Article 2

There has been an evolution in the way Indian media represents marriage for sure- you can trace its
journey from_____ to Made in Heaven. It is easy to think that being married is not what it used to
be. But when you look closely at the society, the question arises: has marriage really evolved in real
life? Has it really shed its dead skins of archaic practices? And since anyone who questions it is shut
up with the same age-old argument of traditions, it is important to know where exactly this tradition
of marriage emerged in history.

Scholars like Lubbock and Mc Lennan think that in the early stages of human race there was a
promiscuous society with no established institution of marriage, and no way of identifying the
paternity of the child. But around 800BC to 600Bc there was a shift to an agricultural society, marked
by caste and class divisions. The idea of private control over land also emerged, and with it the
patrilineal system to ensure that land was passed through generations.

So, now people needed to keep track of who was the father of the child. And so, with this arose the
whole ordeal of being uncomfortable with the sexuality of women, and the need to control it. And
with it the idea of marriage.

There are thousands of Jataka stories written during this period that solely work on instilling the idea
that expression of female sexuality is a bad thing. Writings of Manu specifically say that women are
wild sexual creatures that need to be tamed by their husbands. The solution that Manu proposes is
instilling the idea of Stridharama, or the duty of a wife in the minds of women, which remains one of
the basic tenets of Hindu marriage till now.

Stephanie Coontz, the author of Marriage, A History, writes, quoting the historian Margaret Hunt,
who said marriage was “the main means of transferring property, occupational status, personal
contacts, money, tools, livestock and women across generations, and kin groups.” The main purpose
and primary focus of marriage was then a transaction — one that solidified gender roles and
determined a strict division of labour within the home.

Women were essentially treated like properties themselves, their ownership transferred from their
parents to their husband when they were married. In fact, the ritual of ‘Kanyadan’ in Hindu
weddings solely portrays this transfer of ownership. The shocking thing is that this and many other
sexist rituals are still carried out during weddings.

In Christian weddings, the act of father “giving away” daughter is too obvious to mention. It gets as
simple as saying “husband and wife” rather than “man and wife”. Gender prejudice sparks in with
vows such as “honour and obey” specifically for women.

Gender specific wedding symbols like mangalsutra, sindoor, bangles, etc for the women, but not for
the man only makes the wedding look like a deal of ownership being passed. How about
“exchanging” mangalsutras, etc and make it a two-way deal to establish your marital status? And if
that cannot happen, how about getting rid of them?

Marriage has evolved a lot. Or at least it is moving towards equality. People have now stated
thinking about dividing labour not based on gender, but efficiency. Partners try to share the
responsibility of raising up a child. These changes have mostly started in the metropolitan cities,
while several parts of the country are still continuing with unequal sexist practices.

The question, however, is that even after getting rid of sexist practices and beliefs, can marriage be a
feminist institution? Marriage began with looking at women as property. Can all these reforms really
change the foundation of marriage? Women are still seen as moving out from their own family and
becoming part of another, while men are spared from any such expectations. Is it not then a part of
system of patriliny, and at large patriarchy?