A rishi once bathed in a sacred pond. He scooped up some water in his palms to offer to his ancestors, and discovered a tiny rat. Taking it to be an act of destiny, he carried it to his ashram on the bank, and using his tapa, changed the rat into a girl. He then began rearing her as his own daughter.
Time came when the girl was of age. As is common for Indian fathers, he started thinking about what kind of grooms would be most suitable.
He should be venerated by one and all, and must rule over the world. Looking up, he saw the sun, and he invited the sun god to wed his daughter. The daughter, however, said she wasn’t able to look at him because of his immense glow, and declined the match. The sage then asked if the sun knew someone more powerful than him.
Why yes, the moon. He eclipsed the sun ever so often, and he caused tides in both the seas and the minds of all beings. And so the moon was called and asked to accept the daughter in marriage, but the girl found him too pale and pockmarked.. was there anyone more powerful than him?
Why yes, the cloud! Shining at full might on full moon nights, he would be rendered invisible if occluded by the dark cloud. But he was too big and bulbous, and spoke only in loud rumbles.
The wind was next, who could scatter the biggest cloud into mere wisps. But he was too unstable and hard to catch.
Why then try the mountain that stopped the wind’s flow. But he was too hard and stout.
Finally, the groom was to arrive. The king of the rats was referred who could burrow right into the heart of the biggest mountains without the slightest inconvenience to him. The daughter found herself entirely enamored by him, and consented.
The daughter was returned to her rat form, the marriage conducted, and the sage learnt that upbringing is important, but it does not discount the nature the being is born with.
Similarly would be the case of whether or not one should marry. Consider two dispositions, one where one is either a loner whose purpose in life is devoid of notions of companionship, be it for spiritual reasons or for material aims. The other, one where there is a need for companionship, irrespective of other aims. One’s disposition is perhaps, for most, best judged by oneself alone. Which is perhaps why this fairly intuitive principle hasn’t been seen applied in legislation of social codes. But as a thought experiment, let us analyse what happens when either disposition is forced to act the other way.
Loners being forced into marriages leads to disinterested spouses, who may (appear to?) act selfishly. They don’t care about romances, family obligations, social demands. At best, they become friends with their spouse, at worst, they feel trapped and miserable with them. At best, the spouse learns to keep a distance and carry more than their share of the weight. At worst, the disrespect becomes too much and things are broken.
On the other hand, those who need companionship but are forced to live by themselves feel deprived, wronged, even oppressed by the expectations laid onto them. They have wanted their own sweet home with someone they love, observing festivals together, coming home to a nice meal, getting through tough emotional times together, and yes, carnal pleasure. But forced to live alone due to social expectation or circumstance, they may either become bitter, or put up appearance of normativity while they seek pleasure in hiding, and often in taboo or even illegal ways.
Thus there arises a need for people to look at themselves and their inclinations, and opt for an appropriate path. Unfortunately for the most part, marriage is the default option, and if you’re not suitable for marriage as defined in the veritable shastras, one must opt for staying alone, growing old alone, or perhaps worse, stay in a bad marriage. Clearly, the default is not ideal.
So does one then get rid of social injunctions? That is the harebrained solution professed by iconoclasts. The more sustainable option is to understand what good marriage can do to individuals and what harms it can bring to individual parties, and then have the individuals construct their own social arrangement to take care of their needs should they choose to remain outside of the mould of marriage, and to acknowledge partnership if marriage is not provided for those inclined towards companionship.
Rukmaambuja 
Leave a comment