February 23, 2006	Thursday	Muharram 24, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Feb 22: Dowry is given as gift but it becomes violence when it is demanded. This view presented by Dr Rakshinda Perveen in a talk at the Centre for Democratic Development of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan here on Wednesday provoked a heated discussion on who is to be blamed, men or women.

Dr Rakshinda, who runs a ‘Fight Against Dowry Advocacy Network’ for the Agehi Resource Centre, said social pressures and glamourization of the institution of marriage by the industry and the media had accentuated the evil of dowry.

She said the evil was endorsed by the law, the media and the society at large. The issue was missing from the entire agenda of the NGO community.

Though the hidden dowry violence hurt its victims more — even death in “bursting stoves”, she said the feminist NGOs were focussed on the more obvious violence against women since Gen Zia introduced the Hudood laws.

International donors too funded the fight against the more obvious violence than the dowry violence.

“Reasonable dowry for a reasonable match” was advocated in our male-dominated society in the name of religion and culture, in some cases to deny a girl her share in the inheritance, she said.

Several men in the audience disputed this view. They said dowry was a form of social security for the girl and more of a burden on the father to the extent that it sometimes made him commit suicide.

It were women who aspire for and prepare dowry, they said.

Dr Rakshinda responded by saying that dowry violence hurt both men and women “but the girl suffers for her lifetime”.

A woman among the audience supported her by observing that “men are more a perpetrator (of dowry violence) than a victim”. If they wished to they can put their foot down to neither accept not give dowry, she said.

Dr Rakshinda blamed the rich and the unbridled commercialism for the woes of the parents of poor girls. Their display of “dishonest money” and lust for profits seemed to present the frustrated poor only two choices — go corrupt or commit suicide.