The figure given for India alone is in excess of 25,000 women victims per annum (Himendra Thakur 1998: XIV). I do not have the figures or estimates for Bangladesh readily available, but Dr Maleka Begum's research demonstrates quite clearly that there are huge problems here too. However, the statistics compiled by Bangladesh Police Headquarters show that 2981 cases on account of dowry-related violence against women have been filed with different police stations during the period from January '04 to December '04 and 1181 such cases for the period from January '05 to May '05. I am not aware of the manner of disposal of such cases and also of the nature of punishment awarded to the perpetrators. But one thing is clear from this statistics -- the rising trend of dowry-related violence cases in Bangladesh. Seminars, workshops and roundtables organised by different bodied and the endeavours of human rights agencies have failed to produce the desired results. Even the clarion call of the Prime Minister to her colleagues, vide her D.O. letter dated 09.12.03, for the initiation of social movement against dowry does not appear to create any impact in the relevant quarters for driving out this social malady from Bangladesh society.

In Pakistan, on the other hand, there has been much unwillingness to admit that there are dowry-related problems or domestic violence and consequent killings of women, but, research there is beginning to uncover significant levels of domestic violence. In Nepal, as Professor Jha says, there are huge problems too. Thus, everywhere in South Asia, gender relations are under strain. Dowry-related domestic violence is on the increase in South Asia. However, the most redeeming feature of this phenomenon is the increased level of public awareness of the problem and its discussion in different forums -- national, regional and international alike -- more openly and frequently than before.

In one of his key-note papers, Dr Werner Menski of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, has laid emphasis on grassroots activism as the only way forward to practically combat dowry-related violence against South Asian women. He has also stressed the necessity for a close collaboration between the academic and grassroots activities for this purpose. Severe disillusionment has grasped the academics and, to some extent, the activists over the issue of dowry and dowry-related domestic violence in South Asia which are now getting worse rather than better. The Fifth International Conference on dowry, bride-burning and violence against women held in New Delhi, India, couple of years ago showed that the leading activists on dowry in India had lost interest in the topic and had nothing to say apart from repeating the old doctrine about empowerment of women and giving them better property rights to avoid the ever-present problem of dowry.

At the same time, powerful evidence came from local activists from all over India that something can be done locally to curb the problems and reign in the worst forms of atrocity. Laudable works in this respect have been done in some cities with co-operation the police and local authorities that fund shelters for victimised women. Local initiatives have made a difference to the lives of women. Local NGOs, in some parts of India, clearly played a key role. Press in India also did a lot in raising public awareness against dowry and dowry-related domestic violence.

So far as Bangladesh is concerned, there is the huge dowry problem in society which leads to much violence against women. The evidence produced by Dr Maleka Begum on dowry problem in Bangladesh society is quite awesome and, as such, should act as an eye-opener for policy planners, law-enforcers, administration (both national and local), civil society, politicians, religious leaders and local elite to weigh the gravity of the situation and ponder over how and why poor village women in Bangladesh are victimised on account of totally unreasonable and unacceptable dowry demands.

I sometimes wonder why and how a local rural society tolerate such abuses. For one man's bride is another man's sister, daughter and niece -- so simplistic gender-related violence models do not work here. Somehow, dowry-related violence against women is tolerated at a level that simply cannot be acceptable. Does it not occur to anyone that such men are doing something that is just totally wrong? Should they not be blacklisted, boycotted, shunned and somehow punished at local level? To wait for the state to intervene is evidently a futile strategy. There can be no doubt that domestic violence is a huge problem all over South Asia. And the levels of dowry-related violence is simply so high now that the real problem appears to lie just there -- in the lack of will or inability to control violence in families.

What people in South Asia actually expect from marriage? What is marriage today about? How do the financial arrangements around marriage match (or conflict) with other expectations? Many men in South Asia might agree to a marriage on certain conditions, only to demand a few days after marriage totally outrageous extra sums of money or other benefits, plunging the women and often their families into deep trouble and, what is worst, inflicting physical violence on them too. To make such demands is a form of domestic violence that must be brought under control to protect women.

But, how does one do that? It is neither a question of formal education nor of women's financial uplift nor of legal sophistication in devising all kinds of remedies. Such forms of violence arise because certain individuals seem to think they can get away with making outrageous demands and imposing naked violence on others, and fear no retribution. I am afraid, such attitudes reflect norms in society that involve the condonation of violent behaviour at all kinds of political and social levels. Bangladesh is a country which has a good stock of laws in place but the main problem is the implementation of the existing laws. Similar is the fate in respect of Criminal Procedure Code, Dowry Prohibitation Act of 1980 and even of international convention "CEDAW" -- the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

Many of the almost dogmatic demands of the international Conventions/Laws, in my view, are not fully appropriate for countries like Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Nepal because of their assumptions of the existence of a strong state that protects the individuals through a western-style "rule of law" model and takes care of the victims of lawlessness. That idealistic assumption of the existence of a welfare state to back up victimised individuals just collapses in South Asian conditions of life. In his analysis of modern Indian family law, Dr Werner Menski has depicted how the States of South Asia will now not even want to develop such protection mechanisms -- because they simply could not afford them. A wife in trouble with her husband in a South Asian society will still look to him for support, and not to the state barring few sporadic cases of approaches to the state apparatus for the redress of her grievances.

In Bangladesh, many lawyers are aware of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which followed the famous Shah Bano case (Mohammed Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano, AIR 1985 SC 945). This Act has actually helped women, because any man in India marrying a woman now knows that he will be responsible for his wife's welfare as long as she lives. Marriage itself is seen as a legally sanctioned partnership between two people in society. In the absence of a social welfare net financed by the State, any man who takes a woman in marriage, therefore, remains responsible for her welfare throughout her life, unless she remarries another man on being divorced by her present husband. Thus, even if a man divorces a woman, his responsibility towards her does not lapse. This is the current position under Indian law, for all Indians.

I see this as a typical form of South Asian legal regulation. It recognises the potential financial dependence of the wife and, therefore, institutes protective mechanisms for woman which the man himself or his family has to implement but not the State. This is the way in which countries in South Asia can produce a sustainable form of financial security for women beyond the parameters of marriage. India, being so much larger than any other jurisdiction in the region, has already swallowed that message quite unambiguously but, of course, not without protests. But the State in India has, however, held firm against all protests. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not want to know of the solution found in India but is, of course, aware of the problem. In Bangladesh we had the famous Hefzur Rahman Case (1995), 15/BLD/34 which was lost on appeal. This shows that Bangladesh has clearly not yet come to terms with the limits of State support for victimised individuals and that more needs to be done in that respect.

In Bangladesh, government machineries are at place at national, district and upazila levels but they are seldom effective because of lack of their initiatives and interest in the matter. District and Upazila Women Affairs Officers are the ex-officio members of the District and Upazila Development Co-ordination Committee respectively chaired by respective Deputy Commissioners and Upazila Nirbahi Officers. But hardly the issue is raised, discussed and decisions taken in those meetings. Even if the decisions are taken, those are hardly followed up and implemented in a co-coordinated way. Local government institutions take up the issue casually only when someone lodges a complaint against the claimant of the dowry. They do not consider creation of public awareness and sentiments against dowry as the agenda of their functions.

Religious as the rural people are, the association of local religious leaders for the propagation against dowry particularly their sermons in the weekly Jumma prayer would have made a salutary effect to mould the people's attitude towards social vices including dowry. Discussion on the issue in the weekly courtyard meeting can also be very effective in this respect. NGOs in Bangladesh are doing good jobs in the field of education, health, family welfare, water supply, sanitation, environment, forestation, trafficking etc but they do not seem to pay much attention to the prohibition of dowry by their activities in the rural setting. So far as curative aspect is concerned, Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) is doing a laudable job in rescuing woman victims of violence, filing and following-up cases in police stations as well as in the courts of law, arranging their treatment, providing them shelter and ultimately rehabilitating them in society but it does not appear to have pushed forward its thrust towards the preventive side to the extent expected.

Still I see the rays of hopes in the western horizon in the actions of some conscious youths of Ballamjhar Union in Gaibandha Sadar Upazila who have set a noble example of fight against dowry by launching motivation campaign to encourage dowry-free marriage. Matchmakers, marriage registrars, Union Parishad leaders and some NGOs have joined hands for this noble cause -- to eliminate early marriage and dowry (The Daily Star, 27.1. 05 and 5.3.05). The noble Gaibandha example was emulated by Kahetora village under Burichang Upazila of Comilla district. This village has became a dowry-free village with effect from 26th March, 2004 (Jai Jai Din dated 26th April, 2005). Dowry-free marriages have already taken place in this village as well as in Ballamjhar Union. The examples of Kahatora village and Ballamjhar Union are to be spread out to other villages and unions of the country. The task is, no doubt, difficult one. Age-old traditions, social taboos and superstitions are the stumbling block in bringing about the welcome change-over. But given the commitment of the politicians, govt. support and cooperation of all concerned, it is not at all impossible to establish a society free from the curses of dowry.

Conclusion
Cherished goal of prohibition of dowry and the related violence against women anywhere in the globe -- not merely in South Asian context -- can be brought about by the change of attitude in the society and the strict enforcement of international or domestic laws, not merely by their enactment. Individual self-restraint remains a key element in this field, matched with explicit respect for the needs and concerns of "the other" and thus a somewhat pluralistic recognition of the perspective of other person. Thus, even if one does not agree with that perspective, one does not express one's opposition by violent means, but negotiates a compromise position in order to survive in symbiosis together. Introduction of Behaviour Change Communication Programmes (BCCP) by means of flip-charts, posters, bill-boards, booklets, rallies/seminars, street dramas and the implementation of that programme by GO-NGO partnership can go a long way in the eradication of curse of dowry from any society -- not to speak of South Asian countries alone.

The presence of helpful international norms and domestic legal guidance may be useful. But they cannot change the norms of behaviour of man and woman -- nay of the society. Our rural people are not very much keen to lodge complaint to the law-enforces against the claimants of dowry for fear of reprisal by the aggrieved party. Laws cannot do anything in the absence of such complaint. Also laws cannot provide any remedy in the event of break-up of marriage due to non-payment of dowry or refusal of the in-laws to accept the bride for want of it.

What is the way out then? Total reorientation of outlook of every couple seems to me to be the way out. Every couple has to sort out this difficult matter for themselves, and a lot of tolerance and forbearance is required from both sides. Both husband and wife have to give and take and both should be entitled to respect for the shake of their own perspective, their physical integrity and mental peace.

It is to be appreciated by all concerned that marriage is an institution for bringing about conjugal bliss for the couple and cordial relationship between the two parties (bride and bridegroom) and obviously not a vehicle to bring about financial ruination of a party (bride) to meet the capricious dowry demand of other party (bridegroom).

Marriage is not to be seen as a commercial venture to get the return from the bride's family for the investment the groom's family may have made for his upbringing.

Md. Nurul Abedin is a former Secretary and a TV playwright.