Kamal Ghorui
Census must not record live-in couples as ‘married’. It defeats the purpose of capturing social changes
If a govt doesn’t measure x, does x not exist? Furthermore, what are the implications of govt refusing to measure x? Census 2027 will be recording live-in couples, who are staying in a household in a “stable union”, as married couples. This means that 0 data on how many Indians are choosing live-in relationships, will continue to be 0. Such wilful unseeing, obviously, enfeebles Census. It should be capturing cultural shifts, instead of rubbing out their existence. Remember, such eraser acts can’t kill any cultural momentum. What they obstruct, instead, is policymakers’ ability to constructively address how a society is transforming.
US census shows that, among those ages 18-24, live-ins are now more popular than marriage. UK census shows the proportion of people who live as a “cohabiting” couple is up to 24%. Nobody is making the case that the phenomenon is as pervasive in India. What we are certain of, though, is that it exists, it’s growing, and not just in metro cities. This much, journalists can find out and report. But a comprehensive enumeration, only a census can do.
There are countless reasons Indians have become interested in live-in relationships. Consider, in no particular order of importance, how expensive weddings are, how a more equal kind of love can need a more equal kind of partnership, how this relationship vibes like an intentional daily choice, rather than an obligatory social contract, how it can feel more free. It can also, of course, draw a lot of social animus. Never mind that Supreme Court has found it protected under the right to life and liberty. Hostilities are animated by the idea that this is not ‘Indian culture’. But culture never is, never has been, a static thing. It’s constantly changing. Indian mythology certainly suggests that, once upon a time, we were much less puritanical.
END OF ARTICLE
