Yesterday, I watched the old Bollywood movie "Wo Saat Din", in which a girl falls in love with a boy and is later forced into marriage with another man. She tries to commit suicide on the first night of marriage, but her husband, being a doctor, saves her. When her husband learns the whole story, he finds her lover and attempts to reunite them. But by this time, that girl has identified so strongly with her role as a wife that she refuses to go.
So, basically, the movie is about the conflict between the free will of an individual and the rules of society, and the movie portrays that even if the girl has been forced against her will, she will naturally assume the role. No doubt the nicety of her husband also plays a very crucial role. But the most critical question is whether the institution of marriage is just a "workable arrangement" between two individuals wherein they try to bring up a family and take care of the family members, give birth to children, and take care of them. Or, marriage is about companionship, wherein two individuals share their lives, help each other grow, and play with the infinite possibilities. What is the foundation of marriage? A workable arrangement or love?
There is a lot of change in society since the times of "Wo saat din". Divorces are far more common now. To an extent, there is an acceptance of divorces. Yet, the fundamental question still remains the same. Where is the space for "individual will" in a workable relationship of marriage? Still, most of us would answer that to make the marriage workable and keep the family intact, we have to make compromises, and in fact, both the husband and the wife have to make such compromises. It appears as if marriage is a Yajna where both have to give their Ahuti. But, workability for what? After all, the very genesis of human society is with a purpose to make human life more fulfilling. How will individuals feel fulfilled in a relationship full of compromises and sacrifices?
The concept of workability is embedded in survival. There will always be a conflict between survival and freedom. We, as a country, were surviving under British rule. But the freedom fighters chose to fight for freedom and put their survival at stake. Many of them were killed in the freedom struggle. But what motivated them was the vision of a country where people have the freedom to explore and create whatever they wish. People can explore their potential. We have to recognise that the function of marriage is also that of co-creation and not mere workability. Each individual is different and at a different souls are at a different stage of maturity. Some people consider a limited frame of life to be the reality of the universe, while some want to break free of all the limitations and explore the whole of the universe.
Would we sacrifice the fundamental purpose of our lives just to make marriage workable? It will be good if both partners grow together in a relationship, but if not, relationships can't be a bondage to confine the partner and deprive him of the growth he deserves as a human being. Workability around what? What is primary: relationship or growth? Relationships are just tools to facilitate the growth of human beings. Human beings are not tools to ensure the continuance of relationships so that the social fabric is maintained. I believe that it's high time that we understand this so that individuals are free for exploration and co-creation. Survival can't be the purpose of life. Anyhow, everyone is going to die. The purpose of life is to live life and explore. Exploration can't happen in tightly defined rules. We can't set the boundaries for an artist to draw a painting. We can't set the rules for dancing. We can't fix the frame for a scientist. When he discovers the deep secrets of nature, his discoveries are not confined to any pre-existing framework. Relationships are meant to help us grow and explore, and the workability of relationships, per se, can't be the central purpose of the life of any individual.
Comments