Acharya Prashant responds to a question about the institution of marriage in India, particularly arranged marriages. He describes arranged marriage as a situation where a young person, especially a woman, is thrust into an unfamiliar room with an unknown person, a bed decorated with roses, and introduced to strangers who are now her in-laws. The reality of this situation, he says, often becomes clear only after the woman might already be pregnant. He dismisses the notion that love marriage is better than arranged marriage or that a live-in relationship is better than a love marriage, stating that these are not the real issue. When parents claim to check the prospective partner's lifestyle, Acharya Prashant asserts they are lying. He explains that what they truly look for is caste, first and foremost. Following that, they consider wealth, dowry, and the family's social standing, such as having members in high-ranking government positions or living abroad. He points out that sex is a very powerful desire and a central, though often unacknowledged, element in these arrangements, which can lead to anything happening to the girl. He defines an arranged marriage as a coalition of two young people, decided by others, for a lifetime, without any basis in love or mutual understanding. The process of 'approving' a partner is likened to inspecting goods. Acharya Prashant explains that what is often called love after marriage is merely a habit, a compromise, or a sense of responsibility, not true love, which involves conscious choice. He connects the lack of joy in Indian society, as indicated by its low ranking in the World Happiness Index, to a lack of freedom and creativity. He states that in India, freedom is often misconstrued as anarchy or licentiousness. He contrasts Shruti (the highest truth, found in the Vedas and Upanishads) with Smriti (traditions and customs). He argues that the current practices, like the Varna-ashrama system, are based on Smriti, not the liberating wisdom of the Upanishads. The Upanishads, he says, are concerned with truth versus falsehood, not what is socially permitted or forbidden. He clarifies that he is not against relationships but is against the hell that has been created in their name. He advocates for relationships based on truth and genuine love. He questions the societal obsession with marriage, pointing out that for a people who are so sexually driven, it becomes the most important thing in life. He concludes by stating that the court also acknowledges that the absence of love is not a valid reason for divorce, but the absence of sex is, which legally establishes sex as the foundation of marriage. This, he implies, is a sad state of affairs.