Dowry. Anything and everything that:
a) is tendered by one party and accepted by another before, during, or after a marriage between individuals from the two sides.
b) and, is offered by the first party with the intent to secure safety, peace, or a pleasant marital environment for their member.
c) or, is accepted by the second party with the intent to cover any expenses, incurred or expected, or for the purpose of personal gratification.
Dowry is fine business. You may give, take, demand, or offer dowry. It’s fine.
Just that dowry is essentially a payment. And all payments, large or small, cause the parties involved—the payer and the payee—into a contract. A contract that settles the relationship between them into one of master and servant. A contract that obligates the payee, the servant, to guarantee a minimum level of service to the payer, the master. So dowry’s alright. It’s good.
Just that sometimes the parties forget their rights and roles. And the payee ends up master, and the payer, servant. This is unusual. This is flawed. This needs correcting. The party making the payment needs to be the party in control. It needs to be the one placing the demands. It needs to be demanding, at the very least, that the person it’s paying the dowry on behalf of, is given full and priority rights over all facilities with the payee. Body and being of the spouse included.
(c) Mickey Kumra