Cultural norms revolve around our society’s progression. This patriarchal culture and mindset will be changed over time and it’ll happen so spontaneously; while Love is a constant, binding people together since eternity, the cultural norms around it have evolved ever since, Marriage being a mode of conduct for social acknowledgement of ownership to it becoming notion of lovers being united forever. But in all cases a true motive of marriage remains that is to announce to the society that this woman is taken. While there are some tribes where they mark the man with symbols as well but the underlying idea of it hovers around marking a good commodity with a sold out tag. However the society has progressed much from the days of King Oedipus when it was socially acceptable if not celebrated to marry a deceased king’s wife like an Inheritable property similar to the throne. Social acceptance around two people loving each other has a long line of history an marriage being just one aspect of it. If love be the foundation of marriage then it can still be seen in some parts of the world Love is considered as least valued factor while arranging a marriage.
In a progressive society also, there could be extreme measures taken to ensure none can take ownership of the commodity called Wife after a man’s death as not a long time ago this country itself was suffering from Satidah. And the freakish thing about it was at that time it was socially justified and was morally acceptable as well, logics were inferred that if you take an oath to be a partner in life and death and life after death then its only romantic for you to die when your partner dies. Now this is quite unthinkable right now but back in the day if some woman thought it so then she would have been criticised by the society. This gives us the insight that Our moraliy and ethics should not be static or firm beliefs they should be challenged whenever our perception changes or grows. The mediaeval customs are mostly perished but still the relics of patriarchy remains. One can argue a person should only go with a partner who believes in same ethics as he or she does but that leaves out a question for us, what if this acceptance of a dominant symbolism is just as wrong as accepting Satidah in their respective timelines? What if some certain man a century ago was so ahead oh his time that he accepted marrying a widow without any second thought but the society around them cursed them for it. The society has no place in their decision making but it can sure smash a newer thought to dust and thus unnecessarily slow down the path of progression. For all I could say we need to accept the other person in our lives as a complete different person altogether, in that we respect their individuality and unique personality. I can fall in love with a woman for all the reasons there is and for all the reasons there isn’t but what if suddenly she says, she won’t be displaying relics of patriarchy by wearing vermillion on her neatly parted hair that her mother told her to maintain since adolescence? Shall I forget all the love I have for that woman upon hearing this and declare it a deadend for our relationship? Or should I make her believe that for sake of social acceptance and my inner cowardice of not being able to fight the social norms for better, she should wear it even after she found a profound reason not to do that? Or should I use the old trick of forcing her to do it for Love or should I use my ego and peer support to logically or forcibly brainwash her mind in a process of questionable enlightenment so that she would submit to acceptance of it herself and would feel guilty of thinking as such? This lives me with one diring question of what would I have done if I was born two centuries ago in the age of Satidah
Pritam Mondal 