The New York Times Magazine published a Chandra Prasad article (thanks, Tamasha) over the weekend on her quest to save her cousin from an arranged marriage in India. Her solution? Arrange her cousin’s marriage herself. To an Indian American, that is.
Let’s do a play-by-play of Prasad’s reasoning, shall we?
Even among my many pretty female cousins in India, bright and lovely Neet stood out. Like most of my father’s relatives, she lived in Bihar, a volatile region in the northeastern part of the country, and at 23 was sheltered in ways that I, born and bred in the U.S., had trouble comprehending. Neet never left the house alone; she had never even shopped for her own saris. But she had studied rigorously, earned a master’s degree in computer science and was working as a software-development intern. When I asked her by phone if I’d have to start calling her “Dr. Neet” soon — a nod to the possibility of a doctorate — she laughed and said, in her tentative English, “I like the sound of that!” In truth, further educational aspirations were at odds with Neet’s circumstances, and when I learned last year that her parents were considering arranged-marriage options, I felt sorry for her.
Fair enough. Sounds like Neet may risk missing out on enjoying her independence. But then Prasad writes:
A Connecticut-bred Yale grad, IÂ’m not really an advocate of arranged marriage.
Right. Because as we all know, Iowa State is just bursting at the seams with arranged-marriage advocates. Then the article just gets absurd:
But it occurred to me, and to my like-minded father, that we might be able to bring Neet into the U.S. and broaden her opportunities if we could find a suitable Indian husband for her here. With her parentsÂ’ permission, we set to work.
This is where Prasad lost me. What is it exactly that Prasad is trying to do? Is she really trying to “broaden” Neet’s opportunities? Because if that were the case, she wouldn’t try to hastily arrange her marriage, she would encourage her to apply to graduate school and continue her studies in the States.Which begs the next question: Is Prasad really that critical of arranged marriage? Or is she just opposed to the idea of Neet marrying an Indian man? Prasad writes more on her search for Neet’s groom:
Posing as my father, who would have the authority to do so, I created an online profile for Neet on an Indian matchmaking Web site — outlining everything from her hobbies to her favorite foods.…As the process went on, we began to lower our expectations. There were no movie stars among our top candidates. But we did find a few smart, progressive young men, U.S. citizens all.
Neet, as it turns out, wasn’t really into the idea:
…we couldnÂ’t understand NeetÂ’s lack of enthusiasm. At one point I asked her bluntly if she really wanted to be married to someone in America. Before I knew it, she had changed the subject to her favorite Bollywood stars. We finally had to accept that she didnÂ’t share our sense of urgency over her situation.
Maybe Neet just didn’t want her cousin to arrange her marriage. Prasad, however, seems to realize the folly of her efforts towards the end of the piece:
Recently IÂ’ve begun to feel guilty about the attempt. I hear there are several suitors in India who are interested in Neet, but sheÂ’s still in no hurry to be married, or to otherwise sort out her future. Maybe we were wrong to think that she should be, or to think that we knew what was best for her.
Good for you, Neet! Enjoy your independence! Prasad, however, still doesn’t quit:
I suppose all I really wanted was to see my cousin in more secure circumstances.
Arranging your cousin’s marriage to a man half a world away is a secure predicament?
ItÂ’s mere chance, after all, that sheÂ’s there and IÂ’m here; that she has one kind of life and I another; that opportunities I take for granted are beyond her reach. IÂ’m not saying that one situation is better than the other. But IÂ’m not denying it either.
Here Prasad suggests that an arranged marriage to an Indian American man is better than an arranged marriage with an Indian man. This may be true for Prasad, but did it ever occur to her that perhaps Neet might have little in common with an Indian American man?
And did it also occur to Prasad that maybe entering an arranged marriage with an Indian man would not necessarily mean a lifetime of unhappiness for Neet? Many of my cousins in India entered arranged marriages, and yet they continue to work as doctors, engineers, and scientists. And their husbands, for that matter, are not oafish and chauvinistic pigs. They treat their wives and daughters very well — and they seem to have happier marriages compared to some of those that I’ve observed in America. (Then again, we’re Southies, so I concede that someone whose family is from Bihar may have a different perspective.) This is not to say that I think arranged marriages are 100 percent defensible; I’m just saying that they’re not necessarily oppressive, either.
That being said, I would never presume to know what’s best for my cousins in India. I couldn’t possibly know, because I hardly know them; we grew up worlds apart. But if I had a cousin who was about to make what I thought was a horrible life decision, I would probably ask her what she wants, what her goals are, and what qualities she would like in a partner. And then we would discuss whether that life decision would be a wise one in light of those goals. Putting her profile up on Shaadi.com, however, would not be my first response. (By the way, is Prasad even aware that women have the power to put their own profiles up on that site? Not that I use it. But my cousins do.)
Ugh. I just read the whole NYT article. It’s typical of various media outlets these days to publish these types of stories, that only serve to otherify desi culture even more. The part that really got to me was the double standard; while she’s not an advocate of arranged marriage for herself, she went through all this effort to set one up for her cousin.
Even though I didn’t have an arranged marriage, my parents didn’t have an arranged marriage, and even one set of my grandparents didn’t have an arranged marriage, I’m not against arranged marriage for either myself or anyone else. If I were still single today, I would be completely amenable to any “offers” my parents received. Not because I would be desperate to get married, but because I happen to think that’s one way to meet a future husband. Of course I realize that I have an advantage in that my parents would never have forced, pushed, or even cajoled me into marrying a man I didn’t like, but that’s my point: arranged marriage, like marriage itself, is an institution that can be used for good or bad.
My heart goes out to anyone who suffered in a marriage, arranged or otherwise, and I do not mean to belittle their experience in any way with my comment. I just wanted to make the point that I, not a participant in or a product of an arranged marriage, am still in favor of the institution, if used correctly, i.e., with the best interests of the couple in mind and with their full cooperation.
Ah, the picture of benignly smiling chachis and chachas standing helpfully by to offer advice, in case you need it. In truth the same relatives can make your life pretty miserable if you refuse to accept their supposed wisdom.
Arranged marriages and caste are actually much more strongly related. I had a friend who could not marry the guy she was in love with because the brahmin dude’s parents couldn’t conceive of a dalit bahu. Ultimately they broke up and the parents managed to ‘save’ the boy’s caste by arranging a nice brahmin girl for her. Arranged marriage is how caste identity is still maintained in India
I don’t know if an FOB vote counts but I have seen enough misery in my khandaan because of arranged marriages. Curiously, there are still no divorces. Indian families make a fetish of not divorcing.
True, but arranged marriage often transcends caste boundaries. Even a casteless chandala like me got interested inquiries.
Alot of women from Northern India, most of them from Punjab have gotten into arranged marriages to husband from the west. They gave large dowry’s to move the west and thought they were heading to the west. Instead some foundout in the mail that there western husband wanted a divorce, other have to come airports and found out that there was no one waiting for them.
Most of these young women due to no fault of there own, have had there lifes ruined at a very young age.
Last year in the Province newspaper of Vancouver they did a week along story about this problem.
The Goodness Gracious Me clip (#69) was AWESOME!
Let me answer your question with another: What makes you think they aren’t? In an arranged marriage, the parents/ elders, in their capacity WILL guide you towards a tried-and-tested formula. If it is just an arranged marriage, and you have the trust of your parents, they will leave it at just that – a guide. It would be up to you to take their advice, or chart a path for yourself. The reason they try to ask you to marry within people they know of is to ensure the girl is from a family with a similiar moral background/ ethical mindset. It is no doubt true, that you will find perfectly good women in families not fitting into that criteria – if you did, good for you and you can go for her – if not, an arranged marriage should be good enough as long as both the bride and groom decide that they don’t see things in the other person they couldn’t live with.
I guess the point here is – don’t blame an aranged marriage for: 1. Forced marriages where the parent’s ego overrides the child’s likes 2. Marriages where the bride/groom do not spend time convincing themselves that they are choosing the right person. The arranged marriage format gives you enough time and scope to jump back, given that people don’t abuse the system. Ultimately, people should be free to marry whoever they like, in the manner that suits them – but arranged marriages shouldn’t be blamed for their abuse.
After reading sakshi’s comment (# 102), I get a feeling that the arranged marriages being spoken about by one section is not quite the same as what I (or a few others here) think. Totally relevant question: What do you define as an arranged marriage? How much of choice do you think does a person get to execute in an arranged marriage/ And even more pertinently, does this freedom dramatically increase if you go from north to south?
You can see wikipedia’s definition of arranged marriages here. I agree generally.
I guess this’d vary from case to case. If we go by wikipedia’s hierarchy, not much in the case of forced marriages, and also what it calls ‘traditional’ arranged marriages. Things are better in what it calls the ‘modern’ arranged marriage. But certain taboos are part of all arranged marriages, eg., marrying outside caste, region, religion, etc. It is also, generally speaking, a lot less accommodating of female desires/wishes than male.
I doubt it, though if you have a different opinion, I’d be interested. I’d guess its more a function of the community, education, rural/urban background, etc. Also freedom has certainly increased in recent years. But saying that the institution of arranged marriage has changed for the better is different from saying that it was a benign but misunderstood concept to begin with.
Why the anathema label on arranged marriage among the “progressive” PIO? Is it very different from Match.com, eharmony and the lot? I can understand the outrage of a non-indian american raised in a system of serial mono gamous relationships culminating in marriage as the norm.
on the topic of marriage.. one couple I would like to “save” from arranged marriage (there is still time, they are only engaged) is Abhishek and Aishwarya
Exactly..but hey!
I think the argument and counter argument is going on with each side using two very different types of indian population as their example base and presuming that most of the india is like that.
Yes a lot of Indian marriages happening in remote villages or for “domestic help types” as someone puts it, are less then desirable (actually quite horrible!). But as someone pointed out these things have a way of resolving themselves cause anybody who lived in india would have observed the high rate of divorces, eloping, extra marital affairs among this population. But still things are quite bad for majority there.
Having said that the vast majority of Indian middle class is quite considerate of their daughters wishes and try to give her the best choices as per their abilitiy and respect her veto right. In general (and I am sure there will be exceptions!)The middle class do not have handicaps like lack of education or lack of money to take decisions which are based on things other then their childrens well being.
So I think this discussion essentially turns out a discussion on “which population is a correct representative of India? “. Its a country of over a billion people and its totally foolish to generalize anything based on the behaviour of one section of the population.(Maybe being late for appointments is one!) But yet we do it. I think its because we have an agenda, sometimes even hidden to us, goverened by the subconcious and like most psychological things, somehow as a result of childhood experience. Some of us seem to pounce on every opportunity to degrade and belittle India( Indian men are pigs and hurt their women, women are in bad state and have no rights, men have small penises, women have small asses etc. etc.). And the psychology behind doing this is a great matter to research on by one of our bloggers here.
Other sect seems hell bent on defending everything Indian, and that seems to be quite defensive too.
I think if you look hard enough you will find shit in every culture. (We all have heard the rather intresting lifestyle of a lot of “trailer trash” people in “villages” of heartland here , havent we. but can we say all america is like that? )
So the gist of the post.. What the bleep do we know?
Amrita@69: That was hilarious. Lends a new meaning to the “blue pill, red pill” doesn’t it? BTW, errrr….ahem…do you happen to know the name of that doctor and the address of his practice? I may happen to know some clients who would be interested in the “treatment”. 🙂
desishiksa@101:
this begs the question whether you consider marriage itself an institution worth saving? my own view : absolutely not. we seem to think it is a forgeone conclusion that one has to get married, and then following from that assumption, ask whether different methodologies when used properly make sense. should we not question the basic assumption of marriage as a valid institution since it seems to cause so much angst and pain. While, I am not denying that it also results in a huge positive for those in good marriages, in those cases is marriage really relevant? So what we have is, when a marriage is bad there is a lot of pain for all involved – the children, the people involved and all the facades of society that force “happiness”. when a marriage is good, if you ask the parties involved they would say being married is irrelevant. they would be together no matter what. if the only advantages of marrying are economics and societal approval, then isn’t that a matter of policy that needs to be changed to award the same benefits of marriage to unmarried partners? change all the forms that ask about “married”, “divorced”, change tax policy etc… to remove the stigma of being not married?
I have a major issue with the Chandra Prasad’s gratuitous reference to Bihar as a volatile region, but what do you expect from this all-knowing Yalee on her little mission?
Here is my two cents on arranged marriage vs. “love” marriage, which is the Indian term for the other kind of marriage. For a marriage to last beyond the initial ignition of love and lust, it must evolve and finally approximate the cruising speeds of an arranged marriage, meaning respect for each partner’s family, friends and customs, shared habits, common goals, and so on. Too many people think love is the only fuel needed to make the marriage run forever. I say it is the essential fuel, but a lot of additives must be “arranged” along the way for the thing to keep going. Indians have been doing it the other way, which is to arrange the additives first and then let the main fuel of love kick in slowly. Hey, don’t knock it! It works very well in India.
My automotive analogy nothwithstanding, I do have a little experience at the marriage “business” – been married 34 years. It was a “love” marriage.
The really fucked up thing about this article is the way that it neither questions the invasions of privacy and interference with self-actualization inherent in arranged marriage nor confirms them. Prasad doesn’t care about that.
It comes down to: arranged marriage with an Indian = bad, arranged marriage with an American = good. And that, to me, sounds more like the rantings of a biased second-gen reacting against the Dark Subcontinent than an actual intelligent argument.
This needs to be qualified. Rather than state “Indian women”, you need to state “some Indian women”. Coz there are certainly some Indian women who do not fall into the behaviour described above.
mistress of spices: thanks for adding your perspective on this topic! i’ve been following the discussion and it is ridiculous how far generalizations are stretched time and time again over cultural topics. sharing one’s personal experience is one thing but seriously, can we be so self-absorbed as to think that our opinions are the ultimate reality about whatever thing ‘brown’ is being discussed… in case some haven’t noticed India has a population of over a billion, surely there are different kinds of women among that pool and many different kinds of family values/perspectives…
Turnip,
I agree. We should question it. But a utopia where all relationships are equal is far, far away…
I completely agree that the benefits of marriage should be extended to unmarried partners (but the definition of partner would have to be arbitrary). However, I don’t think changing the forms is going to remove the stigma of not fulfilling a thousands of years old societal expectation, or the stigma of being gay, or the stigma of being in a interracial relationship.
As someone who is married, I have to say I didn’t do it just for the economic advantages and societal approval. There is something poetic (and I agree, it’s all social conditioning) about promising your life to someone else in a ceremonial way. And for many people, it has a strong religious significance. I think marriage is not the only valid relationship, but I’m not ready to do away with it. I do see your point though.
It is impossible to say whether Chandra Prasad’s actions were justifiable or not, not knowing (and she certainly did not articulate) her specific circumstances. It is also difficult to excoriate her for writing about this because that, frankly, is what writers do.
It is a sign of the times (no pun intended) that the New York Times published this sorry excuse for writing. I miss the era of Abe Rosenthal and Arthur Gelb.
This is why I’m not 100% against the arranged marriage system but would like to see more of an “informed arranged marriage system” taking place, which is indeed happening for alot of people.
I think it can work well.
But I do think that romance and sexual chemistry are two very important componants to a marriage that can serve to bind a couple together very strongly, and if that is missing, the bond will be weak and one or both of the partners will be frustrated and there will be the possibility of one or both of them straying outside of the relationship to seek satisfaction – even if it is just cat-calling women on the streets or copping a feel on the local train (for the man) or inviting young Vikas from next door over for afternoon chai while hubby is at work, on the pretext of helping him with “maths” (for the woman).
That is why I think it’s important for those in an arranged setting to get to know each other and “date” for at least a few months beforehand to allow for a chance for that chemistry to blossom and if it doesn’t, I would move on to the next one.
Is it neccessary to actually have sex to know if there is a “sexual chemistry” or not? No.
“should we not question the basic assumption of marriage as a valid institution since it seems to cause so much angst and pain.”
Every human enterprise, whether planned or not, comes with two components – pleasure and pain. The pleasure of raising children, the pain of watching them go through teenage years, messy divorces and a myriad other tragedies. The pleasure of building a career or business, the pain of setbacks, losing a coveted promotion, getting fired. The pleasure of moving to a wonderful new city, the pain of the memories left behind forever. The pleasure of finally discovering, in your later years, how truly great your parents are, the pain of losing them to serious ailments or death.
Any reason to suspend one of these perfectly normal human pursuits?
I would argue that it’s necessary to do something beyond holding hands, at least 🙂
yep. marriage. all the other pursuits mentioned are far less “permanent” in nature. i am not arguing against pleasure or pain. i am arguing against pleasure/pain imposed externally and whose reasons seem to become more and more archaic.
this begs the question whether you consider marriage itself an institution worth saving?
Western countries are already moving beyond marriage, though it certainly continues to be an ideal, upheld especially fervently by religious groups.
In the UK, 25% of households are headed by a single parent. In the United States, the figure is, I believe, above 30%. This is likely to rise in the coming decades. Marriage will simply be one of many forms of sanctioned relationship.
Naina,
I just have to say that your two posts here on SM have been absolutely thought-provoking for this desi. Thank you!
Excellent point Upbransh, and one that I was trying to make but I guess didn’t come across so clearly.
Yes, the well-educated, english speaking and financially stable Indians of today tend to have either love marriages or arranged-with-veto-powers marriages.
But for the teaming masses of un-educated or under-educated, poor, and unaware Indians, the above scenario is less so. Although I have seen some of such people separate from an unloved spouse and remain single or start a life with a new partner.
What I think is neccessary is for children to be taught their legal rights from kindergarten onwards in India.
Especially girls should be taught that they have a choice and one of those choices is divorce if a marriage is abusive. The available hotlines and support groups should be made known to all youthful girls in every town and village across the country.
It’s not just a matter of personal choice if an unaware woman in India is abused and she “chooses” not to leave or seek help. Often times these women don’t know that they have a choice to begin with and don’t know there is anyone or anything available to help her.
Totally Random – I have known some victims of domestic violence in America and you are wrong – their families ALWAYS support them, advise them to leave and offer all assistance in that effort. Families in America will not tolerate their daughters, sisters, mothers, being abused (unless they are the ones abusing them). However, it is true that some women do not take the advise and help of their families, or take it and then return to the abuser, these women have psychological problems that need to be dealt with by professionals.
In America the 1-800 numbers for help are commercialized on TV. We know where to turn for help because there are alot of help-centers and the info is wide-spread. Not so in India. Hence my idea to start informing kids of their rights, choices and oppurtunities from kindergarten onwards. Why so young? Coz some of them will end their education in the third grade. And those are the ones likely to be married by the time they are 12. It does happen in India ALOT. Again, ask the domestic workers you encounter the next time you go to India.
More important that education in India for these people is AWARENESS, in my opinion. Better for them to be informed of their rights and how to work the system to their advantage than to have a high degree. If they could manage both, all the better. But I have seen alot of very well educated Indian women with zero awareness of these matters.
The point about one’s family elders seeking a potential partner for their offspring from a family of similar moral and ethics – it’s all at face value. I know a case where both families were fairly well educated, financially well off, renowned in their hometowns for being polite, respectable, friendly, moral, religious, upright and just. What is termed in India – “good family background”.
The parents of the girl, after meeting the young man and being confident that he was of “good stock”, and being impressed with his sweet behaviour and demeanor, were happy to arrange the marriage with their daughter, who also gave her go ahead, saying that the boy was “nice”.
Well, from suhaag raat (wedding night – Suhaag means fortunate and raat means night) onwards, this unsuspecting and innocent young woman was raped and sexually abused in ways that she could never have imagined.
And she was silent about it. Why? Because she was unprepared for such a thing and was confused in her mind about it all – perhaps she thought that this was sex? Who knows? Also, her father suffered from heart disease and she did not want him to have another heart attack due to anxiety. She tolerated this torture against her mind, body and soul until she gave birth – to a son – when it started to cease and she was able to live torture free, but never with dignity and respect.
“Western countries are already moving beyond marriage, though it certainly continues to be an ideal, upheld especially fervently by religious groups.
In the UK, 25% of households are headed by a single parent. In the United States, the figure is, I believe, above 30%.”
They are not moving beyond marriage by choice. The 25% and 30% single-parent families are the result of divorces, not some rational decision finally discarding marriage as archaic and remaining single as the “new, improved lifestyle for the 21st century.”
I don’t know if it is social conditioning – and if it is, then it could change given a few decades – but every divorced person that I know is seriously pursuing marriage after the initial pain and frustration of divorce has dissipated and faith in humanity restored. In fact, after the second or third time, I begin to wonder if they should subject themselves to it again. But they do, and sometimes with great outcomes.
“ideal, upheld especially fervently by religious groups.” There must be a strong correlation between religious fervor and not getting divorced. But is there really a proven correlation between religious bias and getting married? I see all types of people getting married regardless of their religious bias because to them it is a natural thing to do.
“yep. marriage. all the other pursuits mentioned are far less “permanent” in nature.” Building a career of your choice, which I guarantee will come with equal parts pain and pleasure, is not a temporary pursuit. It’s as life-long as, well, marriage. So my point was, how is marriage different from other human pursuits that are encumbered by pain and pleasure.
I don’t think getting married is a more noble act than not getting married. But society does seem to think it is, and as long as there is a needless value judgment involved, there will be naysayers who would wish to stand up for their beliefs. You have my support. Do whatever makes you happy, because happiness is the ultimate goal.
The NYT article is BS. That said…
If arranged marriage wasn’t so prevalent in India, some Indian guys I’ve met would never be married. It is shocking the way they relate to women. With the number of Indian males settling abroad, arranged marriages are probably more hasty than ever.
The classic arranged marriage is still the way many,many educated Indians get hitched.
And even with the love marriages, where does physical compatibility figure?
They are not moving beyond marriage by choice. The 25% and 30% single-parent families are the result of divorces, not some rational decision finally discarding marriage as archaic and remaining single as the “new, improved lifestyle for the 21st century.”
Yes, but its the acceptability of divorce that gave rise to the ‘breakdown’ in the first place. The reasons are complex, but undoubtedly part of it is the Enlightenment value that places a premium on individual happiness over the familial unit and its attendant obligations. If rate worsens, as I think it will, the next step is to reject the institution altogether. It is hard to do that, given thousands of years of societal conditioning, so, imo, the likely course will be to contextualize it as one of many options, and not a be-all/ end-all.
The fact that divorced people are ‘struggling’ to get married again tells me that values are in transition, there hasn’t been a full break from the ideal as yet.
There must be a strong correlation between religious fervor and not getting divorced. But is there really a proven correlation between religious bias and getting married? I see all types of people getting married regardless of their religious bias because to them it is a natural thing to do.
I think fervently religious people divorce at as high a rate as so-called secular people. That doesn’t stop religious institutions from preaching to a (silent?) choir.
That is utterly and patently false. Maybe it applies to the people you know, but working in an ER, often the last refuge of victims of domestic violence, I see plenty of people who have NO family support. Isn’t that why domestic violence shelters were created? Whether it’s because they can’t, or don’t want to, help, there are many families that provide nothing constructive to their daughters, sisters, and mothers. Families in America, like families everywhere, tolerate domestic violence, out of indifference or helplessness.
I know quite a few very “religious” persons who have committed to each other in a life long live in relationship, having children, grand-children and the whole bit, who are not legally married.
I think what people seek more than legal marriage is an honest committment.
Sexual compatibility can be determined without having sex, via conversation and vibes — that chemistry I’m talking about.
If chemistry is there, adjustments can be made as each partner learns what the other likes. Both have to be of open mind and expressive with their love.
I think I expressed something of the same in another thread.
While I don’t think this applies to even the majority of Indian men, there are quite a few men (the ones who roam the streets cat-calling women and groping us up and down, left, right and center, who definitely would not be able to land a wife if it was left up to their own abilities. What women in her right mind would want to have children with a man that is knowingly (to her) groping women daily in the streets?
The arranged system works for them because they are arranged to women who are unaware of their doings.
Those are easier to spot. I was referring to highly educated guys whose main qualification for snagging a wife are the letters after their name.
what the kufc is wrong with this girl?. Seems like she is flag bearer in the naipaul genre pure balderdash.
Are they struggling to get legally married or struggling to be in an life-long committed relationship?
Most people desire life-long companionship.
It’s a rare person who does not desire such.
We seek it either in life long romantic relationships, friendships, family relationships or with our children.
Even having great bonds with children, family and friends, we still desire a congugal relationship because that fulfills deep needs and desires that cannot be fulfilled in the other relationships.
Risible #129: “Yes, but its the acceptability of divorce that gave rise to the ‘breakdown’ in the first place. The reasons are complex, but undoubtedly part of it is the Enlightenment value that places a premium on individual happiness over the familial unit and its attendant obligations.”
You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence! I may not be quite ready to label the premium placed on individual happiness over the familial unit as “enlightenment,” but I completely agree with you that self-awareness, self-fulfillment, and all other self-centric impulses are the natural byproducts of social progress. Now comes the bad news – an excessive concern for self does not bode well for long-term marriages in general.
I have heard desis of my generation dismiss this “am-I-happy” obsession as Western values. But it has nothing to do with the East or West. Urbanization, economic freedom, sexual freedom, abundance of information and the education to process it all, and other manifestations of social progress come with their own human transformations, and focus on the self is one of them. This change would also occur in India when it achieves first world status as it did in America fifty years ago. Of course, culture will always have a restraining effect on the rate of change as we have seen in a highly industrialized and otherwise progressive Japan.
Does this mean the end of marriage as an institution? Of course not. It only means a sharp increase in divorce rates. It means shorter-term marriages, that’s all. Just look at the American society. With nearly 50% of the marriages ending in divorce, there is a multi-billion dollar matchmaking industry, not to mention all the bars, clubs and church socials busily trying to get people together again. Why? Because people want to be married. Heck, even the gays want to be married. Lifelong partnership hasn’t replaced marriage even in a society where not being married is hardly a stigma.
Now, here is my favorite divorce joke. Would you buy a product that has been known to fail 4 out of 10 times? Said by Bill Murray in a friendly meeting where I was present.
What about those of us who would theoretically like to be married because we would a)like to have kids before we get much older, b)it makes your parents happy, c)helps when socializing with other married couples, d)helps your career, and e)you definitely recognize that when you are older, you’ll need and treasure the companionship……BUT, who have issues with the following: 1)The endless demands for attention, 2)the constant presence which appears very smothering, 3)you can’t hang out with your friends and get drunk anymore(except very rarely) 4)the fact that you can not sleep with any other women once you’re married, and 5)you can’t tolerate the thought of being bossed around (which is what most wives seem to do)?
I’m facing the same dilemna, albeit from a female perspective.
I love travel, adventure and independence. At the same time I would like a steady home base to return to with a loving husband waiting for me. I’m also a bit of a flirt and would not want that groove to be spoiled.
But what man wants a wife who is gone from home 6 months out of the year?
And what man wants to financially provide for his wife’s world travels, which can get expensive?
Amitabh at #137 and MOS at #138. I think almost everyone goes through this dilema, although I am not sure everybody can express is so nicely.
Back home they something like “Shadi le laddu, jo khaye pachtaye, jo na khaye woh bhi pachtaye”
Wow.
I am so glad I haven’t hit that phase of my life yet, it seems to bring out that teenage angst all over again like a fresh batch of acne.
Sorry for the gross simile but some comments show signs of more than a little anxiety over fucking around (figuratively? literally? both?) in your 20’s and now having to grow up.
I think from interracial/interreligious/intercommunity marriages in my own family and through Indian friends that all the barriers to marrying outside your own caste etc, or even getting married at all, have broken down-eventually- once parents know their kids are happy. I don’t know about the US, but I know that where I live some South Asians I know in their 30’s don’t get legally married at all. Instead they have long term partners. Is getting married still a big thing in the US, because in NZ a growing number of people have long term partners rather that doing the whole wedding thing.
Maybe it’s just marriage that’s the increasingly outmoded institution in general, not just arranged marriages?
Same here. It’s about split half and half in the circles I move in. About half are legally married and about half are in long-term live in relationships, some having kids, grand-kids, the whole bit.
I’m open to both.
The only thing that turns me off about a legal marriage is all the red tape I might have to go through in the event of a divorce. To avoid that I would rather have a commitment ceremony or something without legal implications.
Commendable post, Naina.
I don’t know any Indians (other than some Indo-caribbean people) who are having kids, grandkids, in a non-married situation. Unless they had a kid by accident – even then they aren’t in a long-term live-in relationship that’s out in the open. Most people’s parents would still kill them…and most desis are still not going to tell their parents to get lost and mind their own business.
You’re Pardesi Gori aren’t you?!
What do you mean? It’s WOMEN who screw men over in a divorce! But fear of a divorce is a real concern too…a big chunk of your money goes, and your kids could get really messed up too.
You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence! I may not be quite ready to label the premium placed on individual happiness over the familial unit as “enlightenment,”
Oh I meant that term as referring to the movement that originated in Europe, I wasn’t attempting to make a value judgement about it being good or bad, just musing about the way I see things going here. BTW I enjoy your posts very much; you are the cool uncle many of us wish we had growing up 🙂
Amitabh:
1)The endless demands for attention,
Yes. Ignore or tune out at your own peril.
2)the constant presence which appears very smothering,
Goes both ways. When you start farting in bed at night, she will be smothered by your “presence”
3)you can’t hang out with your friends and get drunk anymore(except very rarely)
She will put a stop to that within six months of your being married
4)the fact that you can not sleep with any other women once you’re married,
Nope. But you still have your fantasies. What goes on your your head is no ones buisness
5)you can’t tolerate the thought of being bossed around (which is what most wives seem to do)?
Punjabi no? You should be GROOMED for this!
Cheers
You’re Pardesi Gori aren’t you?!
It took you so long to ID MOS.
What is this apparent common knowledge? What the…!!
What, and no lingam references yet?
Scooby-Doo moment!
sigh
last one to the party, as usual.
Dammit! (surveys wreckage, shakes head sadly) Looks like it was quite an event, too.
I do agree (like most everyone else) that Chandra’s meddling in her cousin’s life was pretty fucking annoying. Portraying yourself as a freedom-loving American advocating choice while trying to impose your will on your cousin in India sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
She could totally work for the Bush administration, though.