A lot of people on social media gave the Chairman of C Krishniah Chetty & Sons C Vinod Hayagriv sound advice: get a better, more imaginative publicist. Here’s whyBangalore Mirror reported on Sunday that C Krishniah Chetty Jewellers organized a three-day “The Dowri Trunk Show’ in a high-end hotel in Mysuru. The show also included the “Dowri Trunk” – an artistic box designed to hold dowry gifts. A lot of people were angered because of the “dowry” theme of the show, that showcased “dazzling jewellery for the bride-to-be and the forever bride” (Imagine being stuck all your life decked up in gold etc that weighs a few kilos.).After being critized, for it, Hayagriv put up a statement on Facebook (carried in full by Bangalore Mirror) defending the theme with bullshittery. They got lambasted some more. By Sunday evening, all the Facebook posts appear to have had vanished.Here’s how you can spot the bullshittery of the commercialization of patriarchal norms couched in fiction designed to save their backsides.An ‘I’ for a ‘y’ Someone gave the firm the brilliant idea that it could convert a murderous practice against women into ART, if the ‘y’ in ‘dowry’ was replaced with an ‘I’.PR spin isn’t historyThis is a part of Hayagriv’s defence:“In the days when there was great respect for a woman, when there were good value systems, naturally, between men and women, and society, when money was not the important aspect but relationships, respect and dignity were. The Dowri practice was respectable and voluntary, for a benevolent cause of supporting the bride and bride-to-be. Once the Dowri system was misused, governments came down heavily and now Dowri is prohibited in India and around the world in many countries.”The first sentence is pure fantasy. The kind of utopia that Hayagriv describes has never existed anywhere in world at any point in time, except in fiction. As for dowry being respectable, it obviously would be for a society that believes in treating women like their possessions – land, field, cattle, women.There isn’t any evidence to suggest that dowry was ever “benevolent”, except maybe if you consider fiction as historical record. Dowry was also never meant for bride, but for her husband and in-laws. What was given to the woman is stridhan – property including jewellery – which was exclusively hers, and she was in theory at least, free to dispose of it as she wished. Many historians and feminists, including Ambedkar have commented in detail upon the concept of stridhan.Dowri and art are not comparableWell, since nobody was confused with the ‘I’ for a ‘y’, Hayagriv clarified saying: “We do not support Dowri, but we surely support art of all kinds.” The purpose of the show, apparently, was to promote and appreciate the work of designers and craftsmen from India and Burma, and not to promote “Dowri”.“While dowry existed, art flourished so much that the ubiquitous Dowri Trunk got created by artists.”Although not in the same scale, this is like saying that the Nazi regime was a golden period for scientific achievement because they came up with ‘innovative’ methods of killing and conducted horrific experiments on Jews to see what would happen when they did this and that.“Artists who used various materials including silver, wood, even camphor wood to help young brides, out of their own free will, to accumulate what will be "theirs" as they will one day leave for their wedded home.”The kind of language used for the 'art of dowry' argument is typical of our history textbooks and the dominant tradition of recording history – looking at events simplistically in terms of who won which battles and when some king was crowned (women don’t really rate a mention). It completely omits the fact that artisanship and craftsmanship were decided by caste, and creation by “free will” wasn’t part of the picture all that much. The products created by these artisans were valued, but not the human beings themselves. Presenting such labour as flourishing art is trying to create a past from the politics of the present.Ethical practicesSince 1998, there have been allegations of human rights violations against De Beers. The diamond giant, which coined the slogan “diamonds are forever”, is allegedly complicit “in war crimes and crimes against humanity by funding insurgent groups engaged in human rights violations” in several African countries where diamonds are mined.And according to a New York Times report, in a “brilliant coup”, De Beers turned the controversy of “blood diamonds” or “conflict diamonds” around to its own commercial advantage.The world over, there has been sound and vocal criticism from civil society against companies not just for ethical business practices, but also against the use of stereotypes and patriarchal norms for commercial gain.In the west for instance, people are widely demanding that companies having establishments in Third World countries follow international labour laws. Advertising campaigns have been criticized for creating biology-defying images of women.In India too, people have registered their protest against companies which have been sexist and racist. If Krishniah Chetty’s removal of its “dowri art” from its Facebook pages is any indication, we can get companies to heel.Note: The story initially said Krishniah Chetty & Sons, we regret the error. It is Krishniah Chetty Jewellers, a different entity.
