The COVID-19 pandemic has come as a jolt for many of the taken for granted ways of life. In this ‘hinge’ moment of shift, human societies have been trying to adapt to a ‘new normal’. Our ways of doing things including cultural practices have changed. The central question in this essay is what is essential or indispensable to a ‘culture’. Something that remains unaltered despite the many changes brought about by the pandemic. The discussion here stems from a recent wedding of a cousin that was conducted during the ongoing pandemic.
Culture is an integral part of human societies. But defining the same is a difficult task. In everyday conversations we use terms like ‘cultured’ or ‘high- culture’ to hint at what is acceptable in a society or what one aspires to achieve. Raymond Williams[i] conceived of culture, as ‘customary difference’: Our culture is that which we are accustomed to and that which others are not. Both parameters [‘custom’ and ‘difference’] are essential: custom, or anything understood as custom, takes precedence over other modes of social validation, and its currency is the difference. This finds expression in our everyday lives when we say, ‘we do it like this in our culture’, which necessarily assumes that ‘they do it differently’.
More on Weddings in the Pandemic on our Blog
‘I do’ or ‘Do I?’: Weddings amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
Societies tend to preserve certain elements of their cultural practices while do away or make changes in some with time and changing contexts. In India, we have often valorized our culture/cultures as adaptive and ever-changing while ensuring continuity. It has not been easy to decide what is ‘pure’ and ‘essential’ and what is not and thus can be reformed. My experience with my cousin’s wedding offered a vantage point to make sense of what is ‘essential’ and what is ‘non–negotiable’.
With the increasing use of technology in our everyday lives we see the internet becoming a substitute for what previously relatives did. A cousin of mine, had her marriage fixed, through an online match-fixing. The subsequent preparations for the wedding were all done until the pandemic struck. Given the patriarchal ideas that still influence society, the family bride’s family considered it to be a matter of respect and dignity to conduct the marriage at the earliest. At the same time, it was important to get the ‘act’ of marriage solemnized. The solution figured out was to have an intimate wedding at an ‘Arya Samaj’ venue in Delhi where the bride and groom resided and call close relatives from Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh and Indore, Madhya Pradesh respectively.
The ceremony was telecast live on the web and relatives staying in barely functional small towns were asked to participate virtually, through the link provided online. The palpable nervousness in the kinship circles was obvious. Should one dress up like in ‘normal’ weddings? What and where is the link? How to open it? And once opened, how to make sure that it keeps streaming without disruption? There was that constant worry whether the monkeys (who make running of an air conditioner, or WiFi, cable network near impossible on ordinary days) would behave at the critical time. Will those uncaring beings get disciplined for the sacred task at hand? With this gamut of anxieties, those who could access the link realized, they were expected to be only mute, distant spectators. In days gone by, the humble VCR and VCP ensured active participation of relatives long after the event had taken place.
The camera had set its gaze on the lovely couple, with two relatives and a priest by their side. The marriage certificate, which was displayed as a piece of achievement, was captured ‘proudly’ in the photos and the online video.
Some relatives felt relieved of the cumbersome roles they had to play as a part of the kinship network. Some were upset, but could not express this openly, as taking a position against technology would render them a lesser evolved, or even “backward” in these modern times. Some women commented that it was very good or even the best way to get married. According to them, a trend has been set for future marriages. This mode saved so much money, effort, time, and resources. It was efficient and functional. Yet many of the rules had been subverted. The indispensable services of family members, barbers, cooks, drivers, decorators, etc. were all rendered irrelevant. Culture had changed.
But had it really? I wondered what the fuss was around the battles fought on women’s questions, especially related to marriage, caste, and honour. Has life not come a full circle? I thought of all the men and women banished by their families for subverting rules, by making a choice of partner, outside their caste, gotra or religious communities have suffered, sometimes violently, and still do. Even as my cousin’s wedding was live telecast, we hear of forced divorces[ii] by a Panchayat and judgments of courts that declare how sindoor and shakha are essentials of culture. [iii]
In small towns such as my cousins, a relationship or marriage with someone who was ‘outside’ prescribed norms defined by caste, gotra, and religion would bring severe retribution. This is the ‘old’ normal. The cultural rules here cannot be subverted easily. Essential to ‘culture’ is the workings of the structural principles of society- caste, class, and ethnicity. Only in such cases would the oft-stated phrase be heard “log kya kahenge? Zaahir nahin hona chahiye, izzat ka sawaal hai” (What will people say, it should never have happened, it is a question of honour).
Despite the many other changes, what could not change in this ‘new normal’ is the age-old caste purity. The couple mentioned above is, to be sure, of the same caste and thus, according to the varna hierarchy configured as legitimate by the norms of the social organization of family in North India. Ethnic purity or rather caste purity was intact. For the participants the pandemic was not much of a problem after all since what was essential remained intact.
[i] https://old-www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_culture/culture-definitions/raymond-williams.html, accessed on 2nd July 2020.
[ii] M. Sudhakar from the Morappan Thangal village returned to his village from Chennai during the lockdown. After returning to his village, he attempted to meet his wife, which angered the women’s parents and relatives. .. The woman’s family, which was opposed to the marriage, convened a local panchayat and got it to nullify the marriage and forcibly separated the couple. Sudhakar was subsequently harassed and chased away from the village. Since members from his community were in a minority in the village, they remained silent and did not question the ruling by the local Panchayat. https://feminisminindia.com/2020/05/06/honour-killing-indias-pandemic-patriarchy/?, accessed on 2nd July 2020.
[iii] Observing that the refusal to wear “shaka” (conch shell bangle) and “sindoor” (vermillion) as per customs by a Hindu married woman amounted to her refusal to accept the marriage, the Gauhati High Court has granted divorce to a man. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/gauhati-high-court-grants-divorce-on-wifes-refusal-to-wear-sindoor-2254240, accessed 1st July 2020.
***
Swati Singh is a PhD research scholar in the Centre for the Study of Social Systems (CSSS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).