Oct 29, 2010
Very few of us are aware that we are supposed to submit a list of gifts that we received at the time of marriage to a dowry prohibition officer. The rule goes back to 1961 when the government, in its effort to curb the dowry menace, enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act. And to ensure that central and state government officials “practised what they preached” (till recently in Bihar, the dowry rate for an IAS officer was Rs 1 crore) they have to submit an affidavit declaring that they did not take or give dowry. However, most officials are unaware of the rule.
The Hyderabad dowry prohibition officer, when quizzed about the code of conduct rules for government employees and whether the affidavit was to be submitted by everyone, was not very sure and asked us to check their website.
“It is obviously a social menace,” says Ashok Chakravarti, inspector, Punjagutta police station, “What is even more unfortunate is that 80 per cent of government employees are not aware and the remaining 20 per cent don’t care.”
But in a system known for corruption, bureaucratic hurdles and lack of efficiency, it might not be possible or even practical to perform a background check on all employees. “With fewer people willing to work in government jobs and many posts lying vacant, whether or not an employee abides by the code of conduct is usually overlooked,” says district medical health officer Dr Jaya Kumari.
Added to this is the confusion on whether central government rules apply to state government employees or not. Cyber crimes inspector Uma Maheshwar says, “I know that such a rule exists, but it is not mandatory.” However, Akun Sabharwal, DCP, Central Zone, says, “I knew about this and submitted an affidavit when I got married. “There may be a few cops who take dowry, may be not in the wrong sense but because of traditional customs. Streedhan is the custom where the bride’s parents give gifts to their daughter as part of the her right to her parents’ property,” he adds.
While it is not a law, the code of conduct is expected from all and the government can’t hope to tackle this problem unless it can weed out defaulters. But who is to blame for this muddle? As always we point the finger at the government, but Dr K. Narender, head of department of Mass Communication in OU thinks this is unfair. “We can’t keep blaming the government,” he says, “We also need to become responsible.”
No comments:
Post a Comment