High Dowries in Poor Countries: A Marriage That Begins in Debt

The dowry is a social idea that took shape in ancient times within economic and cultural contexts that were completely different from what we live in today. In many societies back then, women were restricted in their rights and choices: they were not allowed to manage commercial businesses, they were often unable to continue their education, and in most cases they did not have an independent income. Their role was largely limited to household service and obedience to the husband, as dictated by prevailing customs. When a woman married, she would move to live with a man who was, in many ways, a stranger to her, in a new home and a different way of life—without having enough money to buy new clothes, prepare for the transition, or even secure her basic needs at the start of a new life. Within that historical framework, the dowry can be understood as a form of “compensation” or “social safety net,” accepted because it addressed a real imbalance: a woman entering marriage without financial resources and therefore needing support during a major life transition.

The problem begins when we insist on carrying the same concept into a time in which the conditions have fundamentally changed. Today, women can work, continue their education, build professional paths, participate in production and decision-making, and manage their lives—though to varying degrees depending on the country and social environment. Women are no longer, as they once were, completely excluded from income and independence. With this reality transformed, an important question becomes legitimate: What does it mean for the dowry to shift from being a historical form of security to becoming a modern burden? And what does it mean to demand a high amount in the name of dowry when marriage is supposed to be a balanced partnership, not a transaction?

In its common form today—especially when inflated to excessive amounts—the dowry becomes a heavy pressure on the man and a dangerous symbolic signal that can slide into the commodification of women. When a woman is viewed as having a “price” that must be paid, the idea moves closer to a market mentality: payment in exchange for obtaining something. This does not demean the woman alone; it corrupts the spirit of the relationship at its roots. Marriage is not a contract of ownership, nor a subscription to domestic or sexual services. It is a shared life and a mutual commitment with responsibilities on both sides. When the notion spreads that “I paid a lot, therefore I have greater rights,” an unequal relationship is created. A man may feel he has bought the right to absolute obedience, bought household labour, or bought control over the woman’s body, time, and decisions. In return, a woman may feel—openly or silently—that she entered a relationship shaped by an invisible debt, and that she must “repay” what was spent on her, rather than sharing life through choice, respect, and love.

From here comes my message to women first: do not accept being turned into a “commodity” measured by numbers. A woman’s value is not in her dowry, and her dignity is not calculated by how much is paid. Today, women are social partners: they build, learn, work, raise families, and shape communities. A fair marriage is one that aligns with the interests of both partners, not one that crushes one side in order to satisfy social expectations or public displays. Rejecting an exaggerated dowry is not giving up rights; it is defending a higher form of rights: the right to mutual respect, the right to independence, and the right for the relationship not to become a disguised contract of submission.

If we look at poorer countries and low-income environments, the disaster becomes even clearer. A high dowry there is not just a number on paper; it is years of a man’s life spent working under pressure, and the situation can extend to more than twenty years just to be able to pay it. He enters marriage exhausted and begins married life bankrupt or in debt, burdened with housing costs, daily expenses, and obligations. The new home then becomes a space of tension rather than safety. Worse still, financial strain can turn into psychological and behavioural pressure on the wife: “You took the effort of my years in one night”—a phrase that may be spoken directly or expressed indirectly through control, jealousy, verbal abuse, or forcing unbearable “duties.” This shows that an inflated dowry does not harm the man alone; it also creates an oppressive environment for the woman.

Another reality many people ignore is that the wife often does not “become rich” from this money as some imagine. In practice, the money is usually consumed within months on preparations, spending, and social appearances, or it is absorbed into extended family circles. Meanwhile, the husband remains weighed down by debt, and the wife lives with the consequences of that financial collapse: a tense household, fewer opportunities for stability, and sometimes deprivation of basic needs because the marriage began with depletion rather than planning.

For these reasons, we need a courageous step towards modern ideas that redefine marriage as a partnership, not a transaction; affection, not showing off; respect, not possession. Societies can preserve symbolism if they wish, but it should be a humane and light symbolism that does not turn marriage into a debt repayment project. Couples can also agree on fair financial arrangements: shared contributions to establishing the home, dividing responsibilities according to ability, or transforming the “dowry” into practical support for a stable beginning rather than a number that drains the future. Above all, we must understand that dignity is neither bought nor sold, and that a relationship that begins with an unbalanced scale is likely to remain unbalanced, no matter how many celebrations surround it.

Progress does not mean abandoning values; it means upgrading values so they serve people today. Marriage, at its core, is a long-term life project, not a short moment of public pride. When we reduce the burden of the dowry and end the logic of commodification, we give both men and women a real chance to build a home based on understanding and fairness—rather than conditions, debt, and pressure.