Marriage... how many discussions have happened on this and how many of them remain inconclusive. Guess that is why even the scriptures allowed for different types of marriages (gandharva vivaha and such .. err i don't remember the names).
It is a matter of the hearts - this is something that people commonly accept and there seems to be often not many doubts regarding this. There are voices that say "not just hearts but practicality", however these are few in number. A marriage is loads of trouble concentrated into the few months or preparation that goes in to it. No, don't say no yet.. listen me out completely.
There are predominantly two kinds of marriage happening now (at least in India). The arranged marriage and the love marriage.
The arranged marriage is turning out of fashion - people do not accept the ritual of tieing the knot and then falling in love. there logic goes - how do i marry the person who i do not know? or "Come on! love is spontaneous and when it happens it happens and i cannot walk out of it". There are many more points of view to, but i am only taking a glimpse into the marriage setup here, so we wont go real deep.
The love marriage is in vogue - it gives the youngsters the chance to know the person before they commit for there life (it is a different matter that the life of the marriage is often small compared to the participants thanks to divorce). And well, one cannot talk much of this kind of marriage as this seems to be impulsive and so cannot be often defined with words. at least, that is what the participants say.
Now both of these put across trouble - could be as simple as a misunderstanding between the couple and the parents (love marriage) or the problems between relatives or the event itself where the people involved give way for their ego and go berserk over an insult that happened in the chaotic atmosphere there.
Thus one marriage generally result in a high tension.
These cannot be avoided it seems.
However there is one point that I think about often.
The sentence - "I am the one who is going to get married and only I can have a say - so if i have fallen in love with a person then there should exist no force stopping me"
How fair is this statement?
Assuming we still have the Indian-ness in our culture (a slight bit at least), how is a marriage an individuals event? Agreed the bride and the groom are the main characters.. but how many more are involved? If it was an individual event of personal choice, the event itself should happen as happens a date - with an environment where only the pair is involved and they alone relish the moments. But we don't see that happen, arranged marriage or not, it is generally an extravaganza. The grandeur is often in direct proportion to what the people involved can spend.
Thus the event is turned into a social affair. Then how is one to claim the private personal status the above statement claims?
It is understood that the bride and groom are going to share a very intimate and personal life... but the personal moments are not the only moments of life. So how does one claim the status?
In an Indian scenario (and often in foreign scenarios too) a person after falling in love with one does not generally cut ties with his existing relations. Thus if the better half truly has to be that - the better half, then the better half also has to maintain the same relationships. a compatibility between the all the relations, at lest the important (parents, brothers/sisters) need exist. Else, the marriage would just turn into a nightmare simply because the better half is not compatible with the people your half likes. Ideally speaking it would be like a split personality character with one being comfortable with some people and the other uncomfortable. This would cause a struggle not only between the relations but also between the personalities - simplified - between the couple.
So there exists every chance for a life to get miserable despite the love between the two.
One has to pause here - "if one loves another - then would not all these wrinkles be ironed out?"
Well, but that is a double edged sword and both of them are going to feel the same way with chances for the rift to only widen. even if that does not happen, the statement that i discuss was a statement that came out of a supreme individual consciousness, and in this compromise the individual-ness collapses.... not only between the couples(which is understandable and acceptable) but between the people who are related to the couple too....
So what validity would that statement have?
I do not want to discuss the moral right of a man to go for a love marriage, i only question the sanity of that statement?
And if that statement does not contain the sanity required, then one does have no right to go against all his relatives wishes to marry the one of his choice.
If by any chance one is going to say that his Bond with his pair is divine and true and the most important and thus negates the love of his parents.... what of such a man? A man who is ready to cut the bond of genes and blood and childhood - how long would he sustain the bond that developed by the logic of the mind and the say of the heart alone? With science itself changing its logic often and the saints themselves changing there stances, of what strength is his this new logic of his love?
My logic says that - a man who breaks bond with his parents or compromises there situation and gets there blessing to only find that there blessing was forced and not voluntary for the sake of his logic of the heart - love, can always break the bond with his loved one to for another impulsive understanding that his heart might impound.
And yet.. my logic might change too.... could it not.. after all no logic remains unchanged... and yet.... as of now....
