhat longer, and in South India it continued for
almost a year, intervals of about a month being set between the
various functions in order to prolong the festivities. In North
India, if haste was unavoidable, marriages could take place [on]
a week day, the usual intervals between the different ceremonies
being reduced to an hour or even less. But all the ceremonies
usual in the region or in the particular Kufw had to be performed,
and to ignore or overlook the more important ones would vitiate
the marriage itself, or be regarded as an evil Omen.
One of the important ceremonies in a wedding was when gifts

to the daughter were presented. The value or cost of these gifts
varied from class to class. The richer one was, the more costly the
gifts. In the late 19th and early 20th century in the United Punjab,
‘these gifts consisted of jewellery, lands, animals, costly cloths and
valuable gifts. This expensive dowry was presented by parents of
the bride, even at the cost of their indebtedness or financial hard-
ship’ (Afzal 1925: 795). The giving of costly gifts or dowry, even if
it ruined the parents financially, may certainly be questioned;
nevertheless, socio-cultural pressures compelled them to conform
to such practices.
Punjabi Muslims were predominantly agriculturists and had
feudal orientations. Land held the greatest value for them. The

larger the landholding, the greater one’s prestige; it was shameful

for them if their land was fragmented. Therefore, they made every
effort to increase and consolidate their landholdings, to the extent
of depriving their women of their Islamic rights of inheriting both
movable and immovable parental property. Had they allowed
women to inherit their immovable property, as per Islamic law,1
their land would certainly be fragmented. While violation of
women’s rights of inheritance did exist in almost all parts of un-
divided India, it was most rampant in Punjab.
Since the late 19th and early 20th century, Muslim reformers
started raising their voice against the customary practices that vio-
lated women’s rights in Islam. In order to ameliorate the condition
of Muslim women, they demanded that customary laws should
immediately be replaced by Islamic ones. This is evident from the
following Statement of Objects and Reasons of The Muslim Per-
sonal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937:
For several years past it has been the cherished desire of the
Muslims of British India that Customary Law should in no case
take the place of Muslim Personal Law. The matter has been
repeatedly agitated in the press as well as on the platform. The
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind the greatest Moslem religious body has
supported the demand and invited the attention of all concerned
to the urgent necessity of introducing a measure to this effect.
Customary Law is a misnomer in as much as it has not any
sound basis to stand upon and is very much liable to frequent
changes and cannot be expected to attain at any time in the future
that certainty and definiteness which must be the characteristic
of all laws. The status of Muslim women under the so called
Customary Law is simple disgraceful. All the Muslim Women
Organisations have therefore condemned the Customary Law
as it adversely affects their rights. They demand that the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) should be made applicable to them.
The introduction of Muslim Personal Law will automatically
raise them to the position to which they are naturally entitled.
(p. 15.2)

58 • Abdul Waheed
The Muslim Personal Law Bill No. 39 of 1935, which was intro-
duced by a member of the Punjab Legislature in the Federal Legis-
lative Assembly of India, was taken up for consideration in 1937
and it generated substantial controversy. ‘In particular there was
a strong opposition from landowning classes in the Punjab on the
grounds that the bill would ruin agriculturists’ (Agarwal 1999: 39).
The Muslim landlords of Punjab won and agricultural land was
placed out of the scope of Muslim Personal Law Act of 1937 (see
Tyabji 2004). Thus, the application of the Act stands:
Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all

questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding
intestate succession, special property of females including per-
sonal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or
any other provision of Personal law, marriage, dissolution of
marriage including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula, and mubaraat,
maintenance, dower, guardianships, gifts, trust and trust pro-
perty and waqfs (other than charities and charitable institutions
and charitable and religious endowments). (p. 15.1)
Thus, Muslim women were deprived of their rights to inherit

immovable property. Customary laws remained in operation until
1948 in the Punjab (Alavi 1972: 4).2 This practice was more preva-
lent among rich landlords, and especially among those who con-
verted from the Hindu Rajput caste. Bilqees Begum (1918: 273)
writes from Hissar that: ‘According to the values of these Rajput
Muslims, a girl is entitled to her maintenance till the time of her
marriage. After marriage, she does not have any right to inherit
parental immovable property except to receive gifts on certain
occasions.’
She goes on to say that these Rajput Muslims, whom she has
called ‘exploiters’, advanced the following arguments in defence
of their position:
1. Property would be useless if it were distributed among vari-

ous persons. For the welfare of the khandan [which means
patrilineal descent group], property should remain intact.

2. If girls were allowed to inherit their share in parental immov-

able property, brothers would be the greatest enemy of their
sisters.
3. If girls were allowed to exercise their rights of inheriting
parental immovable property, many parents would resort
to the practice of female infanticide.
4. Last, they argued that gifts were presented to daughters and
sisters whenever they visited their parental homes (Bilqees
Begum 1918: 274).
Denial of a share in immovable parental property to daughters
has, consequently, led parents to compensate them in other ways.
Generally, there were two ways to do so. One was to give them
gifts on certain occasions, like the birth of a child, marriages of
brothers and during festivals; the second option was to present
them with a dowry at the time of their marriage. Formerly, women
received gifts from their parental families through an institution
of gift exchange widely prevalent in United Punjab called vartan
bhanji. Although the institution was based on the principle of reci-
procity, daughters after their marriages received gifts on certain
occasions as their right and, therefore, did not reciprocate gifts.
Reciprocity of gifts was expected in the case of relatives other than
daughters (Eglare 1960).
The second option, whereby a daughter was compensated
through the practice of dowry, is evident from one of the speeches
of Rashidul Khairi, a social reformer of the late 19th and early
20th century, who propagated the Islamic rights of women. Once
when he was addressing a gathering of Muslim landlords in favour
of women’s property rights, ‘someone in the audience who was
leader of the feudal lords, shot back that we presented to our
daughters jahez in lieu of their property rights, even to the extent
of falling into debt’ (Khairi 1936: 3). Many women defended re-
ceiving dowry in terms of their rights to parental immovable pro-
perty. In response to an anti-dowry article in Tehzeeb-e-Niswan,
Lahore (a Muslim women’s journal of pre-independence days),
which advised women not to receive dowry, Bibi (1925) writes:
I feel that the author of the article does not know the condition
of girls in Punjab. He must get aware that in Punjab girls are

60 • Abdul Waheed
not allowed to inherit their parental property. Feudal lords of

Punjab give dowry in lieu of daughter’s property right and to
maintain and upgrade their social status. Now, you tell me why
should not girls even get jahez.
The form of marital alliance considerably controls the nature of

dowry. It regulates the exchange of couples as well as of gifts. The
greater the choice in the selection of a marriage partner, the lesser
the possibility of dowry. Endogamy and hypergamy restrict open
choice in the selection of partners. The former entails marriage
within a given social group, while the latter requires that the girl
be married into a higher social group or, at least, a higher social
class within the same social group. The cumulative result of hyper-
gamy and endogamy is an oversupply of brides and an under-
supply of prospective grooms. While the former requires that the
groom should have a superior status, the latter further reduces
the number of grooms of high status by requiring that groom and
bride should be from the same biradari (caste-like groups). This
creates a situation of acute competition in which the ability to pay
enhances the chance of obtaining desirable grooms. It, however,
does not happen in the case of patri-lateral cross-cousin marriages
because the marriage parties belong to one kinship group and in
such a situation, there is less chance of bargaining for dowry. In
fact, both parties try to invest less in order to save the wealth of
khandan (the patrilineal descent group). If the distance within the
endogamous relationship is greater, there may be more scope for
demand for dowry. Thus, the intensity of dowry demand may in-
crease with the distance of social relations between the parties.
Although Islam does not prescribe endogamy and hypergamy,
these forms of marriage existed among Indian Muslims right from
the start. Indian Muslims, especially of north India, are divided
into hierarchically placed biradaris, and marriage is preferred with-
in. Such a marriage is justified in terms of kufw, an Arabic word
meaning class, but Indian Muslims interpret the word in terms of
biradari. If any marriage takes place outside the biradari, it generally
assumes the form of hypergamy.
Both forms of marriage were common among the Muslims of
United Punjab. Traditionally, they preferred marriage within their

kin group, which minimised bargaining for dowry, but socio-

economic changes from the beginning of the 20th century led
to changes. An educated groom, rather than a groom from the
kin group, appeared to have been preferred. The rules of endogamy
and lack of education ensured that grooms within the biradari were
not found in abundance. It, therefore, resulted in more and more
demand for educated grooms, on the one hand, and higher de-
mands for dowry, on the other. Yunus Kishwari (1934: 572) captures
such a situation:
The day son passes [his] B.A. and gets white collar employment
parents become anxious to marry their son in wealthy family.
The greater the amount of education of prospective grooms,
the higher will be the dowry demand of their parents. Some
even demand ten thousand [rupees] with [a] motor, while others
say that they do not want money but only motor. However, this
is an intelligent excuse on the parts of the groom’s parents. In
fact, their real expectations are such that they should get both
money as well [as] motor.
Dowry was not merely presented in lieu of a woman’s share in

her parental immovable property and for securing a desirable
groom for her, but also for the purpose of enhancing one’s social
status in society. Indeed, marriage was an occasion when people
displayed their status and wealth by spending lavishly on cere-
monies and presenting costly items in dowry. People flocked to
see dowry articles at the bride’s home, and such displays were
socially encouraged. When the dowry was finally handed over to
the groom’s parents, it was carried behind the marriage proces-
sion. It was again displayed at the groom’s home. Rashidul Khairi
(1924: 298) writes that the ‘exhibition of dowry did not serve any
purpose except envy and jealousy. Bad character people got relief
by laughing at less dowry [sic].’
The preceding analysis suggests that dowry was not an isolated
phenomenon among the Muslims of United Punjab. It was well
entrenched in their social structure, and became a social problem—
indeed, a menace—for poor and middle-class people who at-
tempted to emulate the lifestyles of the feudal lords. Writing about

62 • Abdul Waheed
social problems generated due to dowry among Muslims of United

Punjab, Farkhanda Ayub (1934: 784) says:
In order to get more dowry men resort to polygamy at various

places. These days marriage has become just like business.
Generally, a girl is not chosen due to her personal features, but
according to her wealth—what happens to the ego of men that
they are now becoming a curse to the bride’s parents [sic]. Par-
ents are forced to marry off their daughters at the cost of falling
in debt perpetually or even at the cost of their lives. They have
always attempted to give more dowry to their daughter for rais-
ing her social status in her in-laws home, but she is always
looked down upon for not bringing a desirable dowry.
Similarly, Maqbool Liyaqat Ali (1937: 712) describes the fate of

brides unable to meet the increasing dowry demands:
In the illiterate class the punishment to the bride is so inhuman

that one cannot imagine. Several times, I have read in news-
papers that brides are strangulated and thrown into well[s].
Some commit suicide and others become ready to convert into
other religions. This is the height of exploitation and sheer bad
luck of girls..... Those who are literate also express their anguish
over less dowry but do not punish bride physically. Sometimes
it happens in these literate Khandan that they send brides to
parents’ home and begin to search for wealthy family for second
marriage.
Social problems generated due to dowry were not confined only

to Muslims of United Punjab; they were also prevalent among
those of other regions. These were highlighted at the All India
Muslim Ladies Conference in 1920. Mrs Syed Humayun Mirza
(1920: 121) in her report stated:
Since the time of birth of a girl, her mother begins to arrange

her dowry. In the middle class families most of the girls are
deprived of their educational rights because parents invest their
money in dowry and not in education. In this way, the great

purpose of seeking knowledge is dead. It is the usual custom in

India that whenever there is a proposal from [the] girl’s side,
[the] groom’s family asked how much dan-dahez can you give?
It is a fact that there is demand of dowry. Parents delayed the
marriage of their daughter due to lack of dowry. Without dowry,
marriage is considered a great sin. If the girl does not take much
dowry to her in-laws house, she is looked down upon. Dowry
is so bad a custom that sometimes people prefer an illiterate
girl and ignore an educated girl. Sometimes girls commit suicide
to protect their parents from the obligation of dowry. If anybody
says that jahez is the Sunnat; follow the path of the Prophet, He
did not give jahez to his daughter Fatima under compulsion;
nor it was beyond need. The dowries which we give to our
daughters are under compulsion and beyond need. This is a
great problem for the middle class.
When a social practice assumes unbearable proportions, voices

of reform are always heard. However, these do not penetrate to
all sections of society. Before independence, there were many such
voices against dowry among Muslims. Abdul Haleem Sharar from
Lucknow, Rashidul Khairi and Mumtaz Ali from Punjab, Shaikh
Abdullah from Aligarh, and Muslim women’s organisations such
as the All India Muslim Ladies Conference were at the forefront
in attempting to ameliorate the conditions of women and combat
the growing dowry menace among Muslims.
Dowry among Muslims in

the Post-independence Period
The Partition had far-reaching consequences for Indian Muslims,
especially for those in north India. It demolished their economic
base and social structure. Families of Ashrafs (biradaris of the highest
social status, such as Saiyads, Mughals, Pathans and Shaikhs), the
educated intelligentsia, service personnel, doctors and lawyers mi-
grated to Pakistan en masse from urban areas of the north and the
Deccan. The majority of migrants were youths who continued to
migrate till the 1960s due to scarcity of jobs for them in India. Most

64 • Abdul Waheed
of the zamindars and jagirdars, who stayed behind in India, were

badly affected by the abolition of zamindari (Imam 1975; Khalidi
1995).
Large-scale migration of Muslims, especially the educated
youth, had considerably changed patterns of marital alliances
among higher-status groups and those of urban areas. Vreede de
Sturs (1968: 10) has observed that:
Partition was accompanied by massive migration in which

families were torn apart. The most vigorous and often the best
equipped individuals, that is, the younger unmarried men,
migrated to Pakistan, leaving behind them the less able, old
parents, young children and many women. For the broken fami-
lies remaining in India, one of the most serious problems has
been to find suitable husbands at any price for their growing
daughters. They have been obliged to change the old criteria,
because the sons of great landlords have virtually disappeared,
it has become necessary to look for sons-in-laws [sic] at lower,
but it is always hoped prosperous, levels of the social scale.
As a consequence:
the trousseau is accompanied by gifts intended for the son-in-

law, including his marriage suit and a sum of money, theor-
etically modest but in actuality exorbitant. It is not unusual to
find parents who offer up to twenty thousand rupees or even
more for a man with a university degree in order to procure a
dignified son-in-law for their daughters. (ibid.: 20)
Increasing incidence of exogamous marriages, both of hyper-

and hypogamous varieties, does not mean the disappearance of
endogamous marriages among Muslims of north India. Indeed, a
majority do prefer marriage within their own biradaris. However,
the growing trend is to marry within the class instead of the kin
circle within a biradari. This change is a result of the new symbols
of status such as education, wealth and political power. Now both
brides and bridegrooms look for educated and wealthy partners.

Akram Rizvi (1976) has observed this phenomenon among the

Multani lohars3 of Old Delhi, popularly known as karkhanedars.4
The improved economic condition of the Multani lohars gen-
erated many social changes among them, including preferences
for marital alliances. In pre-independence India, they preferred
marriages between parallel cousins and cross-cousins due to their
weak economic condition. ‘Marriages of this kind occurring with-
in the kin group, involved limited rights and responsibilities, and
did not involve any major expenditure on dowry, feasts, and ex-
change of articles’ (Rizvi 1976: 45). In the present day, their mar-
riage preferences have changed due to their changed economic
situation. ‘They now prefer to marry within their own status group
instead of the kin circle. A status group among Multani lohars is
defined in terms of ownership of karkhana (workshop), level of
education, possession of wealth and property, and political con-
nections’ (ibid.: 45). Consideration of status in marriages promotes
a trend of heavy expenditure on dowry and entertainment of barat.
This is not a phenomenon peculiar to the karkhanedars. In fact,
one can observe it in almost all Muslim communities in India. The
impact of growing class considerations on marriage leads people
to spend excessive amounts on ceremonies. Not surprisingly, the
trend is more acute among the new rich who are willing to invest
in the enhancement of their status. The extent of expenditure de-
pends on economic affluence and varies according to the class
status of the parties.
Immediately after Partition, most Muslims were too poor to
afford extravagant weddings. But since the 1960s, the economic
condition of some sections of India’s Muslims has improved. This
has been a result of many factors, including government support
to the arts and crafts in which Muslim artisans are mostly engaged,
the Green Revolution in western Uttar Pradesh where substantial
numbers of Muslims are dependent on agriculture, and new job
opportunities in the Middle East (see Ahmad 1975). Increasing
prosperity has contributed to the growth of a new middle class,
and to the emergence of a consumer culture among them. It has
had a two-fold impact on the practice of dowry: (a) some new
valuable articles have been added to the basket of dowry and

66 • Abdul Waheed
(b) the demand for these articles has steadily increased. Rizvi
and Roy (1984: 59), who studied this phenomenon in Lucknow,
state that:
Since independence a lot of change has taken place and this
simple and tasteful [jahez] has undergone many changes and
various household articles have been added to the list of Jahez.
Heavy copper vessels used for every day cooking, dining room
furniture along with gadgets like sewing machines, refrigerator
and electrical household appliances are now demanded and
included in Jahez. This gradual increase of Jahez has lead (sic)
hardships in Muslim families as many of them find it beyond
their means to meet the demands of Jahez.
A similar phenomenon is reported by Patricia Jeffery in her
study of the Pirzada community of Basti Nizamuddin of Delhi. In
the past, they used to give very simple dowries ‘containing a bed
with its embroidered sheets, quilts and pair of pillows, a metal
jug, drinking bowl and one piece of gold jewelry’ (Jeffery 1979:
57). Now, dowry has become expensive and a serious problem for
those parents who cannot afford it. Families of grooms also demand
the inclusion of various articles of their choice. One woman told
Jeffery during her fieldwork:
They [the groom’s family] began to tell us what we should put
in the dowry, a particular make of sewing machine, scooter and
the like. Apart from anything else, we have others daughters to
marry and cannot afford to give so much. But it is shameful for
people to ask like that. What’s more they refused to set any
sum for marriage settlement so at that point, we called the match
off. We have heard since that the boy was married to another
girl but that she was sent back to her parents after only a few
months. Thanks to the God that did not happen to our daughters
[sic]. (ibid.: 57)
Qamar Uddin (1972: 214) describes the contents of and the bar-
gaining for dowry among rural Muslims of western Uttar Pradesh:
The last ceremony of marriage is Vidaa, meaning literally ‘seeing
off’. The bride’s people are expected to give household goods

such as utensils, bed-spreads and bedsteads to the newly mar-

ried couple in addition to ornaments. Actually it is the presenta-
tion of dowry and cash by the girl’s father to the father of the
groom. The men of the barat and the relatives of the barat and
the villagers assemble at a place. Inside the house the men
of the brides party are busy discussing how much to give at the
time of Vidaa, the relatives persuading the father of the girl to
give more and more. If the clothes and ornaments presented
to the bride are costly, the relatives will persuade him to add
to the already thought out amount. After a long discussion
sometimes for hours, in which hookah smoking goes on uninter-
ruptedly, the people come out with the dowry which consists
of clothes, utensils, and the then most popular items, i.e., a
watch, a bicycle and a transistor.
The demand for dowry is more acute in areas where the cus-
toms of tilak and gode-ki-jode-ki-raqam (a marriage custom practised
by Muslims of Andhra Pradesh and nearby places) are prevalent
among Muslims. Tilak is common to both Hindus and Muslims in
parts of Bihar and Bengal. This custom makes it obligatory for the
bride’s parents to offer costly gifts and a settled amount of cash to
the groom before the marriage ceremony, being the amount fixed
according to the socio-economic status of the groom. Demand for
tilak and extravagant expenditure on marriages have increased
manifold in the past three decades. It has caused unbearable hard-
ships to brides’ parents and, consequently, led many people to
condemn this growing menace. The following letter, addressed
especially to Muslim youths and written by Nafees Ahmad Saleem
(1987) of Bhagalpur to Khatoon-e-Mashriq (an Urdu women’s maga-
zine), Delhi, indicates how the growing demand of tilak and dowry
is affecting Muslims of Bihar and Bengal:
Can’t you purchase Radio, T.V. Scooter, Refrigerator with your

income? Are your hands broken down? If you are short of
money, earn it in a legitimate way. Why do you opt for the un-
Islamic customs of Jahez and Tilak? It is shameful for you to get
cash from Tilak and articles of dowry at the cost of others’ de-
struction. (1987: 31)

68 • Abdul Waheed
The custom of gode-ki-jode-ki-raqam has existed for centuries

among Muslims of the Deccan. In the past, according to this cus-
tom, a bride’s parents used to present some modest gifts to the
bridegroom. Now, the custom has been perverted and transformed
into a monstrous problem akin to dowry. Dowry is demanded in
the form of jode-ki-raqam, which varies according to the status of
the two families, and the qualifications and professional status
of the groom. Usually, an alliance for a doctor fetches Rs. 150,000.
Besides this, the marriage is preceded and succeeded by a string
of ceremonies that may include nisbat, mehndi, shukrana, nikah,
valima and at least five jumagis, on five successive Fridays. Except
for valima, the expenditure for these rituals is borne by the bride’s
family. Feasts are huge and loaded with vast menus. Several cus-
toms are lavish, wasteful and are accompanied with offerings to a
host of people at every step. Non-conformity is considered an es-
cape from social obligations. In this scenario of growing demand
for dowry, it is an impossible task for the poor to marry off their
growing daughters. No wonder then that many of them prefer to
get some rich old Shaikh or Arab as a groom for their young daugh-
ters, not only to escape from the burden of dowry, but to obtain
job opportunities in the Middle East as well.
In the south, where neither Partition nor communalism has
seriously affected Muslims, they have experienced prosperity in
the post-independence period on account of expansion of busi-
nesses and job opportunities in the Middle East. Many poor
Muslims from Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Hyderabad have found
employment in the Gulf countries, and have become affluent with-
in a short span of time. This petro-dollar boom has brought about
tremendous changes in their lifestyles. Predictably, the growing
consumer culture has brought in its wake many types of social
problems not present earlier. Dowry is one of them.
In a study of Muslim women of Kerala, Indu Menon (1981) has
found that about 61 per cent of her respondents had given dowry
either in the form of cash or property. She gives two reasons for
this. First, the dowry system has become a common practice among
Muslims, and despite the fact that a girl is educated enough, her
parents will look for an educated groom for her. In the Muslim
community, the number of educated men is small and the demand

for them high; consequently, the amount of dowry is also high. In

addition to the scarcity of prospective grooms and the demand of
dowry, there is also the problem of an alarming increase in wed-
ding expenditures. Says Menon:
The expenses of marriage among Mappilas are very high for

the bride’s father. Her trousseau, ornaments and the festivities
cost him a good deal, and fathers blessed with several daughters
have a heavy burden. It is under such hard conditions that some-
times parents agree to give away their daughters to old wid-
owers marrying for a second or third time or to secure a man
who has other wives. (ibid.: 72)
The increasing menace of dowry brings in its wake many social

problems all over the country, and Muslims are no exception in
this respect. These include financial hardship or indebtedness,
delay and difficulty in marriages of daughters, and marriages with
unsuitable grooms. Even bride harassment is not uncommon.
Though we do not have data on bride-burning among Muslims,
the possibility cannot be ruled out. The opinion of the late Maulana
Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi, former rector of Nadvatul Uloom, Lucknow,
a famous Islamic seminary, and president of the All India Muslim
Personal Law Board, on the social problems resulting from the
practice of dowry among Indian Muslims is described in the fol-
lowing excerpt:
[The] prevalent custom of dowry is Un-Islamic, a ‘social epi-

demic’ [waba], a kind of mischief or revolt against the society
[fitna], an exploitation [zulm]. Various social problems cropped
up due to growing demand of dowry in the form of cash or
kind. The demand for dowry has reached to its zenith. These
problems are especially for those who are blessed with many
daughters or do not have the capacity to afford costly dowry,
for bridegroom and his parents.... [B]eing the President of All
India Muslim Personal Board and a ‘servant of Islam’, I very
often receive letters of girls’ parents which describes horrible
and shocking situation[s]. In some letters it is written that we
have several daughters, dowry is exorbitantly demanded for

70 • Abdul Waheed
the marriage of each daughter. Such kind of demand could be

fulfilled if we have only one daughter. So please [Maulana] sug-
gest us what should we do? Should we give poison to our daugh-
ter or strangle them or force them to lead a life of unchaste [sic].
[The] Practice of dowry has become so common that one could
find women frequently discussing the ways of procuring a bride-
groom. Has bridegroom been purchased or not? They often ask.
Indeed, [the] custom of dowry is creating many un-Islamic char-
acteristics in Muslim society. Therefore, it is the high time for
Ulema to fight against this. (Nadvi 1989: 36–40)
A vigorous campaign has been launched to combat the growing

menace of dowry among Muslims. Theologians and Islamic organ-
isations are mobilising public opinion through the medium of
religious discourse and the distribution of booklets and pamphlets.
Their basic point of attack is that the practice of dowry is unIslamic.
Women’s magazines such as Khatoon-e-Mashriq are playing an
important role by publishing anti-dowry material. Voluntary or-
ganisations have also been formed to reform outdated and wasteful
customs of marriage. It is gratifying to note that some progress is
being made at the endogamous group level. Frustrated and
disgusted with the increasing demand of dowry, the biradari of
Rajput Pathans of Kamsarobar in Ghazipur held a convention on
27 October 1985 to renounce the custom. It is now reported that
marriages among them are solemnised without dowry. There are
other groups, like the Qaum-e-Punjabian and Saifi Borochi of Delhi,
the Khans of Rampur and the weavers of Bhairaich, wherein the
expenditure on marriage and gifts of dowry are regulated.
While these efforts have been substantial and encouraging, they
are unlikely to be sufficient to completely root out the practice of
dowry from Muslim society.
Notes
1. Islamic laws of inheritance are comprehensive but not uniform. The rights of
property inheritance differ among males and females from one school of Islamic
law to another.

There are two principal Schools of Islamic Law prevalent in Indian sub-
continent: the Hanafi school governing the Sunni Muslims and the Ithna
Ashari Shiite school governing Shia Muslims. Today a vast majority of
Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh belong to the Sunni sect and
are governed by the Hanafi school, while a small percentage are Shiites
governed by the Ithna Ashari school. (Agarwal 1999: 36)
Broadly, under Hanafi law, heirs are divided into three major categories: agnatic
heirs who are almost all male, Koranic heirs who are mostly female, and ‘distant
kindred’, which includes blood relations who are neither agnatic nor Koranic
heirs. The ‘distant kindred’ tend to be either women or connected to the de-
ceased through a female link: for example, daughter’s children, son’s daugh-
ter’s children, daughters of male agnatic collaterals, children of female agnatic
collaterals, paternal and maternal aunts and their children, maternal uncles
and their children, and so on. These relatives are ‘distant’ not necessarily in
terms of their blood relationship with the deceased, but in terms of the likeli-
hood of their ever coming into a share of the inheritance. The three categories
of heirs—agnatic, Koranic and distant kindred—together comprise the blood
relations of the deceased and relations by marriage (namely, the husband or
the wife). In terms of the shares allotted, the implicit rule is: ‘Keep the bulk of
the property for the [male] Agnatic heirs ... the persons whose rights were
always recognized by tribal [pre-Islamic] law, and respect the Koranic pro-
visions by giving specific shares to the persons mentioned in the Koran’ (Fyzee
1974: 399, emphasis original).
In specific terms, the shares of particular heirs under the Hanafi school are
as follows: A daughter who is an only child receives a half share of the deceased
parent’s estate as a Koranic portion, and is excluded by no other heir. If there
are two or more daughters and no sons, they jointly get a two-thirds share,
which is divided equally among them. The presence of a son who is an agnatic
heir, however, converts a daughter’s right from that of a Koranic heir to an
agnatic co-sharer, which means she gets half of what the son gets. Sons and
daughters are excluded by no other heirs. Similarly, a husband and wife, as
Koranic heirs, are excluded by none: The husband receives a one-fourth share
of his deceased wife’s property if there is a child or a son’s descendants, and a
half share if there are no such heirs. A widow, likewise, receives either one-
eighth or one-fourth of the husband’s estate, depending on whether there is a
child or son’s descendants. If there is more than one widow, their collective
share is one-eighth (or one-fourth, as the case may be), shared equally among
them. Full sisters and consanguine sisters also share as Koranic heirs, but can
get excluded by male agnatic descendants and ascendants, as can uterine sisters
under specific circumstances. The mother gets a basic Koranic share of one-
sixth, as does the father.
The Shia law of succession is noted to differ from the Sunni law, especially
in the following respect (Carroll 1985; Tyabji 1968): no relative of the deceased

72 • Abdul Waheed
male is excluded merely on grounds of her/his sex or because s/he is related

to the deceased through a female link. Cognates and agnates are placed on an
equal footing. Hence, males and females who are linked to the deceased in
equal blood or degree inherit together, although female shares continue to be
half those of males. For instance, if the deceased leaves a son’s son’s son and a
daughter’s daughter, under the Hanafi school, the former as a male agnatic
heir excludes the latter. Under the Shia system, the daughter’s daughter has
precedence, being deemed a higher ‘class’ of descendant (that is, closer by
blood to the deceased).
Tyabji (1968: 897) clarifies the underlying differences between the two sys-
tems as follows:
the Hanafis take the Quranic alterations of the pre-Islamic customs literally,
and the Shiites take them as illustrations of underlying principles. The
former let the substratum of the customary law stand unaltered except to
the extent to which it is definitely altered by the express provisions of the
Quran. The Shiites take each instance mentioned in the Quran as speaking
not only for itself but as indicating the possible principles.
The Shia system, thus, has more positive implications for women’s inheritance.
In general, though, all schools of Islamic law recognise Muslim women’s
inheritance rights on immovable property, although unequal to those of men.
These rights also have some degree of protection from testation. Among the
Hanafi Sunnis, for instance, an estate (in full or in part) cannot be willed to an
heir without the consent of all other heirs, but a maximum of a third of the
estate can be willed to a stranger without the consent of the heirs. Under Shia
law, bequest to heirs or non-heirs of up to a third of the property is permitted
without the consent of other heirs (Agarwal 1999: 36–38).
2. After the formation of Pakistan, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application
Act 1962 was enacted, which extended to the whole of West Pakistan, except
the tribal areas of the North West Frontier Province. ‘This 1962 Act, abrogated
custom as the basis of Law and legally entitled the Muslim Women to inherit
the agricultural property as full owners (and not just as life interest), as pre-
scribed by the Shariat’ (Agarwal 1999: 40–41). The Muslim Personal Law Act
1937 is still operative in India. Although the Act is not:
a disability for Muslim women in some states, it is in others. Some of the

southern states, for instance, extended the provisions of the Act to include
agricultural land. Legislation to this effect in 1949 covered Tamil Nadu,
parts of Karnataka which fell in former Madras Province, and the Andhra
area of Andhra Pradesh. Kerala followed suit in 1963. In a few other states
such as Maharashtra and Gujarat, as well as Bengal ... there was no strong
presumption in favour of custom even before the 1937 Shariat Act was
passed. Here the Shariat rules can thus be applied to agricultural land as
well. The same is true of the parts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which

were earlier part of the Former Hyderabad state, and where custom at
variance with Mohammedan law was not admitted even prior to the 1937
Shariat Act (Mulla 1990: 11). But in the states of northwest India, the pro-
visions of the Act have not been extended to include agricultural land, and
in most of these states, such as Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab,
and Uttar Pradesh, customs governing the devolution of agricultural land
prior to the Act still continue to do so. (Agarwal 1999: 41)
3. Multani lohars traced their origin from Uzbekistan from where they came to
Multan some time during the 16th century. They were blacksmiths in Uzbekistan,
manufacturing agricultural tools and implements, and were known as temorchi
(blacksmith). In the wake of Akbar’s invasion of Sind, there followed a large-
scale migration of people from Multan to various princely states such as
Rewari, Bhopal, Jaipur, Bharatpur and Hyderabad (Deccan). Among those who
moved out were the Multani lohars. They were employed by rulers of these
princely states as manufacturers of war weapons and armour. Towards the
end of the 19th century many of them came to Delhi from different parts of
India. Around this time various factories and engineering workshops were
being established in Delhi. The Multani lohars got employment in these as
foremen, mechanics, turners and fitters. Some of them were also employed by
the Public Works Department and the Delhi Municipal Committee as road-
roller drivers. [A] few of them set up their own karkhanas. By 1947 there were
three of them owned by the karkhanedars. The Partition of the country de-
vastated the socio-economic base of Multani lohars like that of other Muslim
communities in Delhi. Many of them migrated to Pakistan, and soon recovered
from the shock to regain their lost socio-economic status. In Delhi opportunities
emerged for their mechanical and entrepreneurial skills from 1955 onwards
due to increasing industrialisation and the ban on imports of certain machines.
Multani lohars exploited this opportunity and established their own karkhanas
for manufacturing various motor parts, machine goods and electrical items.
As a result, their economic condition improved in comparison to what it was
in pre-independence days (Rizvi 1976: 28–31).
4. ‘Karkhanedar is a vernacular term used for a person engaged in the business
of manufacturing of which he is generally the owner. A karkhana may be de-
fined as a workshop for manufacturing machinery or spare parts of machinery
in which not less than two and not more than thirty-five persons may be em-
ployed’ (Rizvi: 1976: 28).
References
Afzal, M.B. 1925. ‘Jahez’, Tehzeeb-e-Niswan (hereafter TN), 21 December.
Agarwal, Bina. 1999. Gender and Legal Rights in Landed Property in India. New Delhi:
Kali for Women.
Ahmad, Imtiaz. 1975. ‘Economic and Social Changes’, in Zafar Imam (ed.), Muslims
in India, pp: 231–55. Delhi: Orient Longman.

74 • Abdul Waheed
Ahmad, Imtiaz (ed.). 1976. Family, Kinship and Marriage among Muslims in India.
Delhi: Manohar.
Alavi, A. Hamza. 1972. ‘Kinship in West Punjab Village’, Contributions to Indian
Sociology (N.S.), 6(6): 1–27.
Ali, Liyaqat Maqbool. 1937. ‘Jahez ki Museebat’, TN, 24 July.
Ayub, Farkhanda. 1934. ‘Sasural ka Bartaw’, TN, 18 August.
Begum, Bilqees. 1918. ‘Mahroomul Virasat Ladkiyan’, TN, 19 June.
Bibi. 1925. ‘Jahez’, TN, 21 February.
Carroll, Lucy. 1983. ‘The Muslim Family in India: Law, Custom and Empirical
Research’, Contributions to Indian Sociology (N.S.), 17(2): 205–21.
———. 1985. ‘The Ithna Ashari Law of Intestate Succession: An Introduction to
Shia Law Applicable in South Asia’, Modern Asian Studies, 19(1): 85–124.
Comaroff, J.L. (ed.). 1980. The Meaning of Marriage Payments. London: Academic
Press.
Eglare, Zakia. 1960. A Punjabi Village in Pakistan. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Fyzee, A.A.A. 1974. Outlines of Muhammadan Law (fourth edition). New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Ghori, U.H. 1985. Islami Nizam-e-Muaashrat Aur Jahez ki Rasam. Delhi: Markazi
Maktab-e-Islami Press.
Goody J. 1973. ‘Bride Wealth and Dowry in Africa and Eurasia’, in Jack Goody
and S.J. Tambiah (eds), Bride-Wealth and Dowry, pp. 1–39. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Government of India. 1974. Towards Equality (Report of the Committee on the
Status of Women in India). New Delhi: Ministry of Education & Social Wel-
fare, Department of Social Welfare.
Imam, Zafar. 1975. ‘Some Aspects of the Social Structure of the Muslim Commun-
ity in India’, in Zafar Imam (ed.), Muslims in India, pp. 70–112. Delhi: Orient
Longman.
Jammu, P.S. 1976. Problem of Dowry in Punjab. Patiala: Punjabi University Press.
Jeffery, Patricia. 1979. Frogs in a Well: Indian Women in Purdah. London: Zed Press.
Khalidi, Omar 1995. Indian Muslims Since Independence. New Delhi: Vikas Pub-
lishing House.
Karve, Iravati. 1968. Kinship Organisation in India. Bombay: Asia Publishers.
Khairi, Rashidul. 1924. ‘Jahez ki Tashheer aur Runomai’, Ismat, 42(5): 38–40.
———. 1936. ‘Taqreer Haquq-e- Niswan’, Ismat, 3(1): 52–53.
Kishwari, Yunus. 1934. ‘Dulhe ki Taraf se Shart’, TN, 14 July.
Kondu, A.R. (ed.). 1989. Fitna-e-Jahez. New Delhi: Makataba-e-Qasmi Press.
Madan, T.N. 1975. ‘Structural Implication of Marriage in North India: Wife Givers
and Wife Takers among the Pandits of Kashmir’, Contributions to Indian
Sociology (N.S.), 9(2): 217–44.
Mair, Lucy. 1972. Marriage. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Marriott, McKim. 1955. ‘Social Structure and Change in UP Village’, in M.N. Srinivas
(ed.), India’s Villages, pp. 106–21. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Menon, Indu. 1981. Status of Muslim Women in India. New Delhi: Uppal Publications.

Mirza, Mrs Syed Humayun. 1920. ‘Tehrik-e-Islah-e-Rasam’, in All India Ladies

Muslim Conference Report. Delhi: Teen Murti Library.
Mujeeb, M. 1985. Indian Muslims. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Mulla, D.F. 1990. Principles of Mahomedan Law (19th edition), edited by M. Hidayatullah
and A. Hidayatullah. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.
Nadvi, Abul Hasan Ali. 1989. ‘Muslim Muaishara ki Hifazat Ka Ek Ahemtareen
Mutalibah’, in A.R. Kondu (ed.), Fitna-e-Jahez, pp. 34–45. New Delhi:
Makataba-e-Qasmi Press.
Qamar Uddin. 1972. ‘Marriage Customs among Muslims of Western Uttar Pradesh
Villages’, Indian Journal of Social Work, 33(3): 205–16.
Qasmi, K.H. 1986. Jahez Ek Samaji Laanat. Deoband: Mehboob Printing Press.
Rizvi, S.H.M. and Shibani Roy. 1984. Muslims: Bio-Cultural Perspective. Delhi:
Shabdanak Printers.
Rizvi, S.M. Akram. 1976. ‘Kinship and Industry among Muslim Karkhanadars in
Delhi’, in Imtiaz Ahmad (ed.), Family, Kinship and Marriage among Muslims
in India, pp. 27–48. Delhi: Manohar.
Saleem, Ahmad Nafees. 1987. ‘Qaum ki Badnaseeb Betiyon ka Mutalaba’, in
Khatoon-e-Mashriq, April, 53(4): 80–83.
Singh, K.S. 1992. People of India: An Introduction. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey
of India.
Spiro, M. 1975. ‘Marriage Payments: A Paradigm from the Burmese Perspective’,
Journal of Anthropological Research, 31(2): 89–115.
Srinivas, M.N. 1984. Some Reflections on Dowry. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Tambiah, S.J. 1973. ‘Dowry and Bride Wealth and the Property Rights of the
Women’, in Jack Goody and S.J. Tambiah (eds), Bride-wealth and Dowry,
pp. 55–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyabji, F.B. 1968. Muslim Law: The Personal Law of Muslims in India and Pakistan
(fourth edition), edited by Mohsin Tyabji. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.
———. 2004. ‘The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937’, in
Universal’s Encyclopaedia of Important Central Acts & Rules, Vol. 15. Delhi:
Universal Law Publishing.
Van der Veen, Klas K.W. 1972. I Give Thee My Daughter: A Study of Marriage and
Hierarchy among Anavil Brahamans of South Gujarat. Essen: Van Gorcum.
Vatuk, Sylvia. 1975. ‘Gifts and Affines in North India’, in Contributions to Indian
Sociology (N.S.), 99(2): 155–95.
Vreede de Sturs, Cora. 1968. Purdah: A Study of Muslim Women’s Life in North India.
Essen: Van Gorcum.

Dowry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dowry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dowry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dowry among Indian Muslims:

Ideals and Practices

The discourse on dowry in India has generally been confined to non-Muslim

Abdul Waheed is Reader, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aligarh

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

literature, mostly popular and impressionistic, has grown around

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

merely a latent connection between these two, many people use

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

Like any other social phenomenon, dowry is not static. It

In the dowry of today large sums of cash—frequently amounting

Bargaining and unpredictable demands for more dowry make the

Sociological Perspectives on Dowry

Marriage prestations are found in those systems where the cost–

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

Spiro’s views appear naïve and simplistic, for social practices

it is the enduring social and economic structure, not the com-

For him, dowry is a type of ‘pre-mortem’ inheritance of the bride.

given to the daughter to take with her into marriage. Technically,

Thus, Tambiah finds the roots of dowry in the laws of inheritance.

In Hindu Mitaakshra Law females do not have right at least

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

attention, education, etc. For in addition to the right of main-

Therefore, Tambiah presumes that dowries are being paid to com-

Behind this organization of marriage is the feeling that one’s

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

hospitality must be offered and gifts made to her husband’s

Dowry among Indian Muslims

Meanings and Ideals of Jahez

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.

jahez or dowry is common to Hindus and Muslims. Jahez comes

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

Dowry among Muslims in

In the celebration of marriages, the princely and noble families

One of the important ceremonies in a wedding was when gifts

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

larger the landholding, the greater one’s prestige; it was shameful

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all

Thus, Muslim women were deprived of their rights to inherit

1. Property would be useless if it were distributed among vari-

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016

2. If girls were allowed to inherit their share in parental immov-

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16:1 (2009): 47–75

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016