Normally I’m wary of India-Pakistan comparisons but since a comment was made on an earlier thread that “India is light-years ahead of Pakistan” when it comes to gender, let’s look at some objective statistics. I have no problem conceding that India is indeed ahead of Pakistan in many things. For example, India has decriminalized homosexuality (by getting rid of the British colonial Section 377). This is something that is currently unimaginable in Pakistan. Partly this is because India is a constitutionally secular state while Pakistan is an “Islamic Republic”. Islam has clear views about homosexuality which don’t need to be elaborated here.
Yet, India is by no means a Western feminist paradise. Arranged marriage remains the norm (just as it is in Pakistan). Marital rape is not a crime (just as it isn’t in Pakistan). So Indians can indeed take satisfaction in being more progressive than Pakistan but they are nowhere near Western standards.
Take the Global Gender Gap Index for example. While Pakistan is the bottom ranked country on the list (with a score of 0.567) India is ranked at 0.644. This is just above Saudi Arabia at 0.643. Meanwhile, the UK is ranked at 0.838 and the US is ranked at 0.756. Clearly, India needs to make a lot of progress to catch up with the so-called “civilized world”.
Let’s take another indicator: Dowry deaths.
A simple Google search pointed me to an August 2025 article in The Diplomat entitled “Dowry-related Violence Continues to Claim the Lives of India’s Daughters“. The author of the article is Kavita Chowdhury, an independent journalist and Adjunct Faculty at the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. Thus, her article is clearly not a hit piece against India written by someone inimical to India’s interests.
Ms. Chowdhury begins her article by stating that the practice of dowry has been banned in India for the last sixty years. Yet–according to official statistics–an average of twenty women die every day from dowry-related violence.
My intent in writing this piece is not at all do a hit job on India. I simply want to show that while it is easy to call Pakistan “primitive”, perhaps one would not use this word for a society or culture that one belongs to or identifies with. I stand by my argument that we should be wary of using terms such as “primitive” which have a long history of being used by colonial powers against “natives” of all kinds.
Finally, I think it is in rather bad taste for a blog dominated by men to weaponize women’s rights in order to score points against male nationalists of the “enemy” country. We would be far better placed if we understand that making progress on gender issues is a common challenge we all face.
this is a good post and since most won’t be able to comment on it. we would just add however that the difference is that the Saffroniate want the modernisation to proceed apace.
it is critical that the gentry and elite societies have women in very visible positions.
poverty has *historically* bedevilled India (a 1,000 years of colonisation will do that to a country cum civilisation) but as prosperity sets in so will gender rights.
however in Pakistan, the idea being that there is so much conflict over gender rights that even with increased prosperity, that’s not a certainty.
we wouldn’t put this down to Islam; but just how patriarchal norms entrench themselves
The point is that India is not a feminist paradise. The Gender Gap Index places it just slightly above Saudi Arabia.
So it’s one thing for Indians to congratulate themselves for being better than Pakistan but why are they competing with an Islamic Republic in the first place?
Dowry has been illegal in India for 60 years. Yet 20 women a day die on average in dowry-related violence.
India has serious problems. It would be better to focus on those rather than expend one’s energies on belittling Pakistanis.
we want to clarify a positional point.
for instance in Hollywood & Bollywood; the graphic sex scenes are actually very injurious to the actresses (who are exploited)
that is not autonomy. it’s a false choice. so we certainly think sexual autonomy is independent of Imperial Corporatism.
Yes there have been some recent high profile incidents of dowry deaths inspite of decades long decline. The decline is driven largely urbanization where men are finding jobs on their own and no longer dependent on family wealth as much. On top of this we have working women especially in office jobs.
For the flip side you should visit this timeline https://x.com/DeepikaBhardwaj to see how anti-dowry laws are mis-used because they are so heavily lopsided and assume women’s accusations are assumed true and onus is on husband to prove them wrong. They are quite a few X handles which post real court-room videos (even in Supreme Court) where women are asking for ridiculously high amounts after few months or years of marriage as part of divorce settlement. Judges act as mediators and split the difference. But the starting ask is so high that even mid point seems high.
As for so many problems in India the solution is judicial reforms where laws are intelligently written in neutral terms so that it address both buckets above and equally important cases are decided in a timely manner.
I’m sure there are cases where anti-dowry laws are being misused.
The larger point is that India remains an extremely patriarchal society. It is not a feminist paradise. Indians can take solace in being more progressive than the Islamic Republic of Pakistan but their country is far behind the US and the UK.
Dowry exists in Pakistan as well. It’s called “jahez”. It is an inherently patriarchal thing. A woman’s parents are essentially paying money to a man so they can get rid of their daughter. It’s as if she is a product that has to be sold.
Incidentally, Bangladesh’s score on the Gender Gap Index is 0.775 which is way above India’s at 0.644. Sri Lanka is slightly above India at 0.645.
I’m not aware of exactly how these scores are calculated and I’m sure there is criticism of this index. But my point is valid. India is not a feminist paradise and Indians need to stop belittling Pakistan.
I am saying that there are parts of India which are patriarchal and parts which match western feminism. The former is progressively shrinking. Not that western feminism is the gold standard India should aspire to. On the index rankings, I can see that SL is higher but not sure about BD. Since ~2018 or so, these rankings start out with hypothesis of showing IN in bad light and then work backwards from there to cherry pick their data. Sanjeev Sanyal has done extensive work showcasing their bias.
I think the broader issue with most of these rankings stems from the fact that they depend quite extensively on a smaller dataset. Data collection isn’t always effective in places like South Asia due to cultural differences that often shift the meaning of many Eurocentric assumptions. The second main issue with data collection arises from improper collection processes, as the large size and complex distribution of people make it hard to collect information effectively, in a timely, concise, and accurate manner sufficient to project a clear consensus. So, most of these rankings naturally have problems with them that go beyond statisticians simply choosing to falsify information; implicit bias and cultural assumptions are the primary issues.
Additionally, Sanjeev Sanyal is closely tied to the present BJP party due to ideological overlap. This naturally creates a conflict of interest here, since he wouldn’t be fully supportive of rankings that portray India poorly, since that would reflect badly on the BJP. The correct option would be an in-between option, where one can rely on more hard data about things like income, employment, etc., that are less interpretive and require less judgment, in addition to extensive cross-referencing with other sources. Other information that is more subjective, such as the indices, religious worship style, or is more qualitative in nature, should be taken with more skepticism since there are underlying subjective assumptions in the collection process.
While I can concede that these rankings are problematic in some ways, I do find this reaction that they are meant to show India in a bad light to be a defensive one.
After all, Pakistan is at the absolute bottom of last year’s ranking. If I were to say “Oh they just want to show Pakistan in a bad light”, the BP commenteriat would immediately reject that as a sign of my Pakistani nationalism and resultant blind spot. The same applies to the Indians here.
We need to accept that both countries are doing quite badly when it comes to gender metrics–especially in comparison with the West.
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are above India. Indians need to introspect.
It’s been a few days since I last commented here due to mental health reasons, so I am not fully caught up on whatever the latest issue is. Firstly, I think everyone here should honestly stop comparing their countries with each other, since it makes no sense why two different countries living under different socioeconomic and political realities are comparable. Comparing India and Pakistan together is quite frankly as stupid as comparing India and China or Pakistan and Iran. The only comparison that is worth having would be with the older version of oneself and seeing how much one has improved, in addition to how much further one can improve.
Secondly, the statistics about dowries and arranged marriages have a few clear flaws. To demonstrate, I am just going to use a personal anecdote. So, I have a distant relative on my maternal side who went to college and happened to have a girlfriend during his time there. He graduated and got a job at the local hospital alongside his girlfriend. Eventually, their relationship reached the point of marriage, and they both spoke to their parents, and he had what is commonly called a Pennukanal, i.e., presenting the potential wife like a mannequin for relatives to gawk at and ask stupid questions. The girl in question happened to be from the same caste, religion, class, race, and social status as the man. Naturally, they got married after the annoying relatives gave their useless blessings. In practice, this was clearly not an arranged marriage, but on paper, this would be counted as an arranged marriage.
Now, the concept of arranged marriage itself isn’t a problem, and it isn’t superior/inferior to a love marriage. The main issue would be the fact that, irrespective of marriage types, most people consistently want to marry within caste, tribe, religion, and race. Every love marriage I have seen remains within the traditional boundaries. Oddly enough, even gay people wanted arranged marriages (or something adjacent to it) to the extent that a random lady once made an app for that exact purpose. Irrespective of that point, the main issue is the endogamy rather than arranged marriage itself.
The second issue here would be how one defines dowry, which has been (at least in Kerala) a huge debate in recent times. Many traditionalist parents argued that they wanted to give their children a car, apartment, or land as a gift to their children after marriage, but this got counted as dowry a lot of times. This is often intertwined with the broader issues of the expensive nature of marriages these days. I mean, the Malabar region especially seems to be insane these days with their wedding culture; I remember a dude going to his wedding on a camel once.
This intersects quite heavily with broader class issues, as these incentives cause everyone to spend extravagantly on weddings and dowries all the time, which results in the poorer sections getting the short end of the stick all the time. Another major thing would be the fact that dowry for women isn’t universally prevalent; in fact, many communities like the Nair of Kerala, who were historically matrilineal (women inherit everything), and specific Muslim communities don’t have dowry associated with women. Most of these groups are patriarchal in nature. Some of these groups adopted the practice at a later period during the colonial and post-colonial period; the practice isn’t deeply rooted.
At the same time, in more patrilineal communities like the Nazarine Christian community in Kerala (one I belong to), dowry was historically deeply rooted and can be a lot harder to abandon over time. There tends to be complex sociological variance in dowry practices based on caste, religion, class, race, and the history of different people groups. The plurality in practice means social shifts take longer to take root since each community has a different relationship with the practice. Similar issues could exist in Pakistan due to plurality in worldview.
Above all else, one universal fact, however, remains consistent across the countries of South Asia: marriages are about literally everything else but the actual people involved. The first thing that people think of about marriage would be the financial, social, and political interests that they have, rather than the compatibility with their actual spouse. The end product will mostly be dissatisfied people in unhappy relationships that pass generational trauma onto their children and eventually force them into similar practices.
Most of this probably stems from the fact that most people live with their families, resulting in strong pressure and influence on their life choices. In Western countries, most people live separately from their parents after reaching adulthood, while such practices aren’t really possible in South Asia due to a plethora of reasons. One thing would be a lack of financial stability, as access to a stable formal occupation is hard to come by, since most people work within the unstable informal sector.
However, things have changed in recent times, though due to a new pattern of urban migration called “Circular” migration (in India at least). Basically, the men migrated for a short to medium period to the cities for basic work and income that is remitted to their families back in the old village. These men don’t bring their families with them since the cities don’t provide the stable income or social safety nets needed to raise a family. The result happens to be that women see a shift within the roles they play in the extended families in villages, and this breaks some patriarchal boundaries that are normally imposed on them. None of this means that traditional practices are fully gone, but there is a natural shift in the social structuring of families that may show its impact sometime in the future, especially in places such as Bihar and Bengal. Similar processes may happen in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other South Asian countries since they have similar socio-cultural elements.
Agreed that the constant India Pakistan comparisons are tiresome. Even if India is more progressive than Pakistan, that’s not a high bar. It’s easy to be more progressive than an “Islamic Republic”.
I do think that regional comparisons can be useful at times. Especially between North India and Pakistan since they were the same country less than 80 years ago.
On “arranged marriages”: Even in Pakistan–at least among the middle and upper-middle classes– marriages aren’t fully arranged in the sense that the bride and groom meet for the first time on the wedding day. They are more like facilitated dating where the family and/or the “rishta auntie” have vetted candidates (on grounds like occupation, religion, “caste” etc). One difference from India would be that cousin marriage is acceptable in Islam–indeed encouraged in many cases since wealth and property remain within the family– so a lot of marriages occur within extended families.
Most people on this site have probably seen the show “Indian Matchmaking” which was on Netflix a few years ago. So it’s clear that “rishta aunties” are a common practice even among wealthy Indians and Indian-Americans.
On Dowry: I believe that dowry is not really an Islamic practice. In Islam, there is a thing called the “haq mehr” which the groom has to agree to pay the bride. This payment is what is owed to the bride in case of divorce. Some families used to write a nominal amount but now there are families who ask for a plot of land or a house etc. But this is meant to provide security to the woman in case the marriage doesn’t work out.
I think Pakistanis practice dowry since it is a cultural practice that predates their conversion to Islam.
Even for Hindus, the concept of Streedhan eventually got misused and became what is known as dowry today. What was meant to protect the woman has now turned into a tool to destroy her. This of course is a consequence of the society becoming more patriarchal due to various reasons over generations.
Yes, I don’t think dowry really has much to do with religion. It’s a patriarchal practice.
An unmarried daughter is seen as an economic liability and many families are happy to palm her off to another man at whatever price.
Conversely, a daughter-in-law is seen as an asset.
in higher income brackets, girls see dowry as a share of inheritance. So there are nuances.
Yes. Even in Pakistan people do argue that since their sisters have received a dowry they are not entitled to any share in their father’s inheritance.
This is despite the fact that Islam clearly states that in matters of inheritance daughters are entitled to 50% of what sons get.
I wouldn’t necessarily read Ind Pak comparisons as trying to show Pakistan in a bad light. As far as possible, if this can be seen as a purely academic discussion, we ought to be able to discuss it dispassionately.
The reality for women everywhere is, and this is something I’ve said repeatedly; that the more rigid and reform resistant an ideology, the worse off is the woman. This should not be interpreted as an attack on the religion.
Laws exist yes, but execution of such laws is never easy in a society like India’s. The other important underlying dynamic is of behavioural change without which no law can work even with strict implementation.
+1
In the context of this blog, nothing is ever a “purely academic discussion”. Many commenters here delight in taking digs at Pakistan and gender inequality certainly gives them lots of material to do so. It’s fine. I understand the psychological need to show one’s enemy up. But it becomes tiresome. The Indians who are indulging in this are certainly not winning Pakistani hearts and minds (and vice versa).
Just to give one example, the repeated mention that “half of Pakistani women are illiterate” doesn’t seem–at least to me–to come from a place of good faith discussion. It seems clearly intended to belittle the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Islam isn’t inherently resistant to reform. In Pakistan, General Ayub Khan was able to pass the Muslim Family Law Ordinance (or something like that) which required men to seek permission from their first wife before attempting to marry again.
Obviously, this doesn’t really work out in practice. Though I think that statistics will bear out that most Muslim men in Pakistan have only one wife at a time.
One of my maternal uncles had two wives and they lived in the same house (it was a duplex). It was certainly very problematic. The wives (understandably) hated each other and their children did not get along. But it was Islamically allowed so he had the right to do it.
Also, for what it’s worth, he did offer to divorce the first wife but she didn’t want to go back to her parental home as a divorced woman. So she chose what to her was the lesser of two evils. Both these women were professionals btw. One is a doctor and the other is a lawyer. My uncle himself was a lawyer.
The sitcom value in that setup is off the scale..
It was more like a soap opera.
Maybe she should have taken a second husband
It’s not as interesting to have multiple wives. I remember someone from Kerala once mentioned that their grandparents used to do polyandry in the past, so their grandma had two husbands. They called based on their age; one was an older father, and the other was a younger father. Weirdly, they had an oddly functional relationship with many problems. Somehow, polygamy was oddly messier with wives fighting over a single guy.
The only way that would work is if you do what my mother’s old neighbour did in the old days. Due has his main wife living in his home and his second wife living 5 blocks down the street. He visits his second wife on every odd day during the night and sticks with his main wife on other nights. Eventually, when he moved to the city, he gave his second wife a bunch of feudal lands to marry off their daughters as alimony, and they seem to have had a mutual divorce without having been legally married in the first place. The daughters eventually married other men, who took up their wives’ family name. Kinda reminds me of the old Sanskrit play “Little Clay Cart”, where it ends with the wife and mistress hugging each other in joy since the mistress can marry the husband, and the wife had to do sati due to poverty.
The only moral I find in this story is: if you have multiple husbands, they live under the same roof. However, multiple wives should never live under the same roof, or at least they should have separate spaces from each other.