Indian Marriage; in this context, I am bringing in my argument regarding how the rigid social structure bars people from fulfilling their choices.
For Indians, Marriage is one of the most important events of their life. They want to make it a huge event, which would leave unforgettable memories with them to be cherished time and again in the future. If we keep aside for a moment the bridegroom, there are all these close relatives equally excited and enthusiastic about the marriage. For women, marriage becomes an excuse to fulfill all the desires they inhabit, and for men, it is yet another celebration to be endowed with fun (liquor).
Why makes Indian marriage different?
Here the social structure encouraging the institution of marriage helps in fulfilling the desires of many. It is their choice that they spend lakhs to celebrate their upcoming overflow of responsibilities. But my argument is not for these people, it is regarding those people who are not willing to marry at a certain designated age as set by the society (27-30 for boys and 24-26 for girls) or in fact don’t wish to marry at all.
What are they supposed to do, and how do they cope with the social expectations that work behind each individual’s so-called personal life? I am here, not portraying by any chance that marriage, being an overflow of responsibilities is bad or shouldn’t be there. I am trying to throw light upon the fact that marriage of a person should not be considered as a necessity but it should be a personal choice.
As our ancestors and people belonging to the primeval age say, ‘marriage gives you an aim to progress and work harder for your family.’ It gives you a happily “settled” life. A life where you give birth to children for whom you work hard lifelong and fulfill their desires. Then you get them married as well so that they “settle” and give birth to children and then fulfill their desires and so on and so forth.
Society’s take on Indian Marriage
Yes, I agree that this is a process of life, this is how generations are created and it is a circle that has to remain in order for life to exist. But I also believe that there are many people contributing to this circle happily and wilfully. So, why don’t the society leave this minority of people who wish to remain single, alone?
According to the society, people destroy their life studying further to an age where there is less scope of getting a suitable partner. How ironic this line sounds: “destroying one’s life by studying more”. This means that if you don’t get married, you destroy your life. So you should get married at a certain age set on certain parameters decided by the society in order to not get destroyed, no matter if you have not completed your studies or you don’t have a settled job. This mentality is what I am questioning here.
When under pressure young people marry and after this, they are unable to adjust due to certain reasons, society doesn’t intervene at that moment. Then the couple has to stand on its own and solve their differences on their own. No society helps them. The worst cases end up in divorce. So what is the use of it? If the person isn’t ready to take up so many responsibilities then why force him into it?
Yes, it is a necessity but not for all. There are single people living peacefully and in a better condition than the married “settled” people and if the society, as usual, fails to understand this since it is a logical argument, people who do understand it, should stop caring about it. Clinging to a certain parameter won’t do in this generation. It needs to keep these stereotypical attitudes behind in order to progress.
An individual should mean “individual”. The social conduct in which this individual is stuck ever since he is born doesn’t let him explore his individuality. I am not saying here, that there shouldn’t be any social conduct because if that will be the case, there will be utter chaos. What I want to say is that the rigidity needs to be broken.
People should be allowed to choose what they wish, for themselves because the ultimate repercussions of their choices will be reaped not by the society but by themselves, so the right to choose should remain with the individual itself. This idea of necessity needs to be rectified.