The Raja Raghuvanshi case has once again brought the patriarchal mindset and the rigid Indian understanding of marriage to the fore.

Of course, one must sympathise with Raja, who was murdered unjustly and his family, but ultimately, it was our patriarchal mindset that killed him. Justice must be served, and the perpetrators brought to light. There must also be a rethinking of the institution of marriage in India, which, although evolving, remains misaligned with modern realities.

Marriage in the Indian context has historically been less about personal happiness or compatibility and more about family honour, societal expectations, and caste dynamics. Women, in particular, have borne the brunt of this cultural rigidity.

Society has been ignoring the plight of Indian women forever who are stuck in loveless marriages, often forced upon them by the family, where they have to suffer abuse and disgrace. Many are forced to commit suicide. There was even a time when dousing and burning them was haute couture. The double standards ingrained in our reactions shine through. The brutal murder of Raja rightfully triggered widespread outrage, yet similar empathy is often absent when women are victims of domestic violence, dowry deaths, or honour killings.

Such selective focus is indicative of a bias where women's sufferings are normalised, and a man's victimhood becomes a rallying point for the nation. This imbalance must compel us to reevaluate and dismantle norms that perpetuate inequality and foster blind conformity.

There is no justification for the actions of the unwilling wife, Sonam, who plotted to killed. As a person from a relatively wealthy family, she did not lack opportunities to escape. She could have left the unhappy union at any time. Her family might not have approved of it, but she could have managed to survive.

Yet, it also presents a dichotomy of a broader failure to provide women with avenues to voice their dissatisfaction or to leave toxic relationships. Divorce remains stigmatised, and a woman's decision to leave a marriage is viewed as a moral failing rather than a pursuit of dignity and self-respect.

Sonam's wealth and privilege might have offered her an escape route, but for countless others in India, socioeconomic constraints and the fear of ostracisation make leaving an abusive or loveless marriage nearly impossible.

We need to normalise dialogues about marital dissatisfaction, divorce, and individual happiness. We must strengthen the legal frameworks supporting women in leaving abusive relationships. The lines between castes and faiths must be blurred and destigmatised. Families must stop viewing their marriages as transactions or responsibilities to fulfil and begin respecting autonomy. Simultaneously, men should be encouraged to view marriage as a partnership rather than a dominion.

The death of traditional constructs does not mean the demise of values; rather, it signals the birth of a more inclusive, humane, and fulfilling version of them. Only then can we ensure that tragedies like the Raja Raghuvanshi case become less frequent and that both men and women can helm relationships with dignity, freedom, and respect.