Some days back I was watching a crime TV series, where a woman narrowly escapes an assault or probably her death because she notices a wedding band on the man who was getting cosy with her. She realizes that the man is lying and gets away from him. The giveaway for the criminal was the wedding band, a proof that he was married. Suddenly a question arised in my mind that what is the proof in our Indian society that a man is married. Unlike western communities there is no concept of wedding bands. There is the engagement ceremony in some communities where prospective bride and groom exchange rings. But I fail to notice engagement rings or wedding bands in most of married Indian men. My father, my uncles none of them wear those rings. Next time I meet my married friends from school and college, I will keep an eye on their ring fingers.
Unfortunately my question made me realize that Indian men are quite lucky to hide their marital status( if required) as there is no commonly acceptable compulsory proof on the man's attire to signify that he is married. But that's not the case with the Indian married woman. There is sindoor, mangalsutra, toe rings, bangles and I am sure there are more in that list. And she has to wear them. Maybe not all of them but she has to wear one or more of those insignia without any questions asked. And even if she has the audacity to question the custom of wearing the insignia, she is told that its the symbol that your marriage is alive and not wearing it would lead to the demise of the marriage. Crudely put, your husband would die if you don't wear it. Such stark unfairness perpetrated against married women. The marriage is between a man and a woman. It will die if any of the partner dies. It doesn't have to be the death of the husband only to signify the demise of the marriage.
Maybe, I went a little overboard. Even if for few moments I don't question such customs or norms or rules and accept them at face value, then also the question lingers isn't the life of the wife valuable for a husband. I am sure for most of us it is. Individual men would have their own ways to express it or value it. But why is it compulsory for women and voluntary for men? Some of my readers would say there are many women this days who chose not to wear those symbols of marriage. But don't many of us perceive them in a negative way.
I agree India had a history of polygamy and burning of widows on the pyres of their dead husbands. It didn't matter whether a man was married or not, he could always have another bride. Hence, no necessity of having an insignia on one's attire to proclaim that one is married. And for a woman either you are married or you are dead. But we have come a long way from all this. No polygamy and no sati legally. Can't we progress actually in our minds also to give this choice to the married woman of wearing or not wearing symbols of marriage. What I feel wearing or not wearing such insignia is just one of the ways of expressing how one values his or her marriage and be it man or woman both equally deserve the choice and freedom to express it.
Unfortunately my question made me realize that Indian men are quite lucky to hide their marital status( if required) as there is no commonly acceptable compulsory proof on the man's attire to signify that he is married. But that's not the case with the Indian married woman. There is sindoor, mangalsutra, toe rings, bangles and I am sure there are more in that list. And she has to wear them. Maybe not all of them but she has to wear one or more of those insignia without any questions asked. And even if she has the audacity to question the custom of wearing the insignia, she is told that its the symbol that your marriage is alive and not wearing it would lead to the demise of the marriage. Crudely put, your husband would die if you don't wear it. Such stark unfairness perpetrated against married women. The marriage is between a man and a woman. It will die if any of the partner dies. It doesn't have to be the death of the husband only to signify the demise of the marriage.
Maybe, I went a little overboard. Even if for few moments I don't question such customs or norms or rules and accept them at face value, then also the question lingers isn't the life of the wife valuable for a husband. I am sure for most of us it is. Individual men would have their own ways to express it or value it. But why is it compulsory for women and voluntary for men? Some of my readers would say there are many women this days who chose not to wear those symbols of marriage. But don't many of us perceive them in a negative way.
I agree India had a history of polygamy and burning of widows on the pyres of their dead husbands. It didn't matter whether a man was married or not, he could always have another bride. Hence, no necessity of having an insignia on one's attire to proclaim that one is married. And for a woman either you are married or you are dead. But we have come a long way from all this. No polygamy and no sati legally. Can't we progress actually in our minds also to give this choice to the married woman of wearing or not wearing symbols of marriage. What I feel wearing or not wearing such insignia is just one of the ways of expressing how one values his or her marriage and be it man or woman both equally deserve the choice and freedom to express it.
