9058009497

CONCEPT OF CONJUGALITY IN TIIE MAIIABIIAIUTA 43

or rapcd. Since ihe wife lost control ovcr the family economy and bccame dependent on the husband for subsislence, her protcsls, if and when ihcy came, went unheeded.

What began as a contract, temporary or permanent, gradually tumed into an indissoluble bond without however, galhering the charm thal should attend it. Slowly but surely it became a socially acknowledged institulion wilh very ineąuilable tenns for the partners. ... “the shifl from ‘contract* to ‘institulion* in the dcfinilion of marriage and conccplion of sexual diffcrcncc.... effcclivcly inculcaled the double standard of adultery against principles of individual right and formal equality. **'ⁿ An institulion can shed the cmolive rcsonanccs and be entirely guided by norms for ihc parties involved. The bridc whose parents paid the groom-price was scnl into an uneąual partnership; her obligations were stipulated and her expeclations_f too, were conllned lo socially acknowledged limils. DraupadT of the 13h3rgava interpolations rcitcralcs these paltry expectations. In one of the world *s ciosest and most vital relalionships the wife merely expects garlands, scals, jcwcllcry, perfume, bedsteads, sustenance, etc. Marriage had already becn rcduccd lo such lawdry expectalions of ihe wife in lieu of lifelong service and ihe prospect of co-crcmalion afler the husband*s dealh.¹*² The husband, howcver, is under no obligalion lo mourn for the dead wife, the scriplurcs prescribc immediate remarriage. The institulion of marriage had at some point become ossified and stayed so ovcr ihe millennia. How did this become possible 7 The institution had become an instrument of the siatę. Ali the wife’s activiiies were controlled not only by the husband but ultimalely by the State which empowered, legilimized and gavc longcviiy to the institution through the husband. In ihc finał analysis the husband *s control of the wife*s sexualily and conjugal eon duet, her obligations and ihc furlhcrance of the husband *s inlcrcsis through her existence symbolized ihe indirect control of conjugality by the power principles. “The State gradually became a sort of morał husband through the dcvelopment of forms of protective lcgislation. ** ....“Licit scx is not merely defined as that bctwccn married... couplcs, but between pcoplc wilhin acceptabłe age brackels, of acceptabłe ‘races* and doing only acceptabłe things.**¹¹³ When marital łifc is institutionalized, the institution is run by a power-group which deputizes a person, invcsts him wilh power to run the institution smoothly. In conjugality this deputy is the husband who functions logether with his family. As an ancien! Vcdic tcxt says, ‘the bridc is givcn to the family*, so it is not cnough for bridc to płease her husband, she has lo please and live in amily wilh her in-laws. The husband has no comparable obligations to his in-laws.

Ambika and Ambaiika were forced to conccive from a man at whose looks they leli rcvulsion but still they could not cscape the ordeal, because they were forced to oblige their mother-in-law. Hcncc also we hear in the