India, traditionally known for its strong family values and long-lasting marriages, is witnessing a gradual yet notable rise in divorce rates. While the country still maintains a relatively low divorce rate compared to many Western nations, the increase in separations reflects a society in transition where evolving mindsets, growing individualism, and increased awareness are reshaping the institution of marriage. Breaking the Traditional Mold For generations, marriage in India was seen as a lifelong bond, often upheld even in the face of unhappiness or conflict. However, this perception is shifting. Today, personal well-being and emotional fulfillment are becoming more important than merely preserving the sanctity of marriage. Many individuals, particularly in urban areas, are no longer willing to stay in relationships that lack compatibility or respect. Empowered Women, Empowered Choices One of the most significant factors contributing to the rise in divorce cases is the empowerment of women. With better access to education, financial independence, and an increasing awareness of their legal rights, more women are now in a position to make decisions that prioritize their mental, emotional, and physical well-being — even if it means walking away from a marriage. The Role of Legal Reforms Legal reforms have also played a pivotal role. The introduction and simplification of procedures like mutual consent divorce have made it easier for couples to part ways amicably. The judicial system, though still burdened, is slowly becoming more accessible to the common person. Urban Stress and Relationship Strain The pressures of urban living long working hours, stressful jobs, financial instability, and limited quality time with partners often lead to emotional disconnection. The fast-paced lifestyle in cities has been linked to growing dissatisfaction within marriages, further contributing to the increase in divorce filings. Love Marriages Under Pressure Interestingly, a rising number of divorces are being reported from love marriages, where couples choose their own partners. Unlike arranged marriages that often come with strong family backing and societal expectations, love marriages may lack that external cushion, which sometimes leads to friction, especially when the honeymoon phase fades and real-life challenges set in. Urban vs. Rural Divide While divorce rates are increasing across the country, the trend is more evident in urban centers, where liberal social norms and anonymity allow individuals to make bold decisions with less fear of societal judgment. In contrast, rural areas, where conservative values still dominate, witness fewer divorces, though the numbers are slowly climbing there as well. Regional Differences Certain regions, particularly in the North-East, such as Mizoram, report higher divorce rates. Cultural factors, local customs, and differing attitudes toward marriage and separation could be influencing these statistics. Common Grounds for Divorce Couples cite a range of reasons for ending their marriages. These include incompatibility, infidelity, domestic abuse, emotional neglect, and financial troubles. The rise of mental health awareness has also led people to recognize and act upon toxic or unfulfilling relationships. Who’s Initiating the Divorce? Interestingly, more and more women are initiating divorce proceedings. This trend reflects not only changing gender dynamics but also the growing confidence among women to seek freedom from unhappy marriages without the stigma that was once heavily attached to divorce. The increasing divorce rates in India are not merely a sign of broken marriages, they’re a sign of transformation. As society progresses, values evolve, and individuals assert their rights and choices, it’s only natural that the way we view marriage and relationships also changes. While this shift brings its own challenges, it also marks a move toward a more open, honest, and emotionally aware society where people are learning to prioritize their happiness, even if it means walking away. To keep reading, subscribe to foramz.com
Written by Ananya
At the heart of political philosophy lies a fundamental question: Who truly holds power when the system collapses? German jurist Carl Schmitt gave a provocative answer: “The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” This statement, simple yet explosive, challenges our deepest assumptions about law, order, and democracy. The State of Exception: Where Law Disappears Schmitt’s most controversial idea is the “state of exception,” a moment when normal laws are suspended, and raw power takes over. Think of emergencies like wars, pandemics, or civil unrest. In these crises, constitutions and parliaments often become irrelevant. What matters is who gets to decide when to bypass the rules. For Schmitt, this decision-maker, whether a president, king, or military leader, is the real sovereign, not the legal system. Laws are just words on paper until someone enforces them. But the sovereign? They can tear up those papers when survival is at stake. Sovereignty as Decision, Not Law Traditional political theory sees sovereignty as the highest legal authority. Schmitt flips this: true sovereignty is the power to act outside the law. A president who declares martial law, a ruler who suspends elections, a government that jails opponents “for national security”—these aren’t breakdowns of the system. They are the system revealing its true nature. This idea comes from Schmitt’s “Political Theology,” where he compares sovereign power to God’s absolute authority. Just as God can perform miracles (breaking natural laws), the sovereign can suspend legal ones. A Brutal Critique of Liberalism Schmitt despised liberal democracy. He saw its checks and balances as weak—a system that can’t act fast when enemies attack. His famous “friend-enemy distinction” argues that politics isn’t about debate or compromise. It’s about identifying threats and crushing them. In his view, liberal democracies fail because: Why Schmitt Still Haunts Us From the Patriot Act after 9/11 to emergency pandemic powers, Schmitt’s shadow looms large. Modern governments still: Suspend civil liberties during crises Expand executive authority “temporarily” (that often becomes permanent) Justify extreme measures by declaring existential threats Even the European Union, designed to prevent Schmitt’s authoritarianism, suspended fiscal rules during COVID, proving his point that no legal order survives true emergencies. The Danger of Schmitt’s Legacy While insightful, Schmitt’s theory is dangerous. It was used to justify Nazi rule (which he supported). Today, it fuels: Conclusion: Can Democracy Survive the Exception? Schmitt forces us to confront an ugly truth: law depends on power, not the other way around. The challenge for democracies is to handle crises without becoming dictatorships. Can we have security and freedom? Schmitt would laugh at the question. But we must keep asking it or risk proving him right. Food for Thought: Schmitt’s ideas are a warning: the exception isn’t an accident, it’s where politics gets real. Ignore it, and you ignore how power works. For more, subscribe to foramz.com