“We didn’t take any dowry”, the father-in-law announces boastfully to the media, as if he did a big favour on the girl’s family by not being a greedy criminal who demands money to approve of his son’s wedding to his girlfriend. “We said ok to his choice of girl”, comes another assumed favour on the son and his girlfriend.
In a rather sad spectacle unfolding in media and social media currently, the widow of a soldier killed in the line of duty is being dragged through the worst of the worst kind of TV serial nightmare. Her inlaws are declaring to the whole world that she is a greedy, conniving, selfish woman who has ‘left’ the house of her in-laws and has ‘taken away all the money.”
The narrative of ‘took away all the money’ spread on Indian media like wildfire. The inlaws stated to one reporter that this is so prevalent and “Bahuyen bhaag jati hain” (the daughters-in-law run away) after the son dies. Everyone following the news got instantly hooked. because why not, there is another woman to be blamed for everything that is wrong with the society.
The NOK rules are clear. The soldiers choose their nominee and in this case, the deceased soldier had chosen his wife as his nominee. There is nothing the government can do here.
Soon after, saner voices pointed out facts. The Bahu hasn’t taken away all the money. She was entitled to the compensation and pension benefits because she was CHOSEN AS THE NOMINEE by the deceased soldier in his will. She has what she is entitled to by the law of the land. The deceased soldier’s parents haven’t been left with nothing. Soon it became clear that they were not dependent on the son and the father is a former soldier himself. The inlaws have got whatever was due to them from the group insurance and have also got a portion of the compensation money that the Yogi government gave after the soldier’s death.
Then came the mudslinging. In another interview with another media channel, the parents went on a full-fledged rant. The father of the soldier described how he displayed his magnanimity by agreeing to his son’s choice to get married to the girl he likes. He even made sure to cleverly drop before the media that he agreed for the wedding despite of their ‘castes’ being different. He then elaborated how he never demanded any dowry, as if demanding dowry was a fundamental right and the in-laws had shown exemplary kindness to humanity by not demanding dowry in the wedding. He elaborated on how his son was very close to his mother, to subtly put forth the point that “do you realise it? He changed after wedding to this girl”.
He then elaborated how, on the thirteenth day of his son’s death, he had very kindly offered the girl’s father that if she wanted he would get his second son married to her. The dehumanisation of the Indian woman comes full circle in the thinking that she is valid only when she is married to somebody, and not even out of love, but a husband should be bestowed upon her by somebody as magnanimous as the father-in-law here.
The grandiosity of the said father-in-law is so convinced it its patriarchal assumption that he actually, honestly thinks the prospect of marrying her husband’s brother should be cherished by the widow, seen as the love and kindness of her in-laws towards her, that too on the thirteenth day of her husband’s death.
He doesn’t stop there. He even continues boasting that he is so kind and merciful, that in case she chooses not to marry and just stays in their house as the widowed elder Bahu, he will take the firstborn child of his second son and his future wife, and give it to the elder Bahu to raise. Because why not? How can the Bahu want anything else than to be a wife and raise children?
Not just this Bahu, the father-in-law is already convinced of his absolute rights over the child of the future Bahu who isn’t even in the picture yet. The fact that they chose to give media statements against the young widow of their deceased son soon after her face was flashed in the news during the gallantry award ceremony in itself is a testimony to the amount of toxicity in play here.
Now comes the money. The father-in-law elaborates how the Bahu now ‘controls’ the bank accounts of the deceased son. The fact that the deceased soldier mentioned her as the nominee and she legally inherited those accounts and sim cards associated, is missed somewhere in the melodrama as the reporter nudges the parents on, asking them to elaborate their Bahu’s bad behaviour further.
The claims made by the in-laws are just that, claims. There may be another side of the story. But who cares, blaming the bad Bahu is this country’s favorite hobby.
Why can’t a woman choose to live away from her in-laws? Why can’t she refuse to marry the brother of the man she loved for 8 years? Why can’t she choose to stay away from the people who suggest her to get married to their other son and live in the same house even before she has processed the grief of losing her husband, these are the questions nobody will ask.
Because it is all “normal”. It happens. Bahu should keep living with her in-laws even after her husband passes away. Bahu should relinquish control of the bank accounts and the money her husband left her, and she should hand over control of all the financial benefit she would get from the government of India as a soldier’s widow, because apparently that is what women are expected to do.
There is a fundamental problem in all of this. The Bahu is a human first. She didn’t rob anyone. She didn’t steal anyone’s money. She is holding on to what she was legally entitled to. She is asserting her right over the financial benefits that her deceased husband made sure she gets in case of his demise.
The TV serial mentality hasn’t changed in a thousand years. It will probably never change. Since the media has now smelled blood in a typical family drama masala, they will keep sniffing and scratching this family’s wounds for fresh drops to lick.
Behind all this, there is a woman who lost the love of her life at the age of 26. We saw a glimpse of the iron will behind a pretty face when she stood proud to receive the Keerti Chakra. Maybe she will stay silent and avoid media attention. Maybe she will choose not to stay silent and come forward to face it all. Maybe the same people who are calling her names and criticising her now will hail her and celebrate her then. We do not know.
But one thing is certain. This sordid drama unfolding before our eyes is the ugly reality behind the so-called great Indian family. Women are good only when they serve, obey, toe the lines, know their place, and stick to their assigned roles. Even the mere act of claiming what is lawfully her can get her vilified and cursed. The patriarchal mentality that considers a woman no better than the family cattle, to be owned and tied wherever they choose, will never understand the silent battles that independent women fight every day, every minute, just to stand their ground.
There are no gallantry medals for the women who fight these battles. If they are lucky, they get some love and affection. If they are not, they just learn to make peace with being called a ‘bad woman’ and carry on. For every woman who refuses to give up and stands, there are a thousand others who just have to give in. For centuries, women have sought the relative safety of being married to whatever male relative the inlaws choose, because the prospect of living as a widows was far worse, even dangerous.
Let’s hope this dehumanisation stops someday, or at least stops being mainstreamed.
