@ekaputra Thanks for the book recommendation, will surely try to pickup and read that.Nothing in this world is permanent. Everything changes all the time.
The social norms are similarly very fluid. In this fluidity some practices there is stagnation, turbulence, whitewater, running underground, and disappearances, just as in any rivers.
It is foolish to cry or hold on to some age-old outdated practices.
For a society to function there has to be social norms in addition to laws of the land. Laws of the land supersedes social norms.
Child-Marriage and Sati were the social norms, they got outlawed.
Similarly, widows in India were disinherited, which was reversed by law.
Caste discrimination was outlawed but has been very poorly enforced. The social norms and politicians have kept caste discrimination on life-support. It will die in due course.
The rigid caste system wastes human resources and denies growth. The people who could not progress in the stifling bureaucratic systems of poor countries, migrate to the west and prosper because they can unshackle themselves.
CUT the SHACKLES.
A domesticated dog will stay close to home when unchained.
For an average human stays and marries in a relationship.
A wild wolf will run the moment the chins are removed.
Some people are like that.
Coming back to marriage:
At present the Laws of land favor Marriage. Marriages have legal privileges. It also helps the social order and rearing of children (labor force). The social norms towards marriage are changing, we do not know the trajectory at this time. But at present most societies and political leadership favor marriages.
My sincere request is to keep this thread about Marriage and not pull it down to the Caste level.
@prasad Although i wouldnt agree on your mention of the rigidity of the caste system, i'll stick to the marriage topic to avoid deviating: Although the law of the land grants a legal framework and validation to marriage: Its not uniform across the land. Thats for sure. One prime example being the acceptance of laws for different religions. In certain practices, one man has the option of marrying many women. Other being the inheritance and property rights are still different for different categories of people.
The law of this land has not stuck some of them down and moreoever nobody also seems to be taking a serious anti stand to these for being unethical to others. Infact, that is being considered a separate law in itself. This is helplessness at it finest by the laws of the land.
Laws conform to the social conscience. Not the other way round. What we consider legal in our country is illegal in many other nations and vice versa. Hence, who sets the parameters to decide which is progressive/regressive is still a highly debatable point.
So, saying the law favoring marriage currently, hence it can be supported: it maybe because of the current social norms as i had mentioned in the above para, for example the in the case of Live in Relationships: The steps taken by the judiciary are pragmatic in approach and a welcome step towards social acceptance of live-in relationships. Live-in relationships do provide individual freedom, but laws are essential to cut back its disadvantages, due to the insecurities it carries with it. A live in relationship though may be recognized by the judiciary still lacks societal acceptance and continues to be a taboo. Proper legislative enactments are required not only to protect the rights and interests of the partners to such relationships but also to determine the various other rights arising out of such relationship such right over property, custodial rights of children etc.
So, as time goes by are we moving towards accepting the scandinavian models currently of late marriages, bearing children before marriage and then deciding on whether to marry?. Perhaps, this is one model that can also be taken as these countries are also some of the most happiest nations on the planet currently. Like i dont want a partner, i can chuck him and select another. Process of getting divorces is also super fast. They get it around in a weeks time. Could this be the progressives of our society might be taking us towards?
I believe we must'nt restrict any person under the laws of marriage, as it is also against individual freedoms. Shouldnt this institution which seems to be placing some restrictions be razed down(say not entirely possible in near future, but atleast brick by brick systematically).
Marriage is far better for men than it is for women. It reinforces the notion of women as property. It is no wonder men are happier, have better mental and physical health, and are better off fiscally within marriage than women. Married women still do the bulk of the housework, and men do almost as little childcare as they did 30 years ago.
The institution of marriage has formed the backdrop to women’s oppression for centuries, and it continues to do so. Forced marriage, child brides, Sati and polygamy all show how human rights violations of women and girls all too often come hand in hand with marriage.