The choice to be.

The other day I happened to notice the matrimonial page in the newspaper in a different light. We all know that matrimonials are always based on caste and religion. The community is given in bold letters and everything else is secondary. What I observed was that this neat little package of information presented the person as a product ready to be marketed. It was a buyer seller column. With specifics ranging from caste, age and profession to requirements such as the girl should be fair, sweet and a vegetarian. I found even an absurdity where the guy was a divorcee and it was ‘mutual consent, fault not his’. It makes me wonder two things. Firstly, if we as a society give undue importance to marriage, especially as a social contract and secondly, if we are increasingly becoming resigned to the idea that marriage and family are necessities that we have to just endure, rather than want.

Let us consider the dynamics of this system. When it comes to marriage, which is an establishment to propagate the species without a fight for the female, we are still primal. Propagation of species being a collective effort, we refuse to move beyond to the point where reproduction is an individual choice. This institution also objectifies a woman. Essentially in a context where marriage is arranged, it is the leasing out of the woman’s womb that is the primary factor. In this regard, the woman seldom gets a choice. The womb being leased to the man, the progeny also becomes his property. Thus, whether material or biological, ownership is always the man’s claim. This distortion initiates other societal norms. The familial hierarchy is embedded into a unit and woven through the social fabric.

But, has it always been so? Somewhere along the line of evolution, woman’s duties got side tracked into family and reproduction. The man, who had to protect her, became the power holder, the care taker and the decision maker. As this social evolution went on, the set up of marriage was hardly questioned. There had to be families to avoid the clash for women, there had to be species propagation. But as time went by, this collective began to be opposed by the individualistic. As with any case, the moment a hierarchy is questioned or the whim of the majority is opposed, the system locks down on the heretics. The individual is not allowed to question it.

Though individual freedom to choose is somewhat more in the present context, we do not question the society for an entirely different set of reasons. With the changing socio economic landscape, man has become more material oriented. Priorities have changed from house, family and relationships to money and status. We find that the matrimonial ads we see everyday is anything but the choice of the person concerned. We are now ignorant of both the world and ourselves, by making the simple choice of indifference. And this indifference makes family life harder. If earlier, reasons for conflict were few, now they are diversifying. And since time is less, people put less effort into their relationships and end up either completely disgruntled or apathetic to their selves. It reflects on every sphere of their activity. On the other hand, two people who in the first place came together by choice will put more effort because they know how much they mean to each other. So, naturally, it seems wrong that we as a society deny the right to a person to find a mate of his choice rather than being assigned to someone. The society as a whole can function better if presented a situation where a person has the right to choose his partner and whether or not to be a parent. It puts lesser pressure on the person and gives more chances to channel his energy creatively. After all, like Oscar Wilde said, ‘Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.’