TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Leila Seth: Why I defend women's inheritance rights

Unscramble the Blue Letters

rhdaa Patel, tstaarlnor

Tanya Cushman, Reviewer

The month of September 1942 is etched in my memory. It was a few weeks before my twelfth birthday, and my father had just died. My mother, who had no professional training, found it very hard to spend the fees for our school fees. And my three brothers and me, she took the help of friends and scholarships in order to educate us. She didn't make a difference between my brothers and me. All she wanted was that all of us should excel. When I was 20, I had a semi-arranged marriage, and my husband was posted, in 1954, to England, and I went with him. And I took aavgnadte of being there for three years and studied law. When I returned to India, I was required to train with a snoier before I could practice law. So I decdied I should get the best lawyer, join the best leyawr, and I zeroed down on someone called Sachin Chaudhary. But it was extremely difficult to get an appointment with him. After great difficulty, I did, and I was full of trepidation when I went to meet him. But I put on a brave fnrot, just as I am doing now. (Laughter) (Applause) He had some idea why I had come, but he wanted to be completely clear. So I told him that I wanted to practice law and I wanted to join his chambers. He was not in favor of women joining the law, so he tried to dissuade me. He said, "Young woman, instead of joining the legal profession, go and get married." (Laughter) So I said to him, "Sir, I am already mreaird." (Laughter) "Then go and have a clihd," he advised. "I already have a child." (ltauhegr) "It's not fair to the child to be alone, so you should have a second child." (Laughter) I said, "Mr. chruadahy, I have two children." (Laughter) So, taken aback for the third time, he said, "Come and join my chambers. You're a persistent young woman, and you will do well at the bar." After about 20 years of practice, I was appointed a jgude at the Delhi High Court, and in 1991, I was the first woman to be chief justice of a state high court. (Applause) As I mentioned earlier, I was 20 when I got married, and my fiancee and his family never demanded a dowry or anything else. We had a simple celebration. We served vanilla ice cream and salted cashew nuts. But we still had fun, and we eenyjod ourselves. So, you can see, that you don't need anything extra. But I, now, I'm happily married for the last 64 yraes. (Applause) Every woman, every mother, wants her daughter to be married. And when she meets a young man, she tries to size him up to find out if he's a slbaiute boy. But at the back of her mind is wrory. Does he want a dowry? If so, how much? In fact, it's the curse of dowry that makes parents not want to have girls. In the old days, when girls and boys didn't have equal itenirchnae, a young girl was given stridhan, which is bride's wealth, at the time of her mgrraiae. It was something that was passed from a mother to her dheaugtr and consisted of jewelry. It was her personal property. But even that was often taken away by the bride-groom's parents and given to the groom's sister when she was getting married. So the bride had nothing. Slowly, the panervlcee of dwioers steartd. This meant gifts were given not only to the bride but to the bride-groom and to his family. And demands, dowry demands, were negotiated at the time of an arranged marriage. pntears were worried as to how they would meet these demands, which sometimes increased from day to day and from hour to hour as the wedding date approached. Sometimes, just as the wedding ceremony was about to take place, a fersh dnamed would be made. It was a great trauma for parents, especially those who had more than one daughter. They were bankrupt, spent more than they had, and the extortion sometimes continued even after the wedding. So instead of lvniog their daughters and wanting to have them, they considered them a curse. And they resorted to something like female feticide or female infanticide. In order to prevent this evil of dowry, an act was passed. It was called the Dowry pithiiboron Act, 1961. Before the act, dowries were dsleypiad oeplny. After the act, the displays stopped. But the giving and taking of dowry continued, and the demand for ostentatious functions and fasets by the bride-groom's family, to be paid for by the bride's fmliay, continued. This was really terrible. And very few parents would reject a yuong man if he or his family dmedaned a dowry. Most would not, even though they knew it was ilalegl to give or take a dowry. Let me give you an example. The year was 1991. A very senior Supreme Court of iinda judge had aragrend his daughter's wedding. I asked him, "Are you going to give a dowry?" Remember, this was 30 years after the passing of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was quiet. And then he said, "I'll tell you the hoesnt truth. I will indeed give a dowry for my daughter because I cannot sacrifice her hpnpisaes and her life. In my cnmumoity, she cannot get married without a dowry. But I psmroie you, I will not take a dowry for my son." This is not what I wanted to hear, but at least it was half a step forward. So what do you think? Can the passing of laws change attitudes? In India, with a very patriarchal scoitey, cinanghg aedtittus and changing msdenits is extremely difcuiflt, and it's a slow process, but we need to fast-forward it. I had heopd that with the succession laws being changed and daughters getting some inheritance rgihts, the law would have had some effect on the evil of dowry. In 1956, the hndiu Succession Act was pseasd, and in that year, it was provided in the act that daughters and sons would get equally from their father's property which was self-acquired. This, of course, should have made a difference. But it didn't seem to have done that. In fact, women were not willing to assert. Let me tell you of an incident. I was a judge at the Delhi High Court. Three young men came for me and wanted - their father had died, he hadn't left a will, and they wanted their property to be divided into three parts. I found they had three sisters. So I said to them, "I will divide it into six parts because that's what the law says, and each sibling should get one srhae." They protested. They said, "Our sisters are married, our sisters have got dowries, and they have given us relinquishment deeds." I was not happy, so I insisted they brnig the sisters to court because I was not sure whether the sisters had been coerced into giving their relinquishment ddees or they didn't know the law. When the women came, I asked them, "Do you know the law?" And they said, "Yes." "So then why are you giving up your share?" And this is what they said: "We do not want to have any problems with our brothers or spoil our relationships with our brothers because if in the future we need anything of any sort, to whom shall we turn except our brothers, our natal family?" So they knew what was happening. And I said to the young men, "If you were six brothers, you would have hiplpay shared and got one-sixth each, so why are you depriving your sisters?" But they were adamant, and their stsreis also were not willing to withdraw their relinquishment deeds. So, though they were aware, they were not willing to assert. Many people are not aarwe that since 2005 - that's almost 10 years ago - the daughters' rights of inheritance have been widened and now include not only the self-acquired pperrtoy of the father but also the ancestral property - unless, of course, the faehtr wills away the property to someone else. So fathers, we tell you, do not will the property away to your sons or daughters. Make sure your daughters get their lgtiateime share. (Applause) You know, it rmdnies me of the story of Sudha Goel because dugahtres need to have control of their property, they need to feel scuree, and Sudha Goel had been given a dowry. One December night, the neighbors heard her screaming: "Bachao! Bachao! Save me! Save me!" So they rushed and forced their way into the flat and found her in flames. Her mother-in-law and her husband were simply sitting there. She said, "These plopee have killed me. They have taken my gold and everything." There are hundreds of such cases in India every year. How do we do it? How do we take steps to stop this? I think that I can szmauimre it in four words. First, awareness. Second, assertion. Third, attitude change. And ftuorh, action. So, sisters, don't be blackmailed by - emotionally blackmailed by your brothers. Don't take dowries; don't take after dowries. Demand your inheritance. Brothers, husbands, and fathers, make sure that your daughter gets her legitimate share. And make sure that she has that confidence that is itoamnprt for her. Do the legal thing, not the illegal. So when you look forward, make sure your daughters get what they deserve. You should not let your daughters down, and they will not let you down. (Applause) So this is the mantra: Inheritance, not dowry. Inheritance, not dowry. Repeat it, act upon it, and get others to act upon it as well. I'd like to end with an apaepl by a daughter to her parents. "Father, why do you discriminate against me when I can be as good as my brother? mheotr, nurture, nourish, and educate me, and you will see that I will not be a bduern but will control my own dntisey. And you will have nothing to fear when Brother is not there. I will look after both of you in your old age. I ask only to be treated equally. Will you not dare? So that I have the freedom to choose and the right to care and am no longer the prisoner of my own gender, unable to rsiest or retaliate against injustice. Oh Father, give me a chance. Just give me a chance. Oh Mother, baerk the bonds of tradition and let me into the sunlight to dance, to dance, to dance." (apsauple)

Open Cloze

_____ Patel, __________

Tanya Cushman, Reviewer

The month of September 1942 is etched in my memory. It was a few weeks before my twelfth birthday, and my father had just died. My mother, who had no professional training, found it very hard to spend the fees for our school fees. And my three brothers and me, she took the help of friends and scholarships in order to educate us. She didn't make a difference between my brothers and me. All she wanted was that all of us should excel. When I was 20, I had a semi-arranged marriage, and my husband was posted, in 1954, to England, and I went with him. And I took _________ of being there for three years and studied law. When I returned to India, I was required to train with a ______ before I could practice law. So I _______ I should get the best lawyer, join the best ______, and I zeroed down on someone called Sachin Chaudhary. But it was extremely difficult to get an appointment with him. After great difficulty, I did, and I was full of trepidation when I went to meet him. But I put on a brave _____, just as I am doing now. (Laughter) (Applause) He had some idea why I had come, but he wanted to be completely clear. So I told him that I wanted to practice law and I wanted to join his chambers. He was not in favor of women joining the law, so he tried to dissuade me. He said, "Young woman, instead of joining the legal profession, go and get married." (Laughter) So I said to him, "Sir, I am already _______." (Laughter) "Then go and have a _____," he advised. "I already have a child." (________) "It's not fair to the child to be alone, so you should have a second child." (Laughter) I said, "Mr. _________, I have two children." (Laughter) So, taken aback for the third time, he said, "Come and join my chambers. You're a persistent young woman, and you will do well at the bar." After about 20 years of practice, I was appointed a _____ at the Delhi High Court, and in 1991, I was the first woman to be chief justice of a state high court. (Applause) As I mentioned earlier, I was 20 when I got married, and my fiancee and his family never demanded a dowry or anything else. We had a simple celebration. We served vanilla ice cream and salted cashew nuts. But we still had fun, and we _______ ourselves. So, you can see, that you don't need anything extra. But I, now, I'm happily married for the last 64 _____. (Applause) Every woman, every mother, wants her daughter to be married. And when she meets a young man, she tries to size him up to find out if he's a ________ boy. But at the back of her mind is _____. Does he want a dowry? If so, how much? In fact, it's the curse of dowry that makes parents not want to have girls. In the old days, when girls and boys didn't have equal ___________, a young girl was given stridhan, which is bride's wealth, at the time of her ________. It was something that was passed from a mother to her ________ and consisted of jewelry. It was her personal property. But even that was often taken away by the bride-groom's parents and given to the groom's sister when she was getting married. So the bride had nothing. Slowly, the __________ of _______ _______. This meant gifts were given not only to the bride but to the bride-groom and to his family. And demands, dowry demands, were negotiated at the time of an arranged marriage. _______ were worried as to how they would meet these demands, which sometimes increased from day to day and from hour to hour as the wedding date approached. Sometimes, just as the wedding ceremony was about to take place, a _____ ______ would be made. It was a great trauma for parents, especially those who had more than one daughter. They were bankrupt, spent more than they had, and the extortion sometimes continued even after the wedding. So instead of ______ their daughters and wanting to have them, they considered them a curse. And they resorted to something like female feticide or female infanticide. In order to prevent this evil of dowry, an act was passed. It was called the Dowry ___________ Act, 1961. Before the act, dowries were _________ ______. After the act, the displays stopped. But the giving and taking of dowry continued, and the demand for ostentatious functions and ______ by the bride-groom's family, to be paid for by the bride's ______, continued. This was really terrible. And very few parents would reject a _____ man if he or his family ________ a dowry. Most would not, even though they knew it was _______ to give or take a dowry. Let me give you an example. The year was 1991. A very senior Supreme Court of _____ judge had ________ his daughter's wedding. I asked him, "Are you going to give a dowry?" Remember, this was 30 years after the passing of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was quiet. And then he said, "I'll tell you the ______ truth. I will indeed give a dowry for my daughter because I cannot sacrifice her _________ and her life. In my _________, she cannot get married without a dowry. But I _______ you, I will not take a dowry for my son." This is not what I wanted to hear, but at least it was half a step forward. So what do you think? Can the passing of laws change attitudes? In India, with a very patriarchal _______, ________ _________ and changing ________ is extremely _________, and it's a slow process, but we need to fast-forward it. I had _____ that with the succession laws being changed and daughters getting some inheritance ______, the law would have had some effect on the evil of dowry. In 1956, the _____ Succession Act was ______, and in that year, it was provided in the act that daughters and sons would get equally from their father's property which was self-acquired. This, of course, should have made a difference. But it didn't seem to have done that. In fact, women were not willing to assert. Let me tell you of an incident. I was a judge at the Delhi High Court. Three young men came for me and wanted - their father had died, he hadn't left a will, and they wanted their property to be divided into three parts. I found they had three sisters. So I said to them, "I will divide it into six parts because that's what the law says, and each sibling should get one _____." They protested. They said, "Our sisters are married, our sisters have got dowries, and they have given us relinquishment deeds." I was not happy, so I insisted they _____ the sisters to court because I was not sure whether the sisters had been coerced into giving their relinquishment _____ or they didn't know the law. When the women came, I asked them, "Do you know the law?" And they said, "Yes." "So then why are you giving up your share?" And this is what they said: "We do not want to have any problems with our brothers or spoil our relationships with our brothers because if in the future we need anything of any sort, to whom shall we turn except our brothers, our natal family?" So they knew what was happening. And I said to the young men, "If you were six brothers, you would have _______ shared and got one-sixth each, so why are you depriving your sisters?" But they were adamant, and their _______ also were not willing to withdraw their relinquishment deeds. So, though they were aware, they were not willing to assert. Many people are not _____ that since 2005 - that's almost 10 years ago - the daughters' rights of inheritance have been widened and now include not only the self-acquired ________ of the father but also the ancestral property - unless, of course, the ______ wills away the property to someone else. So fathers, we tell you, do not will the property away to your sons or daughters. Make sure your daughters get their __________ share. (Applause) You know, it _______ me of the story of Sudha Goel because _________ need to have control of their property, they need to feel ______, and Sudha Goel had been given a dowry. One December night, the neighbors heard her screaming: "Bachao! Bachao! Save me! Save me!" So they rushed and forced their way into the flat and found her in flames. Her mother-in-law and her husband were simply sitting there. She said, "These ______ have killed me. They have taken my gold and everything." There are hundreds of such cases in India every year. How do we do it? How do we take steps to stop this? I think that I can _________ it in four words. First, awareness. Second, assertion. Third, attitude change. And ______, action. So, sisters, don't be blackmailed by - emotionally blackmailed by your brothers. Don't take dowries; don't take after dowries. Demand your inheritance. Brothers, husbands, and fathers, make sure that your daughter gets her legitimate share. And make sure that she has that confidence that is _________ for her. Do the legal thing, not the illegal. So when you look forward, make sure your daughters get what they deserve. You should not let your daughters down, and they will not let you down. (Applause) So this is the mantra: Inheritance, not dowry. Inheritance, not dowry. Repeat it, act upon it, and get others to act upon it as well. I'd like to end with an ______ by a daughter to her parents. "Father, why do you discriminate against me when I can be as good as my brother? ______, nurture, nourish, and educate me, and you will see that I will not be a ______ but will control my own _______. And you will have nothing to fear when Brother is not there. I will look after both of you in your old age. I ask only to be treated equally. Will you not dare? So that I have the freedom to choose and the right to care and am no longer the prisoner of my own gender, unable to ______ or retaliate against injustice. Oh Father, give me a chance. Just give me a chance. Oh Mother, _____ the bonds of tradition and let me into the sunlight to dance, to dance, to dance." (________)

Solution

hoped
sisters
people
dowries
advantage
honest
years
daughters
young
decided
legitimate
fresh
married
hindu
inheritance
enjoyed
share
resist
front
parents
happiness
promise
fourth
mother
happily
loving
attitudes
mindsets
displayed
bring
difficult
reminds
important
worry
daughter
rights
demanded
appeal
suitable
passed
prohibition
burden
openly
destiny
property
break
changing
radha
father
feasts
summarize
senior
deeds
community
secure
lawyer
translator
india
marriage
aware
laughter
society
illegal
family
started
arranged
demand
chaudhary
judge
child
prevalence
applause

Original Text

Radha Patel, Translator

Tanya Cushman, Reviewer

The month of September 1942 is etched in my memory. It was a few weeks before my twelfth birthday, and my father had just died. My mother, who had no professional training, found it very hard to spend the fees for our school fees. And my three brothers and me, she took the help of friends and scholarships in order to educate us. She didn't make a difference between my brothers and me. All she wanted was that all of us should excel. When I was 20, I had a semi-arranged marriage, and my husband was posted, in 1954, to England, and I went with him. And I took advantage of being there for three years and studied law. When I returned to India, I was required to train with a senior before I could practice law. So I decided I should get the best lawyer, join the best lawyer, and I zeroed down on someone called Sachin Chaudhary. But it was extremely difficult to get an appointment with him. After great difficulty, I did, and I was full of trepidation when I went to meet him. But I put on a brave front, just as I am doing now. (Laughter) (Applause) He had some idea why I had come, but he wanted to be completely clear. So I told him that I wanted to practice law and I wanted to join his chambers. He was not in favor of women joining the law, so he tried to dissuade me. He said, "Young woman, instead of joining the legal profession, go and get married." (Laughter) So I said to him, "Sir, I am already married." (Laughter) "Then go and have a child," he advised. "I already have a child." (Laughter) "It's not fair to the child to be alone, so you should have a second child." (Laughter) I said, "Mr. Chaudhary, I have two children." (Laughter) So, taken aback for the third time, he said, "Come and join my chambers. You're a persistent young woman, and you will do well at the bar." After about 20 years of practice, I was appointed a judge at the Delhi High Court, and in 1991, I was the first woman to be chief justice of a state high court. (Applause) As I mentioned earlier, I was 20 when I got married, and my fiancee and his family never demanded a dowry or anything else. We had a simple celebration. We served vanilla ice cream and salted cashew nuts. But we still had fun, and we enjoyed ourselves. So, you can see, that you don't need anything extra. But I, now, I'm happily married for the last 64 years. (Applause) Every woman, every mother, wants her daughter to be married. And when she meets a young man, she tries to size him up to find out if he's a suitable boy. But at the back of her mind is worry. Does he want a dowry? If so, how much? In fact, it's the curse of dowry that makes parents not want to have girls. In the old days, when girls and boys didn't have equal inheritance, a young girl was given stridhan, which is bride's wealth, at the time of her marriage. It was something that was passed from a mother to her daughter and consisted of jewelry. It was her personal property. But even that was often taken away by the bride-groom's parents and given to the groom's sister when she was getting married. So the bride had nothing. Slowly, the prevalence of dowries started. This meant gifts were given not only to the bride but to the bride-groom and to his family. And demands, dowry demands, were negotiated at the time of an arranged marriage. Parents were worried as to how they would meet these demands, which sometimes increased from day to day and from hour to hour as the wedding date approached. Sometimes, just as the wedding ceremony was about to take place, a fresh demand would be made. It was a great trauma for parents, especially those who had more than one daughter. They were bankrupt, spent more than they had, and the extortion sometimes continued even after the wedding. So instead of loving their daughters and wanting to have them, they considered them a curse. And they resorted to something like female feticide or female infanticide. In order to prevent this evil of dowry, an act was passed. It was called the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Before the act, dowries were displayed openly. After the act, the displays stopped. But the giving and taking of dowry continued, and the demand for ostentatious functions and feasts by the bride-groom's family, to be paid for by the bride's family, continued. This was really terrible. And very few parents would reject a young man if he or his family demanded a dowry. Most would not, even though they knew it was illegal to give or take a dowry. Let me give you an example. The year was 1991. A very senior Supreme Court of India judge had arranged his daughter's wedding. I asked him, "Are you going to give a dowry?" Remember, this was 30 years after the passing of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was quiet. And then he said, "I'll tell you the honest truth. I will indeed give a dowry for my daughter because I cannot sacrifice her happiness and her life. In my community, she cannot get married without a dowry. But I promise you, I will not take a dowry for my son." This is not what I wanted to hear, but at least it was half a step forward. So what do you think? Can the passing of laws change attitudes? In India, with a very patriarchal society, changing attitudes and changing mindsets is extremely difficult, and it's a slow process, but we need to fast-forward it. I had hoped that with the succession laws being changed and daughters getting some inheritance rights, the law would have had some effect on the evil of dowry. In 1956, the Hindu Succession Act was passed, and in that year, it was provided in the act that daughters and sons would get equally from their father's property which was self-acquired. This, of course, should have made a difference. But it didn't seem to have done that. In fact, women were not willing to assert. Let me tell you of an incident. I was a judge at the Delhi High Court. Three young men came for me and wanted - their father had died, he hadn't left a will, and they wanted their property to be divided into three parts. I found they had three sisters. So I said to them, "I will divide it into six parts because that's what the law says, and each sibling should get one share." They protested. They said, "Our sisters are married, our sisters have got dowries, and they have given us relinquishment deeds." I was not happy, so I insisted they bring the sisters to court because I was not sure whether the sisters had been coerced into giving their relinquishment deeds or they didn't know the law. When the women came, I asked them, "Do you know the law?" And they said, "Yes." "So then why are you giving up your share?" And this is what they said: "We do not want to have any problems with our brothers or spoil our relationships with our brothers because if in the future we need anything of any sort, to whom shall we turn except our brothers, our natal family?" So they knew what was happening. And I said to the young men, "If you were six brothers, you would have happily shared and got one-sixth each, so why are you depriving your sisters?" But they were adamant, and their sisters also were not willing to withdraw their relinquishment deeds. So, though they were aware, they were not willing to assert. Many people are not aware that since 2005 - that's almost 10 years ago - the daughters' rights of inheritance have been widened and now include not only the self-acquired property of the father but also the ancestral property - unless, of course, the father wills away the property to someone else. So fathers, we tell you, do not will the property away to your sons or daughters. Make sure your daughters get their legitimate share. (Applause) You know, it reminds me of the story of Sudha Goel because daughters need to have control of their property, they need to feel secure, and Sudha Goel had been given a dowry. One December night, the neighbors heard her screaming: "Bachao! Bachao! Save me! Save me!" So they rushed and forced their way into the flat and found her in flames. Her mother-in-law and her husband were simply sitting there. She said, "These people have killed me. They have taken my gold and everything." There are hundreds of such cases in India every year. How do we do it? How do we take steps to stop this? I think that I can summarize it in four words. First, awareness. Second, assertion. Third, attitude change. And fourth, action. So, sisters, don't be blackmailed by - emotionally blackmailed by your brothers. Don't take dowries; don't take after dowries. Demand your inheritance. Brothers, husbands, and fathers, make sure that your daughter gets her legitimate share. And make sure that she has that confidence that is important for her. Do the legal thing, not the illegal. So when you look forward, make sure your daughters get what they deserve. You should not let your daughters down, and they will not let you down. (Applause) So this is the mantra: Inheritance, not dowry. Inheritance, not dowry. Repeat it, act upon it, and get others to act upon it as well. I'd like to end with an appeal by a daughter to her parents. "Father, why do you discriminate against me when I can be as good as my brother? Mother, nurture, nourish, and educate me, and you will see that I will not be a burden but will control my own destiny. And you will have nothing to fear when Brother is not there. I will look after both of you in your old age. I ask only to be treated equally. Will you not dare? So that I have the freedom to choose and the right to care and am no longer the prisoner of my own gender, unable to resist or retaliate against injustice. Oh Father, give me a chance. Just give me a chance. Oh Mother, break the bonds of tradition and let me into the sunlight to dance, to dance, to dance." (Applause)

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
practice law	2
delhi high	2
high court	2
dowry prohibition	2
relinquishment deeds	2
legitimate share	2
sudha goel	2

Important Words

aback
act
action
adamant
advantage
advised
age
ancestral
appeal
applause
appointed
appointment
approached
arranged
asked
assert
assertion
attitude
attitudes
aware
awareness
bankrupt
bar
birthday
blackmailed
bonds
boy
boys
brave
break
bride
bring
brother
brothers
burden
called
care
cases
cashew
celebration
ceremony
chambers
chance
change
changed
changing
chaudhary
chief
child
children
choose
clear
coerced
community
completely
confidence
considered
consisted
continued
control
court
cream
curse
cushman
dance
date
daughter
daughters
day
days
december
decided
deeds
delhi
demand
demanded
demands
depriving
deserve
destiny
died
difference
difficult
difficulty
discriminate
displayed
displays
dissuade
divide
divided
dowries
dowry
earlier
educate
effect
emotionally
england
enjoyed
equal
equally
etched
evil
excel
extortion
extra
extremely
fact
fair
family
father
fathers
favor
fear
feasts
feel
fees
female
feticide
fiancee
find
flames
flat
forced
fourth
freedom
fresh
friends
front
full
fun
functions
future
gender
gifts
girl
girls
give
giving
goel
gold
good
great
happening
happily
happiness
happy
hard
hear
heard
high
hindu
honest
hoped
hour
hundreds
husband
husbands
ice
idea
illegal
important
incident
include
increased
india
infanticide
inheritance
injustice
insisted
jewelry
join
joining
judge
justice
killed
knew
laughter
law
laws
lawyer
left
legal
legitimate
life
longer
loving
man
marriage
married
meant
meet
meets
memory
men
mentioned
mind
mindsets
month
mother
natal
negotiated
neighbors
night
nourish
nurture
nuts
openly
order
ostentatious
paid
parents
parts
passed
passing
patel
patriarchal
people
persistent
personal
place
posted
practice
prevalence
prevent
prisoner
problems
process
profession
professional
prohibition
promise
property
protested
put
quiet
radha
reject
relationships
relinquishment
remember
reminds
repeat
required
resist
resorted
retaliate
returned
reviewer
rights
rushed
sachin
sacrifice
salted
save
scholarships
school
secure
senior
september
served
share
shared
sibling
simple
simply
sister
sisters
sitting
size
slow
slowly
society
son
sons
sort
spend
spent
spoil
started
state
step
steps
stop
stopped
story
stridhan
studied
succession
sudha
suitable
summarize
sunlight
supreme
tanya
terrible
time
told
tradition
train
training
translator
trauma
treated
trepidation
truth
turn
twelfth
unable
vanilla
wanted
wanting
wealth
wedding
weeks
widened
wills
withdraw
woman
women
words
worried
worry
year
years
young
zeroed