Sanctity and Dignity  of Matrimony
(Unpublished article)
N.G.Chapekar

Matrimony is equivalent to Sanskrit Matripada. Both the words denote in my opinion, motherhood – the state of being a mother. I venture to suggest this, since the word matrimony is derived from mater – the mother. Marriage on the other hand has its origin in the word maritus, which means a husband. Here, we are incidentally reminded of he Marathi word, marda, signifying husband. The word matrimony therefore, accords with our conception of marriage. The Hindu father believes that a woman cherishes an instinctive desire to be a mother. In anticipation of this, he selects a suitable youth and hands over to him his daughter, so that he may answer her natural demand. Thus, it is one side of ceremony. The Samskar (the sacred rite)  is of the bride; not of the bridegroom.

In the admirable  scheme of nature, male and female are the two categories, which constitute the animal kingdom inclusive of plants. The object in demising these two diametrically opposite units is propagation  which is essential to maintain the eternity of the world, which is taken for granted. Here we have to distinguish the human from the non-human species. Prolific production is desirable in the case of the latter. For that class is by and large meant for the service, comfort and consumption of the former. Thus, procreation is the law of nature and ,therefore, it is the dharma.

For the purpose of his creation, copulation of man and woman, male and female is indispensable. But what guarantee is there that they will unite? It is as well that they will decline to oblige nature. In order to avert this calculated catastrophe, they have been endowed with inherent  capacity to feel passionate sex attraction towards each other. It will have been realized  by this time that there is no human hand so far in this organization.. But the provision of sex passion is potentially dangerous, if the purpose of it is overlooked. Purposeless sex indulgence tends to be inordinate. This excessive sex gratification ruins not only the individuals but even nations. It is for this reason that our ancient sages have warned that the sexual act is permissive rule only when the necessity for an issue is felt. This purpose is in practice completely ignored, though it is the most powerful restraining force. Evidently sex union is proper and sacred  only when it takes place with an intention to beget a child. We can discern the recognition of this principle in the marriage ceremony current in all human societies advanced and backward. A man and a woman hitherto strangers to each other agree to live together to establish a family which implies the begetting of progeny. This event is publicly and popularly proclaimed under the garb of religion  and with a fan-fair. This is meant to emphasize the importance and sanctity of the event. Marriage ceremony is a sacrificial performance. Thus betokens its secred character, and the sacredness lies in the fact that the couple has to serve a decisive purpose, namely to beget a child. It follows, therefore, that unmotivated sexual act is irreligious and ,therefore, sinful. In the profane or non-religious language it is called obscene. The structure of the Hindu marriage ceremonial is constructed on the basis of these considerations. 

Marriage is an event of the most vital significance in a man’s life. I shall, therefore, describe  here in brief the Brahmanic ritual of marriage, which underlines its extraordinary importance and points out its pitfalls. The ceremony starts with the gift of the girl by her father to the groom. The gift is tantamount to consent. It is meant to avert the possible suspicion of elopement or kidnapping. It is naïve to dub this as a chattel gift. The gift, however, is not complete unless it is accepted. The groom marks his acceptance by  touching the bride’s hand  ( panigrahan). Here the girl bids good bye to her parental home and becomes a member of the bridegroom’s family. But her status therein is still to be determined. The vivahahoma confers upon her the position of being the wife of the groom who had accepted her.

Had the object of marriage been to invest the couple with the legal and social recognition merely as husband and wife, the ritual should have terminated here. It is, however, otherwise.  The High Courts have rightly pronounced that the marriage is not complete without the additional ritual of saptapadi. This latter rite makes them friends. This is the main rite. It will not be amiss to say that these two persons of opposite sexes cannot be husband and wife if they are not first friends. It is futile to argue to the contrary. This rite is named saptapadi, for it requires the bride and the bridegroom to walk seven paces  together. This is symbolic of the fact that they are fellow travelers  in this mundane existence (samsar). It is perhaps not known  to many that there is a religious ceremony prescribed for forging a relationship of friendship between two unrelated persons. By that ceremony, the two men become brothers. Landan has alluded to this custom in this history of Nepal. Our law-givers have introduced with commendable foresight, that principle into our marriage system. It may be pointed out that at the end of the seventh step the bridge makes it known to her spouse that, since he was her companion in their joint walk, he has become her friend (saptadas-sakhasi). It is  further worthwhile to note that in the course of the ritual, the bridegroom has been sternly admonished not to behave towards his wife in a way that will amount to an infringement of the three Shstric mandates of dharma, artha and kama. The desire for carnal satisfaction, kam, is restrained by the command of dharma, the prescribed right conduct and artha, the pecuniary condition.The  bridegroom swears that he would abide by the dictates of the Shastras. It is regrettable that nobody has ever heeded this peremptory warning. We have not only set at naught, the dharma, but have totally defied the salubrious counsel of the artha-shastra by giving birth to children whom we are unable to feed. This is social offence of great magnitude, for thereby,  we throw the responsibility of maintaining and educating them on the nation, whereas the responsibility is legitimately ours.
Finally I would refer to a very delicate point in the matrimonial relationship of man and woman. We forget that it is the wife who has to suffer the hardships of conception and confinement. It is, therefore, just and right that her desire alone should justify sexual intercourse.                          When a man seeks coition for his own sake regardless of the feelings of his partner, he practically degrades his wife to the level of a concubine. The dignity of wifehood is thereby sacrificed. 
It is thus obvious that we have to reorient our attitude towards women and restore them to the high position they enjoyed in old days.
On the whole, man’s intemperate lust is the cause of overpopulation, of our distress and misery. If our people are disposed to follow the sane advise of our sages, we should have no need for contraceptives and other contrivances, which are likely to entrap a man into immoral temptations. Mahatma Gandhi declared that  after a certain age husband and wife should live as friends. I would go further still and affirm that they have been solemnly enthroned as friends by the marriage rites. So they must remain friends from the beginning to the end. Gandhi did not know Dharmashastra; but he has proved his capacity to be Shastrakar. He had truly a Hindu mind, unsophisticated by Western learning and Western culture. His ideas were shaped in the mould of the Hindu way of thinking. 
I know that this is a matter  not for government to act upon. But they can persuade the Heads of religious  institutions to preach and promulgate through them the view I have adumbrated here. Moreover, though government cannot act legislatively in this matter, they can do a good deal executively. Let them announce that in future they are not bound to provide with facilities to the fifth or later child born to a couple.

Back