What time is it? Marriage time

Throughout the world, marriage maintains its overall place as an essential building block of society and more importantly, a primary indicator of life stability. Although the practice of marriage is universally human, different world regions have unique approaches to the institution. In particular, the Indian marital system, while giving an external impression of a low failure rate, contains unique characteristics that can possibly sabotage the creation of a sustained relationship. These traits have permeated through centuries of the Indian ethos, and while they may have suited the engendering society, in our current time, can and should be revisited.

Throughout the discussion, the term ‘Indian’ as a qualifier for marriage will be understood as the viewpoint held by the majority of Indian Hindus. While it is clear that many religions exist on the subcontinent, the following discussion will be focused on the Hindu interpretation. Before examining marriage, it is first necessary to examine the close relationship between religion and culture, as it is the key that separates the Indian mind from the rest.

Hinduism is widely accepted as the world’s oldest religion, as well as containing the largest repository of scriptures. The Hindu scriptural pantheon covers nearly every aspect of human life: Ayurveda – medicine, Dhanurveda – warfare, Arthashastra – politics, Gandharvaveda – music & dance, and so forth. While these scriptures aren’t consulted on a daily basis by most of India’s population, the mere existence of these texts illustrates a very important point: The framers of Hinduism made every attempt to connect with all components of daily existence.

When scrutinized carefully, Hinduism transcends the traditional definition of the word ‘religion’. Religion implies a separation: a set of practices distinct from day-to-day living, done for the purpose of spiritual communion. The “de-colonialized” name Sanaatana Dharma translates loosely to “everlasting principles,” supporting that Hinduism’s beliefs are to be practiced on a continual basis, and exist separate from daily living. One can easily see how many Hindus (particularly those on the subcontinent) intertwine religious practice with day-to-day life. Why else would conversion not exist as a primary goal for Hindus? The religion is passed through simple living, as Hindus pray and visit temples regularly, many do not consider themselves “religious.” One of Hinduism’s defining characteristics is its implementation on an indirect, socialized level.

Historically, the Hindu impetus for marriage is fulfillment of scriptural obligation, or samskara. According to the Taittriya Bramhana (ch. 11): “Marriage is a sacrifice and one who does not enter the married life is an incomplete person.” Dharmashastras postulate a four-stage system of living, highlighting the ‘grhasta’ or househoulder stage as the anchor for the remaining three. The hierarchy clearly proposes the idea of marriage & begetting of children as instrumental for reaching life’s goals. Traditionally speaking, society is intended to be the primary benefactor from the union of man and woman.

The attitude does not completely exclude individualistic desires for marriage, but the “chain of command” clearly positions societal obligations above personal ones. Certainly there is a tendency to believe such logic was prevalent in early times, but now has atrophied away in the modern era. But behold: A survey of 280 Indian families showed the majority named continuation of the kula (lineage) as the primary rationale for marriage. Was this data collected hundreds and thousands of years ago? Guess again. The survey dates 1977, merely twenty-five years ago. Also, in an Indian women’s magazine, Women’s Era, the author states at the conclusion of her article supporting marriage for women, “The presence of a husband is a must for a decent and respectful life in the society.” Once again, the above statement was issued in 1999, not 1099.

By contrast, both Christianity and Islam do not have strict doctrines pertaining to marriage. The Koran has no specific ceremony detailing how a marriage should be carried out, and the acquiring of a spouse is suggested somewhat casually (Koran 24:32). Likewise, the early Christians did not regard marriage as a religious act. The certification of marriage as a Catholic sacrament was finalized through the Council of Trent, 1563 A.D. (The council was held to stymie the rising Protestant groups within Europe). The only monotheistic religion to describe marriage ceremonies is Judiasm, however their rules are specified in the Talmud, and not the primary scripture, the Torah. In addition, these religions have not made the same effort [as Hinduism] to fuse themselves onto other “worldly” activities.

Given this background, it is no surprise the west has become a fountainhead of secular marriage, especially in America. In fact, the literal meaning of the verb “to wed” is “to gamble”, a far cry from the Sanskrit “vivaaha,” literally meaning: “to embark on special journey.” A person living in America needs to shield his eyes to not catch sight of couples getting married while dipped in chocolate, or while flying an airplane, or even flying an airplane through chocolate. Certainly these are the exception to the rule, but it’s worth noting how ancestral thought can affect present behavior.

Up until now, we’ve asserted the following point: Hinduism as a religion prescribes marriage as an obligation, and executes the instruction through social conditioning, rather than a strict religious edict. Think it’s an over-exaggeration? Type the word “matrimonial” into any competent Internet search engine and see what shows up. If every culture approaches the institution with equal vigor, why don’t we have Peruvian matrimonials, or Bulgarian matrimonials? It’s clear the Indian approach to marriage is strikingly unique. Now comes the question: So what? If the system has survived for thousands of years, why bother changing it?

In comparing these two systems (East & West), many people point to India’s low divorce rate and therefore claim innate superiority (many of these people are not subcontinentals themselves). However, the analysis is inconclusive when taking into account the cultural stigma associated with marital termination. Simply put, if divorce was more facilitated in the Indian framework, it would occur. As the Indian collective regards marital contracts equally important (in some cases, more important) to society and the individual, a dissolution of said contract represents a betrayal to society, and the religious binding principles behind it. Scriptures verify the claim by describing marriage ceremonies to miniscule details, while not a single syllable is accorded to divorce. In actuality, it’s a deep-rooted sense of social responsibility, translating to fear, that curtails the divorce rate, not any inherent “success.”

But even more importantly, a subconscious adherence to a religious underpinning can subvert the very society it intends to serve. The reversal is achieved by the protean social changes that we’ve all experienced: longer life spans (there’s no need to get married at age 14 anymore), significant female independence, both financially and socially (females can earn decent livings on their own and have personal resolve to “operate freely”), and technological modernization (females don’t require males to charge down hills carrying spears to feed the family).

These changes allow males and females to more carefully evaluate compatibility concerns before entering into a long-term relationship. However, if society rushes individuals into marriage without addressing fundamental incompatibilities (not the superficial differences that exist in every human-to-human interaction) between themselves, how exactly is society benefited? Ultimately, it isn’t. Unwise clinging to tradition turns potential relationships into crapshoots.

Many skeptics may still not be convinced, so I’ll share a personal anecdote: I met a middle-aged Indian gentleman who happened to be walking along my street. Our first meeting began with idle chit-chat, which included him asking my age. When I replied ‘twenty five’, he asked if I was married. I said no, and then almost instantly he told me of a girl with a Ph.D., who was educated in India, and living in the west coast, etc… After knowing me for ten minutes, he was already expressing interest in my marriage! Did he have my personal best interest at heart? Dubious. I find it hard to believe after 10 minutes, he’d be so concerned about my long-term stability. Maybe he had her best interest, but then shouldn’t he investigate my character deeper before suggesting an alliance? What it boils down to is thousands of years of Indian acculturation kicking in. His brain told him “A male in his mid-twenties should have marriage at the forefront of his mind. Period.”

So, is the answer a complete abandonment of the system? Absolutely not. The fact that it has survived for so long proves it holds some merit. However, it’s vital that we as a cultural coalition recognize the potentially harmful behavior and entertain the possibility of change. Simply commenting “change is inevitable” is not enough. Mental effort needs to be made to combat years of socialization.

Guilt and fear need to be removed from the process in a large way. People shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary societal pressure when making life-changing decisions. The operative word here is unnecessary: Of course it’s beneficial for young people to take the advice of elderly people, especially parents and close family members. But what needs to be struck down is the more general societal pressure created by years of unchallenged thinking. Making such an attempt positions us to synthesize a system that accomplishes what the original framers intended to do: serve the individual as well as the surrounding society.

Bibliography:

Murphy, Brian. The world of weddings, an illustrated celebration (c. 1978)
Ramu, G.N. Family and Caste in Urban India : A case study. (c. 1977)
Hindu Dharma, A guide for teachers. Published by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (c. 1996)
Jha, Krishna Kumar. Rethinking the marriage institution. (c. 1981)