The first great British legislative project in India was the codification of common law, begun in about 1860 and continuing into the 1890s. This was not intended to change any of the customary laws, but rather to record them in a definitive form. This was the foundation of codified law related to the ownership of property by women in British India. Generally, women has fewer rights to property than men, especially land. The right of women to inherit property (land and other property) was limited. Property laws (and other laws) varied by religion (something inherited from earlier common law). Generally, women had the fewest rights, and the greatest restrictions on ownership of property under Hindu law. Islamic law (which applied Indian Muslim women) permitted women to own property, and to inherit property even if there were male heirs. Women's property rights and inheritance rights were far from equal, but they were not absent (Islamic property law continued as customary law, and was only codified in 1937). Christian women had better inheritance rights, but still far from equal. Parsi women in principle had close to equal rights in inheritance. (Laws relating to inheritance by Christian and Parsi women were codified in 1925.)

Women's legal rights improved in the 20th century, with various legal reforms, driven both by the British and by Indians. One issue related to ownership of property that significantly reduced the rights of Hindu women was family ownership of property - land (and some other property) was not owned by any individual, but by a collective of three generations of male members of the family (the "coparcenary"). This led to women being unable to inherit any of the family property. Women could own property, but in the absence of being able to own land, their main portable wealth was in the form of personal jewelry. Men who wanted to look after the interests of their wives and daughters would give them sometimes quite expensive jewelry, which had the cost of taking wealth out of circulation. Family ownership was strongly supported by Hindu landowners, and was opposed by merchant and professional associations. Opposition to family ownership by such groups focussed on individual property rights for men, and benefits to women were incidental.

The situation for Hindu women was, at least legally, greatly improved by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act of 1937, which among other things, took the unprecedented steps of given women a share of the collective ownership by the coparcenary (previously all-male).

In summary, women had restricted rights of ownership property in the earliest British property law in India. This was because these laws were a codification of existing customary law. Women's rights varied by religion, with Hindu women having the least property rights. Under British rule, various legal reforms increased the rights of women. Post-independence legislation further improved women's rights.

For further reading on legislation and women's property rights in India, see:

• Mytheli Sreenivas, "Conjugality and Capital: Gender, Families, and Property under Colonial Law in India", The Journal of Asian Studies 63(4), 937-960 (2004): http://www.jstor.org/stable/4133196

• Shruti Pandey, "Property Rights of Indian Women", https://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/files/gjo_article_India_caseC.%20Masilamani_en.pdf

As for other comments in the linked reply, dowry did become more widespread under British rule, and became required for the most common legal form of Hindu marriage. Dowry was not invented or introduced by the British, as, just as with property rights, the British codified existing customary law. In principle, dowry was valuable insurance for Hindu women with restricted inheritance rights, as it meant that the bride entered the marriage with her own wealth. In practice, not all of the dowry became the bride's wealth, with some becoming the property of the groom's family.

On the narrowing of marriage laws and the expansion of dowry under British rule:

• Ranjana Sheel, "Institutionalisation and Expansion of Dowry System in Colonial North India", Economic and Political Weekly 32(28), 1709-1718 (1997): http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405621

Sati (the "voluntary" self-sacrifice of widows by burning at their husband's funeral) is a very old custom in India, with scattered reports of the practice from the 4th century BC, and more evidence of the practice from the 6th century AD. It is likely that the practice descended from widow sacrifice in royal funerals among Indo-European peoples. Widow sacrifice, and more generally human sacrifice, was largely restricted to royal funerals in Indo-European tradition:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/imxp7y/is_there_any_evidence_for_human_sacrifice_in/

and this restriction to royal funerals appears to have been the case in early practice of sati in India. Over time, it spread to lower classes. Since the practice is recorded from before the origin of Islam, it is not correct to blame it on Islamic invasions of India.

The comment you are asking about, with its combination of vocal glorification of Hinduism and a high degree of disregard for truth, appears to be a typical product of extreme Hindu nationalism, and cannot be considered reliable on matters of history.