The public and private life of marriage in India

Marriage, once an asset to and a desirable attribute in a states(wo)man, does not seem to matter anymore. And thank goodness for that. What is interesting, however, is that while marriage is increasingly being sought to be delinked from a politician’s ability to deliver on statecraft, it is allowed to be played out in public for political gains. Like everything else, marriage in politics becomes good or bad, depending on what can be extracted out of it.

At this point in marriage history, Indian legislators are debating same-sex marriage. Call me cynical but the outcome will likely depend on what can be electorally gained from a particular stance, even if it doesn’t ostensibly seem so. A religiously sanctioned institution that has roots in property ownership is ripe for all kinds of manipulations.

At the turn of the century, in one of the most marriage-obsessed countries, especially when it comes to their politicians — the United States — a state enacted the nation’s first Covenant Marriage Act legislation, where spouses accept that their marriage will last their lifetimes, with only very limited recourse to divorces. Receiving thumping support from legislators, Louisiana sought to revive the institution by bringing back the idea of permanence to marriage in 1998. It was soon followed by Arizona and Arkansas. Interestingly, the marriage revival coincided with the revival of conservative politics in these three states.

But why talk about the West and marriage, when we have the desi shaadi (wedding)? In the Indian subcontinent, marriage still remains an all-weather industry — worth ₹3.68 lakh crore at last estimate, according to a report by KPMG — that suffers recession only under the most extraordinary circumstances such as a global pandemic.

Economics aside, the idea of marriage continues to subliminally inform our socio-political choices. Our rebellions and repressions are rooted in marriage. To reject or to accept and adapt. Marriage is that elephant in the room that all kinds of politics wish to ride.

Our politicians know it. We have seen how the bogey of love jihad, aimed to malign interfaith relationships, remains one of the most important issues for some, despite only around 2% of marriages in India breaching the faith barrier. We have also seen marriage being used as a punishment, sometimes even by courts, in rape cases.

Much of the noise surrounding the Uniform Civil Code is about the number of permitted marriages in different religions. Marriage, therefore, is put to use as State-imposed sexual regulation.

It has been proved empirically and through various studies that the relationship between politicians and their constituents is that of osmosis. While constituents inform the choices of their elected representatives, incumbents, too, are able to steer the opinions of their constituents in a specific direction. The more the latter are exposed to the message of their political representatives, the better primed they are for being influenced.

Since politicians seem to be renegotiating the social — and sometimes religious — contract of marriage in their personal lives, it is logical to expect that this would likely impact their constituents’ attitudes towards this institution. However, tides in the political pool have a significant impact on both politicians’ behaviour and mass opinion. Even the modes of announcement of marriage and divorce are influenced by the current political climate.

The Canadian prime minister chose Instagram to announce the end of his 18-year-long marriage. The medium tells us more about the message: Trudeau seeks to continue his image as the man of his times. On the other hand, rarely does one see a conservative politician taking to social media to talk about the end of his or her marriage. The illiberal practising politicians are aware that their personal choices may be at odds with their political ideology. Hence, a carefully crafted sense of solemnity and expedient privacy is built around their own marriages while they make a very public, political spectacle of the institution per se.

Does that reek of hypocrisy? Hell, yes. Traditionalist versions of marriage defy the principles of equality. True marriage equality is not just about the choice to marry but also to be able to carry out meaningful and difficult conversations about it.

Nishtha Gautam is an author, academic and journalist. She’s the co-editor of In Hard Times, a Bloomsbury book on national security. The views expressed are personal