By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
Different culture sanctifies marriage between a man and a woman in order to procreate by solemnizing the relationship as socially acceptable. This would ultimately result in a conducive environment for the children’s upbringing and security for the family which of course is directly related to the welfare of the society. The sacredness of such betrothals was solidly fortified ever since religion (of all kinds and denomination) sees other forms of relationship outside marriage as sinful or even a crime incompatible at the individual and social level. The rest of course is history as the tussle between religion and civil society has reached a crescendo whereby the former views emerging opinions such as gay marriage, civil union, domestic partnership and what have you as a threat to its suzerainty and supremacy in matters related to anything that is marriageable. Christianity seen as the most flexible form of religion is however still not giving in too much ground in recognizing relationships outside ‘sanctified’ marriage.
Social groups have been the frontrunner and most vocal in upping the cry on marriage alternatives. But most of all they have been extremely successful in lobbying within the corridors of political power for legal recognition of diverse forms of non-conventional relationships between consenting adults. Western countries have recognized myriad forms of consensual relationships such as civil union and domestic partnership presenting a milieu of options for those who chose not to opt for marriage. Various other legal measures exist as well which enhance the security of those who do choose not to live together as married couples. Such measures have become more visible in the Indian scenario and one form of such expression is the Supreme court ruling on live-in relationships which, while legally recognizing it, maintains no guarantee for alimony. The discourse is picking up momentum more specifically on the security and well being of the parties involved in such relationships. This of course does not mean that public policy is changing towards other forms of consensual relationship. Columbia University for example insists that all its heterosexual employees must marry their partners to them on the health benefit plan. Some of our churches even took retrograde steps by suspending their own members for illicit unsanctioned affairs. This parochialism is edged deeply in the society to such an extent that we fail to see beyond the invisible cloak by pretending that all is well with the world.
Last Friday the New York Senate legalized Gay and Lesbian marriages bringing the decade long gay rights movement right up to the door where it all started. With this legislation, New York became the largest US state where alternative sexually oriented people can wed as well as give the gay-rights movement new momentum. The legislation aptly follows the recent UN ruling (a few days earlier) where it recognizes gay rights as part of human rights. However, while it may have sounded the bugle for merriment, there are others who feel that the institution of marriage should not become the benchmark in which relationships can be recognized (to gain health and other benefits besides security)
In a highly fragmented society, does a one-size-fits-all rules of marriage provide an opportunity to order our lives in ways which gives us greater freedom? The western world has gone beyond the old concept of marriage as the only arrangement and I think we ought to open our minds to the same or at least be acquiesced to the need for operating a system of recognizing different forms of relationships between consenting adults. Most people want to be married but not all really want to marry (blame in on changing values, complicated and competitive social life, career choices etc). Alternatives to marriage such as domestic partnership and civil union must be made available for the community as optional methods of cohabitation.
The marriage system as per the Khasi society is flexibly understood to be a mix of polygamy and (for the most part) monogamy. Most of political leaders, business tycoons and just about everybody else are in one way or another engaged in polygamous relationships (largely unspoken). Rampant out of marriage relationship results in higher prevalence of infidelity, multiple partners, unlicensed live-in relationships, abandoned children etc which have now become part and parcel of our society. Would compulsory marriage registration etc mitigate the problems which the community faces? It would no doubt address some of the problems but not all. We need to look at both sides of the coin. The Mait Shaphrang movement have worked hard ( and still does) to invite the government for legislating on a Marriage Act for the Khasi-Jaintia community. I confess that I have not really followed the various demands of the movement but I feel that it should also consider these realities lest we regret for not acclimatizing ourselves with these facts if an opportunity ever arises for such. We should clearly distinguish the win from right to marry from those who are forced to marry. If we can delineate this from other forms of civil union our chances of arriving at a solution for compulsory marriage registration can be more inclusive and more acceptable to even our legislators (many of whom) have secrets wives and maintain other forms of relationship.
Marriage falls within the concurrent list of the Constitution and I see no hurdles for the state in pursuing various legal measures to address problems concomitant to issues raised by civil society from time to time on compulsory marriage licenses and others. Time is not on our side and it does not help when pretension becomes the rule and acceptance the exception. This may be the only alternative to bring orderliness and restitution in the Khasi way of living.
(The author is a scholar at JNU, New Delhi)