Tag:

live-in

By Ashi Gupta (Guest Author)

A few years ago, at a family gathering my aunt casually dropped a comment that left everyone momentarily stunned. She proclaimed, “I’ll ask my daughter to live with the guy she wants to marry before they tie the knot. Just to be sure.” It was a bold statement, especially in a family where traditions have often guided major life choices, even though daily life is governed by a fairly progressive mindset. To my shock, my grandmother nodded in agreement and said, “Yes, that makes sense. Times are different now.”

While the conversation was a pleasant surprise, I knew better than to assume that such theoretical approvals would necessarily translate into full-fledged support if the situation actually arose. Still, that moment stuck with me.

Years later, when I decided to live with my partner, reality unfolded much as I had anticipated. My family’s reaction was a mix of acceptance and hesitation. It wasn’t the outright disapproval that most couples face, but it wasn’t as smooth as that earlier conversation.

Unlike couples in bigger cities or abroad, who live together quietly without their families’ knowledge or in ignorance of their disapproval, I didn’t have that option. My partner and I chose to live on my farm, just 30 minutes outside our hometown where both our families resided. It wasn’t just the proximity that made discretion impossible—it was also my upbringing. I grew up in a family that valued openness, honesty, and the freedom to make one’s own choices, so I couldn’t imagine keeping such a significant decision a secret.

The decision to live together stemmed as much from uncertainty about marriage as it did from questioning the institution itself. I was ready for the commitment of starting a life together, but not for the expectations and obligations, particularly for women, that come with marriage. This deeply personal choice unintentionally became a social experiment, testing how my family and the society around us would react to the open, defiant reality of my live-in relationship.

I had always been vocal about my skepticism of marriage as an institution, and my family knew I tried to live by the values and principles I believed in. However, they had been quietly hoping I’d eventually “grow out” of what they saw as a rebellious phase. When I told my parents about my decision, they were surprised but not really shocked. After many deep conversations, they entered what I like to call the “confused-but-trying” zone.

My mom’s primary concern was, “What will people think?” This honestly surprised me because she had always lived her own life by her beliefs, often ignoring societal judgment within certain boundaries. My dad, on the other hand, didn’t care about others’ opinions. His disagreement with my choice stemmed from the lack of legal protection and rights that a live-in couple has compared to a married one. They also worried that my younger siblings might follow my example—perhaps they felt one unconventional child was already enough.

In the village, things were different. People were curious, both about our marital status and why an educated couple had chosen to shift to a farm. “When did you get married? Wedding must have been in the city no” they’d ask cautiously, after some polite warming up—because they had not heard of any function taking place. I would simply smile and let them draw their conclusions. Most decided we must’ve had a secret COVID wedding, which worked out fine for me. Why correct them? It wasn’t as though I could hang the Supreme Court judgment on live-in relationships on my front door, though I was tempted to on several occasions.

The ambiguity worked in our favor. Living on a farm, away from the prying eyes of an apartment complex or colony, limited the gossip. Over time, we became known as “the couple who lives here,” with marriage assumed as a prerequisite. I recognized the importance of safety and discretion, especially in a village where societal judgment could quickly escalate. Thankfully, khap panchayats don’t operate in our region, but given the political climate, I wasn’t about to test the boundaries of tolerance.

In urban settings, however, the ambiguity created confusion. When I introduced my partner as “my partner,” most people thought I was referring to a business arrangement. “Boyfriend” felt juvenile, while “husband” was a term I wasn’t ready to use. My family, on the other hand, stuck to calling him my “friend,” a euphemism that reflected their discomfort with the situation.

In one of our many conversations on the topic, my mother asked, “Why do your LGBTQ friends fight so hard for the right to marry, while you’re choosing to live in and legitimize it instead?” It was an interesting question that forced me to reflect. It also demonstrated my mother’s willingness to discard her discomforts about homosexuality if it would help to change my mind about marriage. For me, living together was about exercising agency and freedom to live a life true to my belief system and having the freedom to test compatibility without the societal and legal bindings of marriage. For my LGBTQ friends, the fight for marriage was about equality and the basic right to love openly.

Live-in relationships are increasingly common in India now. They have been given legal recognition and some rights as well, despite the misconceptions. However, they still exist in a gray area of societal acceptance. Recent cases, like that of Shraddha Walker, where violence in live-in relationships was sensationalized as being caused by the arrangement itself, have only added fuel to the fire. My mother tried to use such cases to argue against my decision until I sent her statistics on domestic violence within marriages.

With time, my family’s discomfort has reduced. Acceptance has also come with the discovery of many of my cousins living with their partners in various cities. My parents still introduced my partner as a “friend,” but now because they think ‘partner’ does not do justice to the relationship. They would like me to choose a better term.

Choosing to live together before marriage in small-town India has been more than just a personal choice; it has been a quiet rebellion against societal expectations. It has been an attempt at carving out a space, albeit a messy one, where love and companionship can thrive on their own terms, even if those terms unsettled others.

My grandmother, the woman who once said, “Times are different now,” hasn’t said a word directly to me about this. I suspect she’s playing the long game, waiting for me to “come to my senses” soon. I have not reminded her about her words either.

But the times are indeed different now, even if the transition has been difficult. Sometimes, progress looks like a passive acceptance of new norms simply because more people are participating in it. Other times, it can look like quietly living one’s truth, trusting that the small-town society will eventually catch up. As for me, I’m just trying to figure out how to balance authenticity with social survival. Maybe one day, I’ll frame that Supreme Court judgment and hang it on a wall. Maybe one day it won’t be needed at all. Until then, I’ll keep smiling and letting everyone fill in the blanks about the status of my relationship on their own.

0 comments 206 views
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

Women In Our Country

by Elsa Joel

DR. ELSA LYCIAS JOEL

In our society, I hear a hypocritical outcry of deteriorating traditional values when a woman walks out of her marriage. But no one raises voice or limbs in support of the larger number of financially dependent women struggling in bad marriages without rushing to get divorced. Young and old professionals are more prone to and professional at calling off their marriages and only women continue to shoulder the blame. Divorce isn’t the flavour of any season. It happens not because women are uncultured, characterless or non religious but because they are educated, aware and have a strong sense of self-esteem. Institution of marriage will be respected minus incompatibility, temperamental differences and intolerance.
Societal and familial pressure or trepidation of being frowned upon cannot force a man and a woman to live together. Many divorces are filled with bitterness, hostility and rancor because men assume mud fighting and slander can hurt women in a reputation-conscious society. When women encounter problems in our society, tackling them calls for not loud voices, processions or placards but an objective analysis of reasons which underlie them. Not by law makers and enforcers but by every other woman and citizen who adorns different roles to women in their lives. 
We always find it too improper to mention the real cause of women subjugation, especially if its religion or scriptures. As a result, a culture of pseudo analysis and pseudo action becomes the norm. We have been seeing and hearing expressions like ‘women reservation bill’, ‘Nirbhaya fund’, ‘special woman safety programme’ and so on being bandied about as part of political debates and talk shows. Politicians, as we all have seen, heard and known are supposedly well-trained suitably qualified people who position themselves right at the centre of action with the explicit purpose of not putting anything into action and get away with anything in politics.
Countries which have been able to make some real, visible progress in women safety and empowerment are those whose leaders and citizens have been able to confront the problems head-on to find solutions. The government of Iceland has been funding UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund  for Women) for the past three years to promote gender equality and Iceland stands number one on the list of safest countries for women. By almost every metric compared to the rest of the world, Denmark is very safe and it comes second. Denmark also has a history of finishing as the #1 happiest nation in the world according to statistics. Gender equality is important to the Nordic countries: Political parties in Sweden, Norway and Iceland all have gender quotas, which promote female candidates for top roles. As such, every country has their own ideals of equality between men and women. But if one understands equality as just a respectful treatment minus violence, abuse and harassment another, we can’t call it equality until there is a gender pay gap or glass ceiling.
Agreed, men and women are different biologically and psychologically. Women play certain roles better than men and vice versa to complement one another, be it home or work place. Never to prove one is dominant over the other.
In India, the governments that came and went dragged their everything on passing the women’s reservation Bill for a decade. Rape storms batter our country and #Metoo -a -day routine followed by the blow-by-blow breaking of news by the media calls for a closer and quicker look of where we stand as the victim rarely an opportunistic one or the assailant, many a time the one with money and muscle power. Guilt is presumed; innocence has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt makes the concerned lie low and patient till they die or disappear. Worse still, rapists will brazenly continue raping unmindful of reprisals which they know how to handle and sometimes adorn seats in legislative assemblies and Parliament too. With such brats at the top, not just lofty things but even normal living for Bharath mathas and putris of all age groups become a dream. Seems like it’s not just ‘United we loot’ but ‘United we molest and rape’.
I hear desi folks scream, ‘increased divorce rates’. I’ve heard mothers and grandmothers warning girl children differently such as, “control your anger, you are a girl”. Such social conditioning of girl children in our society never needed any extra effort from anybody because religion is an important part of our country’s culture. And all religions profess and practice male dominance directly or indirectly. All over our spiritual India, women fast on sacred days to ensure their husbands’ longevity but there is nothing similar in the scriptures that expect a man to follow any ritual. In spite of these rituals, many studies and statistics show that women outlive men for reasons known to all. Still, women attempt these rituals out of fear because they know what widowhood means in a country like ours. Most religious traditions have subjugated women.
Sexism is intrinsic to Hinduism and Buddhism. The Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have been worse. So much of howling and screaming is done against the objectification of women without realising thatnothing will change until scriptures are re-written.
Verse 2-213 of Manusmriti ‘ “Swabhav ev narinamiha dhooshnam…’ is translated as “It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason the learned are never unguarded in the company of females”.
 Verse 5/151 when translated goes as this “Girls are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are children, women must be under the custody of their husband when married and under the custody of her son as widows. In no circumstances is she allowed to assert herself independently”.
Manusmriti is in a way too primitive.
The Bible’s decree of male supremacy is known to the world. Most blessed mothers in the Bible are recorded to have given birth to sons only. Yes, a son as a firstborn is equated to a great blessing. The story of the adulteress who Jesus forgave and saved from being stoned is an example of how a combination of sex, a woman, public disgrace and double standard worked since biblical times. There was no mention of the man involved in the act. Without any mentioning the uphill battle remains steep for Muslim women. It is indisputable that women are excluded from Judaism’s most hallowed rituals and practices helping us understand that Judaism privileges are fundamentally male.
Sabarimala hullabaloo is a case in point. If discrimination to enter a temple is based on sexual orientation and caste , constitutional Articles related to freedom of religion and essential religious practices must be read to have a wider meaning to signal a new era of transformative constitutionalism. Freedom, rights and values embodied in our constitution should not be let to freeze in time. That would mean no possibility of positive change and progress to changing societal needs. Places of male gods cite menstruation as the main reason for denying women their religious freedom. How come theormative descriptive imagery and pronouns for god are male enabling people to sculpt them that way.
Being a Tamilian I pondered over ‘kallanalum kanavan pullanalum purushan’. It means even if the man is as insensitive as a stone or as useless as a blade of grass he is still ‘THE HUSBAND’, a visible god to the wife. Who else but a Male chauvinist must have uttered this proverb! And another insinuating comment from men goes as “Ellu na ennai ya vandu nikkanam” translated as  “Do more than what is expected of you” or  “going the extra mile” conveys the typical male attitude. Tamil literature has enough stories praising devout wives. Nothing wrong about it. But sometimes imaginations soar so high making stories sound ridiculous. One example is Vasuki Ammaiyar, a “Pathiviradhai” cooking delicious meal out a bag of sand given to her by Thiruvalluvar. Making such a story on a man of great intellect isn’t justifiable. And the pail that hung in mid air as this “Pathiviradhai” rushed to address her husband’s call half way through drawing water from a well is another story to motivate devotion in women.
Bharath Matha is one country where women are worshipped yet discriminated against and abused. It’s a national shame that despite more and more laws and funds, governments of secular, democratic and pluralistic India finds it difficult toensure that all sections of citizens feel equal, protected and secure. Were goddesses spared! Parvati created a boy to guard her doors from Shiva. Sita had to walk through fire to prove her loyalty. Unless mythologies are retold and understood in the right spirit, if not rewritten, these will be used to normalize or rationalize different forms of oppression or abuse, of course by the wrong people. 
Kathua,  Hathras, Unnao and many more can’t be forgotten, forgiven. Meanwhile, Rajvir Singh Pahalwan and Surendra Nath Singh ought to be educated on what amounts to rape. How does Surendra Nath Singh know that sanskar hasn’t been instilled in victims?  The Hathras district court was forced to stop the trial proceedings after Hari Sharma and his son Tarun Hari Sharma,  one of the advocates of the accused, created a hullabaloo and issued threats. But how was the father- son duo handled after their misbehavior is yet to be known. Being blessed with common sense, I guess, interrupting court proceedings by words and deeds should be considered as gross criminal contempt of Court.

0 comments 74 views
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
The Womb - Encouraging, Empowering and Celebrating Women.

The Womb is an e-platform to bring together a community of people who are passionate about women rights and gender justice. It hopes to create space for women issues in the media which are oft neglected and mostly negative. For our boys and girls to grow up in a world where everyone has equal opportunity irrespective of gender, it is important to create this space for women issues and women stories, to offset the patriarchal tilt in our mainstream media and society.

@2025 – The Womb. All Rights Reserved. Designed and Developed by The Womb Team

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?