The Mother did not seem to favour the institution of marriage itself, let alone dowry. Whatever might have been the reason for instituting this system, it is something that has overlived its time. Like all things that have arrived at their expiry date, this too has become a cause of evil and must be discarded. Its origin was to keep the division of property simple, that is to say, give the girl’s share during marriage since now she goes to another home. The rest of the fortunes with its possible ups and downs remains with the boy who looks after the family. But as we know, what might have started with an idea to protect the girl in difficult times became a means for greed, exploitation and worse. In any case now the law itself defends the girl’s monetary interests by advocating equal property rights to all siblings regardless of gender, this custom has lost any possible justification.Β
Secondly, how ignoble it is for the man to depend upon money received from the woman’s family when actually he should be providing it all by his own efforts and capacities! In fact the Mother was not in favour of the idea of inheritance itself. Excess wealth earned through inheritance rather than effort often spoils the coming generations who get used to luxury without having laboured it. Excess Wealth should be voluntarily shared for the good of the community or nation or for the Divine Work rather than simply passed on blindly to the next generation.
In the Mother’s view both marraige and inheritance were outdated concepts and have to be discarded to allow a wider and more plastic framework. Incidentally, in Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri, the princess does not bring or carry any riches from her royal house. She prefers to live with Satyavan in whatever way he can provide for them.
Affectionately,
Alok Da
