Skip to main content

Delulu Trululu Solulu

18 October 2023 – the day following the pronouncement of the judgement the front page of a newspaper had the news of the recent violent revival of the Israel – Palestine conflict, another news with a new inauguration of some infrastructure project, news about the honour killing about a couple who dared to have an inter-caste marriage and somewhere pressed in was the disappointment of the queer community on the same sex judgement that too in pointers.   

Never did I ever think in this lifetime that I would be affected by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court since 2014, played a pivotal role in modern Indian jurisprudence giving and widening the rights of Transsexuals, challenging the constitutionality of Section 377, upholding individual privacy rights in the Hadiya Marriage Case, declaring the Sabarimala Temple's practices unconstitutional and emphasising bail rights and further extended to various areas, including human rights, gender justice, and freedom of speech just passed the burden to the parliament. The same Parliament that not one petitioner in the Same-sex Judgement trusted to first head to. 

As the hearing in the Supreme Court started it felt like I was being taught a new chapter in school where ignorant fucks like me got knowledge about new words such as cis-gender, androgynous, aromantic, heteronormative and the most important of the lot – transitioning. [For more such words refer to https://wordsofpride.disneystar.com/en

It felt new, it felt weird, it felt necessary and it felt natural but it felt as if something was being denied to them and they had the right platform, a mature set of judges and a rather strong army of lawyers to fight their right. What they didn’t know was that they were considered a minuscule number. Albeit I wasn’t surprised throughout the hearing I had a feeling that they would get at least a percentage of their ask, their demand, their request, and their right but alias apart from a good debate and the fact that the talk started, they got NOTHING!  

Which brings me to their demand and an important question – Why do they want to get married? I mean don’t you see the flaw in the whole plan of this social construct? How did we arrive in this demand thread where ethics of marriage were rules that were formulated for divorce, and separation? 

The earliest recorded evidence of marriage is from 2350 B.C.E. in Mesopotamia. The first recorded marriage ceremony united one woman and one man. Why? Because these groups of nomads that were roaming around, gathering food required rules to regulate relationships and required ethics that would govern the decision-making power of the individuals, which would add patriarchy and monogamy to an otherwise bunch of bohemian spirits. History is evidence of the fact that marriage became a popular institution among ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. Marriage became necessary as hunter-gatherers settled down and became agricultural people. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love, but rather for economic liaisons. This entire idea of living in the delusion of ethics and social construct was the solution. We were told that marriage, whether perceived as a sacrament or contract, is a profound covenant where two souls unite in lifelong commitment, extending far beyond the realms of physical intimacy and procreation. But I call this bullshit! This was step one for the pseudo-leaders of the group to establish order and stability. 

Early Christian Monasticism in the early days of Christianity valued celibacy, viewing marriage as a distraction from spiritual devotion. 19th-century feminism challenged marriage as a patriarchal institution, advocating for gender equality and alternative lifestyles. The early 20th century saw the Free Love movement, questioning the need for legal marriage institutions in favour of individual freedom in relationships. 

But nobody cares about THEM, all people care is who is the next guest on Koffee With Karan or who had a spat with Aournab, what new soup is Rahul Gandhi in, what new colour the Vande Bharat is in, is Bharat the new name of the country. Some I know were celebrating over the fact that the debate over the same sex laws has started but in an average household there is more celebration of the birth of a son today than even a promotion in work or path-breaking career growth. 

Amid a world filled with societal pressures and expectations, I find myself increasingly frustrated by the perceived necessity of marriage. Why must we adhere to this age-old institution that often seems like more of a burden than a choice? One major flaw at that with the notion that two people must formalize their love and commitment through a legal contract or religious ceremony feels suffocating. Relationships should be defined by the depth of connection and shared experiences, not by the constraints of marriage. It's as if society insists that we need this label to validate our love and existence, ignoring the fact that genuine partnerships can flourish without it. The frustration lies in the idea that we're pressured to follow a tradition that doesn't necessarily fit everyone's path or desires, leaving those of us who question its necessity feeling confined and misunderstood.

The concept of everlasting love as we perceive it today was vastly different. Marriage was indeed considered sacrosanct and necessary, yet the expectations were not rooted in the idea of enduring, lifelong love. Instead, it was a pragmatic institution designed to fulfil essential societal functions, such as procreation, economic stability, and the continuation of family legacies. Men and women often lived relatively shorter lives, with an average life expectancy rarely surpassing 30 years. 

It's a stark reminder that love, as we currently idealize it, was not the primary driver of matrimonial unions in those times. It's as if the weight of tradition and expectations suppresses one's longing for authenticity and genuine connection. In this era where love is a boundless spectrum, why should one confine oneself to the rigid lines of matrimony? 

ANSWER: With unemployment on the rise, tyranny around the corner and propaganda of shoving “Sanskar, Sabhyata and Sakhti” down your throat what does one do when one comes back home?

One would argue that finding solace upon returning home becomes essential. It is within the sanctity of our personal spaces that we can seek refuge from the tumultuous world outside. Home becomes the fortress of individuality, a place to unwind, reflect, and connect with our true selves. It's a shelter from the cacophony of propaganda and a space where we can nurture our own values and beliefs.

Within these walls, one can try to engage in constructive discussions, educate oneself about the world's complexities, and fortify our sense of identity. Home can be a sanctuary where we resist the pressures of conformity and promote critical thinking. It's a place where we can forge alliances, share our concerns, and plan for a better future. In these trying times, home is not just a physical space but a sanctuary of the mind, a breeding ground for resilience, and a source of hope for a better tomorrow. So - GET MARRIED – you’ll get stuck in so many problems that you’ll forget the real ones. Isn’t that the easy no-brainer?

Live in a delusion – Isn’t that the best solution?

Or as they now say – 

Delulu Trululu Solulu 

(Translation: Delusion is the true solution) 

Disclaimer: If you need one, you need to read more, understand even more and act the most. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Reason

Disclaimer : Y es, this is another note where I am not talking about any person living or dead, the resemblance is neither uncanny nor eerie. Especially politicians or ministers or chiefs, I fear them and I have my reasons. I dare not speak against the ideology the majority is in support of.  This is my first attempt to write something about the future, a dystopian future to be precise. The idea of a dystopian plot is to predict the future bearing in mind current changes. That being said, I think a Zombie apocalypse is the first thing I would have predicted after a global pandemic. Zombies? These slow creatures that are bloodthirsty because they have none, they do not have souls, they do not have minds, they just have greed for blood. I’ve always felt Zombies are closer to greedy, self-centred leaders political or otherwise, who crave just one thing power. More Powar! Pawar over mODIfication over everything names of cities, stations, teams of Shivs’.  - - - - - - - - - - - - -...

Stereotypical

“The law opens all subjects for study. If you are studying a murder case, you will probably have to delve into the science behind poisoning or the physics of the force of a blow to the chest. If you are trying to prove the facts of a matter involving a ticketing service, you might need to study how the programming of a website like MakeMyTrip works. Moreover, law itself often requires the analysis of transactions, thereby bringing in elements of commerce. This interdisciplinary nature of law, which places a lawyer in the shoes of every subject humanly possible, is the reason I chose to pursue it.” This was my response to the professor at ILS Law College when she asked me why I had chosen law. While my peers gave flamboyant answers that seemed to impress her, mine left her in a deep state of shock. Though rehearsed to sound dramatic and appealing, I was well aware that the question would not determine my admission—it was a stereotypical query, after all. From the outset, my decision to ...

From Companions to Responsibility: A legal insight into Caring for animals in India

Pet ownership in India is undergoing a transformative phase, with over 70% of urban couples now choosing pets over childbirth. This societal shift underscores the growing recognition of pets as integral family members, making it essential to have a robust legal framework that outlines the responsibilities of pet owners while safeguarding animal welfare. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, along with related byelaws, forms the cornerstone of India’s animal protection laws. Additionally, the Constitution of India addresses animal welfare under its Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 21 of the Constitution extends the right to life to all living beings, including animals, emphasizing their essential role in human survival. Article 48A mandates the state to protect the environment, forests, and wildlife, while Article 51A(g) highlights every citizen’s duty to show compassion towards living creatures. Although these provisions are not directly en...