Marriage is one of the most sought-after phases of many people in Inda. Marriages in India are given a lot of thought and precedence; however, society and its rigid structures have barred people from seeking out their own choices in life and their marriage matters.
Indians consider marriages as one of the most important events of their life. They make sure that they make it a huge event, which would leave them with unforgettable memories to be cherished time and again in the future. If we keep aside 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 have had for years, and for men, it is yet another celebration to be endowed with fun (liquor).
What makes Indian marriage different?
In our country, the social structure encouraging the institution of marriage helps fulfill the desires of many. They choose to spend lakhs to celebrate their upcoming overflow of responsibilities. But I am not writing about them, and I want to particularly focus on the group of people who do not want to marry at a certain designated age that is set by 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 should not be considered a necessity but 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 so that they “settle” and give birth to children and then fulfill their desires, and so the cycle continues.
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 be continued for life to exist. But I also believe that many people contribute to this circle happily and wilfully. So, why doesn’t society leave this minority of people who wish to remain single, alone?
According to society, people destroy their lives by continuing their studies beyond a certain age. 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 it would be best if you got married at a certain age set on certain parameters decided by society, which will protect you from your own destruction, protection which comes without a care in the world for your studies or a job. This mentality is what I am questioning here.
When under pressure, young people marry, then they cant adjust to the marriage, and society doesn’t intervene then. Then the couple has to stand on its own and solve their differences on their own. Society doesn’t help them then. 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, why force them into it?
Yes, it is a necessity, but not for all. Single people are 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 any good to this generation. We need to keep these stereotypical attitudes behind to progress.
An individual should mean “individual.” The societal conduct in which an individual is stuck ever since he is born doesn’t let him explore individuality. I do not suggest that there shouldn’t be any social conduct because there will be utter chaos if that is the case. 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 society but by themselves, so the right to choose should remain with the individual itself. This idea of necessity needs to be rectified.