Marriage Ceremonies, or Let's Make it Large

Marriage ceremonies can be discreet, in a few cases, but in vast majority of cultures and religions, the ceremony is a social affair.

In cultures which do not allow extra-marital or premarital relations (which traditionally I think almost all didn’t), the event should be such so as to make the general population aware that two people have been legally wedlock and hence are entitled to stay together without the people’s objection, or better still, with their cooperation.

So in a small village, all the village folk could be gathered to proclaim the event. In larger ones, someone’s community or relatives or friends may be invited to attend the event.

We have religions like Christianity and Islam where marriages are a relatively quiet affair with the presence of only a few relatives and close friends, generally speaking. Then we have religions like Hinduism and Indian versions of Christianity and Islam, wherein every bloody person who ever got acquainted with the couple or their family would be invited. Otherwise it would be considered an austere affair.

Point is not to discuss the merits or demerits of such a grand ceremony. Ofcourse, it makes ever so hard for a couple to get married because they first have to arrange the funds for the grand ceremony, thereby encouraging them to be in a relationship outside the fold of marriage, which they could have avoided had the ceremony been easier, and hence defeats the purpose of marriage.

But a grand social ceremony serves another purpose apart from making a proclamation to the people about the couple living within societal norms. A social ceremony also compels the couple to be faithful to each other.

How? Because every single person who was present at the ceremony becomes a witness to their vows of faithfulness to each other till eternity. If they someday decide to separate, they’ll have to break vows the witnesses of which are many. The more the number of people, the harder it would be to break the bond.

As a witness too, an oath taken in front of you would have a more lasting effect on you than if you had heard that the oath had been taken by two people. Imagine a ceremony involving seven people. The couple, with two witnesses each from the bride and the groom’s side, and a judge (qazi). Together they decide the terms of marriage and the couple give their pledge. Would it not be easier on this couple to break their bond of marriage in case their relationship does not work than if the oath had been taken in front of a few hundred or thousand people? 

So in effect, by involving a large group of people, the big marriage ceremony is putting on the couples all the more pressure to stay together! It’s like indirectly saying, whether you get along together or not, you better stay together now onwards. It may prevent the chicken-hearted from running away from their responsibilities, but for adults it is unnecessary and not required.

Now put this in context of the arranged marriage wherein the couple do not know each other. Whether they get along with each other or not, they are compelled to be together by the society. Women have been progressively so dis-empowered that they too start to believe that they cannot get along in the world without the help of a man. If the burden of dowry was not enough, this is one sure recipe for the nourishment of a male-dominated society.

Somehow over the centuries, the ‘sanctity’ of the marriage and the grand ceremony with which it is officiated has come to be considered more important than the purpose the marriage was meant to serve. Substitute this with a simple ceremony and things will change. People will start to focus on the relationship instead of the event of marriage.

Let us help the parents, the society they collectively constitute, and the couple focus on the relationship. True, the event of marriage only comes once in a lifetime. But the eternity you will be spending loving (or hating) the other person will appear to last longer.