Subject: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)

The following is a slightly expanded version of an article I wrote  which
appeared in the July 1990 issue of INDIA CURRENTS, a SF Bay area magazine
devoted to Indian arts, culture and entertainment. 

I am posting it here with the hope of stimulating a discussion.
Before you decide to junk it saying "oh yet another guy bashing
tradition" please skim it and realize that it is not a criticism of
the syntactic concept of "arranged marriage" but the pitfalls of
endorsing the values associated with that practise. Thanks for your
indulgence.

 Rao [Aug 11, 1990]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	            EXPLOITING AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE

             [What indeed is wrong with arranged marriages?]
               
                       By Subbarao Kambhampati
         
    (This  article is in  response to the   editorial, Arranged Marriages:
    What's wrong with them - and What's not, INDIA CURRENTS, June 1990)
        
    A US-educated professional, son of one of our family friends, was back
    in  India,  on a short  trip - to get  married. His parents did  their
    homework and lined up an array of choices - he made  a "selection" and
    the  stage was set for a   grand wedding.  The   place  was abuzz with
    veiled praise for him--how "nice", "dutiful" and "untainted" he was by
    the foregin influence that he  was coming back  to respect the marital
    norms of his culture!  The  strong underlying consensuswas that there
    cannot  be much   wrong with  a system  that    is endorsed  by such a
    well-educated and well-traveled person as he.
    
    It set me thinking.  Was he really  making a conscious choice?  Or was
    he just taking an easy way out?  Was his decision  purely personal?  Or
    did it derive from an unjust male-dominated system?
    
    What, if  anything,  is wrong with  arranged marriages?   It is indeed
    naive to blame arranged marriages or any single social practice as the
    root of  all evil in Indian society.  And yes,  it is  the  skewed and
    sexist value system  that lies at the  root of inhuman atrocities such
    as  bride  burnings.  However, is   there  any  doubt   that  arranged
    marriages, as  practised by the  multitude around us  - from a village
    clerk to   a   Silicon  Valley professional   -  clearly   endorse and
    perpetuate the existing sex-inequalities in the Indian society?

    NON-COERCIVE ARRANGED MARRIAGE: AN OXYMORON?
    
    In defense  of the prevalent system, the  argument  is made that there
    really  is   nothing wrong with    a  non-coercive arranged  marriage.
    Indeed!  However, such an argument paints an implicit  picture  of two
    well-informed individuals voluntarily entering a marital contract that
    just happens to have been "arranged." How many of the vast majority of
    arranged marriages  that  take place  in our  midst  here or  in India
    really fit this picture?
    
    We  have  all been witness to  the specter  of "3-way ticket" marriage
    where a single  professional man on an impromptu  three week visit  to
    India, manages to return back with a  bride a-stride.   How  is such a
    superhuman feat of finding a partner for life, under pressure and time
    deadlines, accomplished with  such unerring  regularity?  Is it really
    because of the man's personality and inter-personal  skills?  Or is it
    his biased worth in a sexist society which makes it possible to parade
    10-20 eligible women in front of him  on short notice, a society which
    gives him a clear upper hand in the ensuing decision-making?
    
    It is often  said that arranged  marriages work because  both partners
    have realistic (reduced) expectations.  Is it really this  much touted
    maturity  of  mutual compromises  that  fuels them?   Alas,  on closer
    examination we find that  it is really  the women who are  conditioned
    into believing that marriage is one big compromise  requiring constant
    adjustment   on  their part.   With such  brainwashing,  and one-sided
    accommodation,   almost  any system  can be made to give  the illusion 
    of "working"!
    
    THE "CONVENIENCE" FACTOR:
    
    When pressed, my friends talk about "convenience".  Whose convenience,
    I ask.  Let us not forget for a moment that the convenience  of having
    potential suitors  line up in  droves as  soon  as  one shows conjugal
    tendencies is  limited at   present  only to  Indian males.   Arranged
    marriage was never "convenient" for women:  when has  being paraded in
    front  of  leering strangers,  being  asked  inane  questions, and, if
    selected being uprooted and whisked off like so  much personal luggage
    been convenient  for anyone?  In an  equal  society, finding a partner
    will never be a cake-walk.
    
    So, the practise  of  arranged marriages continues unabated even among
    the educated and    well-informed Indians, not  really  because   of a
    conscious mutual choice, but largely because men know that marriage is
    a  proposition in which  they have  _all_ the options, and _choose_ to
    exploit those options.  Equally importantly, it  continues because WE,
    the bystanders, choose to endorse the practice, or turn the other way,
    when it takes place in our own midst.
    
    SKEWED SOCIAL VALUES:
    
    My friends  remonstrate,  saying that  while  they are all  for a more
    equal society, they believe  that the atrocious  facets of sexism such
    as "bride burning"  are a result, not of  the arranged marriage system
    per se, but of the skewed societal values.  True.  But should that not
    impel us all  to energetically discourage the  very  practice  that so
    manifestly perpetuates that skewed social policy? How else, pray tell,
    will social policy change?
    
    "ILL" vs. "WELL" INFORMED MARRIAGES:
    
    Lest  the   whole argument  be trivialized  as  yet another attempt to
    demarcate the "arranged" and "love"  marriage  systems,  let me try to
    make my position clear.  The issue  of  concern is not necessarily the
    "arrangedness" of a marriage,  but how well-informed and consensual is
    the decision of   the participants? How   far is  it   perpetuating or
    endorsing unjust societal norms?  How  far is  it exploiting the boons
    of a biased societal structure?  The issue facing us is  not about how
    to choose between  two sharply divided  systems of marriage, but about
    the need for a conscious, rather than tradition-bound,  choice among a
    continuum of possibilities.
    
    It is unlikely that there will be an immediate and large scale change
    in  the centuries-old marital  practises  of  a society  as large  and
    diverse as India, but is it too much to expect the "educated" populace
    to be better informed?   We reexamine our accent and  dress code after
    coming face to face with a new culture; should we not  do the same for
    our customs and actions?
    
    When we endorse  a  social  practice   that requires  a man  to  spend
    significantly   less  time in  getting  married  than    in  buying an
    automobile; a practise, which in its most popular form, thrives on the
    marginalization  of an entire  gender,  it is  over-sanguine to expect
    that the deep-rooted inequalities between the sexes  will disappear as
    a matter of course.  Let not our indifference take us to a stage where
    the abhorrent atrocity of a burning bride  is the  only injustice that
    is capable of enraging our sense of equality.
    
-------------------------

  "Above all, man is never merely a product of the world around him. He
   is always capable of striving for something higher no matter how
   systematically  his ability is ground down by the world that exists
   around him."

                  -Vaclav Havel (Inaugural address)	
                   President of Czechosovakia and Playwright

---

From: [email-masked] (venkatesh ravirala)
Date: 12 Aug 90 02:40:19 GMT

Hi Netters :
   
        Mr. Kambhampati's article clearly speaks of loop-holes in the
    arranged marraige system of our country. But the article was a little
    biased towards totally criticizing without even mentioning a single
    benefit of such a system.
        Personally I believe that the present practices in selecting a
    partner are plagued by elders making the "choice" rather than the
    candidates themselves. I have come across morons who possess little
    education or wealth, but have taken pride of "interviewing" even
    upto 200 matches (an astronomical figure by any standards I suppose).
              
         When I go for shopping, I shall choose a shop where I'm sure of
    finding something I'm looking for (say a suit piece). I can make the
    attendant show all varieties and make a big pile and finally leave the
    place not liking any one of them !!. This is exactly what many do. Period.
    But, I believe that viewing a particle make or shade or price range and
    choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. 
    
         But on a lighter vain, let me pointout that:
       
     1. In India, we only "see" the girl instead of "sleeping" with the girl
   
     2. In India, dowry is demanded prior to marraige instead of suing later
  
     3. In India, marraige is a life-long union and not a simple contract
        or a bond to be exchanged every now and than as in stock market.
   
     4. In India, the concept is to "love a person whom you marry" and
        NOT necessarily "marry a person whom you love".

    Finally, as with many other cases, it the fault of the persons who take
    undue advantage of the system (of arranged marraiges etc.) than the
    system itself. Hence, I would appreciate if you, my friends, express your
    views and suggestions on preventing the misuse of the system rather than
    finding fault with the concept of the system.
     
      " Shop, but shop wise "

         with regards
          venkatesh

---

From: [email-masked] (G. Sivakumar)
Date: 12 Aug 90 16:54:18 GMT

Thanks, Rao [@sunrise.stanford.edu], for raising some important issues
that should hit close to home for many s.c.i.-readers.
I agree with the main thrust of your arguments, and 
the points/criticisms below, of your article, are not meant to
detract from or trivialize the main issue, but only to contribute
more perspective to the discussion.

It is very fortunate that Dheeraj Sanghi posted this same weekend the
excellent analysis by Madhu Kishwar, from which I shall borrow some key points.
======

First, we should draw a clear  distinction between

  A) the "3-way ticket" arranged marriages of NRIs, and
 
  B) the arranged marriage system in India among resident Indians.

Yes, the two share many similarities, and raise similar concerns.
But, there are also some siginificant factors and differences that
necessitate this demarcation.

While (A) is indeed relevant to a very large portion of s.c.i-readers,
they comprise a very very small proporiton of India.
Drawn almost exclusively from the upper crust (top 5-10% income bracket),
urban, educated class.

Any serious analysis of (A) cannot ignore significant factors 
irrelevant to (B) like
the vestiges of the colonial mentality, the "phoren" craze,
the stark contrast in living standards & resource consumption,
the absence of interfering in-laws and relatives.
These are factors why educated women and their parents willingly go 
through the parading and demoralizing procedure exploited by NRIs.

While not condoning (A) in any way, one should also examine what
choices are available to the NRIs, who are permitted to come and
settle here by the US-government.
Almost exclusively highly qualified professionals, and predominantly male,
the NRI-s who go through (A) have few other realistic options.
What suggestions can one offer to NRIs, if one desires (A) to decline?
Do you have any?

-----
Regarding (B), Madhu Kishwar's excellent analysis of "dowry-deaths"
posted by Dheeraj, addresses  broader issues than just how a marriage is
arranged, including root causes of the gender inequalities
that you write so eloquently about.

Let me quote briefly--

> Only by ensuring that no woman is condemned to a life of crippling dependence
> on marriage, that every woman is capable of becoming self supporting,
and will
> not be socially ostracized for living without such a marriage, can we lessen
> this slaughter.
.........
> Most women including women from educated middle class families, are
not equipped
> economically and educationally, to get even a moderately paying job on their
> own strength.  They need help in the form of contacts which male relatives
> must provide.  Many have only domestic work and childcare skills.  

I think this changes the perspective 
from why "men exploit their unjust advantage", 
to why women are forced be in this disadvantegous situation.
While her analysis is very incisive and perceptive, the
5 points she offers as solutions do seem a little more simplistic
(change the culture, indoctrination, ideal of womanhood) 
and I'm not sure how they can be effectively achieved.
There are severe economic issues involved.
We are a very poor country and stable economic developmnent/growth
is painfully slow given the exisiting crunch on resources and
foreign exchange (mainly for energy resources) that we need.

To quote again from Geeta Somjee's, "Narrowing the Gender Gap"

> Indian society is
> highly segmented, diverse, and hierarchical, its women require a
> variety of efforts to be able to overcome its traditional gender gap
> and that any attempts to think in terms of simple, institutional,
> public policy, economic or legal rights solutions to their problems
> would not be enough. Much more needs to be done.

What and how is the difficult question?

----
Finally, should one not challenge the institution of marriage itself,
which Madhu Kishwar does in her article,
as perpetuating inequality and patriarchy? 

Best wishes,

Siva  ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (Pramathanath Sastry)
Date: 12 Aug 90 20:58:50 GMT

In article <?V#%#?[email-masked]> [email-masked] (venkatesh ravirala) writes:

*    Hi Netters :
*   
*        Personally I believe that the present practices in selecting a
*    partner are plagued by elders making the "choice" rather than the
*    candidates themselves. I have come across morons who possess little
*    education or wealth, but have taken pride of "interviewing" even
*    upto 200 matches (an astronomical figure by any standards I suppose).
*              
*         When I go for shopping, I shall choose a shop where I'm sure of
*    finding something I'm looking for (say a suit piece). I can make the
*    attendant show all varieties and make a big pile and finally leave the
*    place not liking any one of them !!. This is exactly what many do. Period.
*    But, I believe that viewing a particle make or shade or price range and
*    choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. 
    
Choosing a life partner is not the same as shopping. I think, however, that the
point you wish to make with your anology is -- One ought to have a  
clear idea of what one wants from a spouse. I wish you'd said so in so many 
words rather than used your offensive analogy. I have a question. Even if you
do have an idea of what you want from your wife, how will you go about finding
the "best" within the framework of the Indian Arranged Marriage System ? Surely
this will involve a parade, something the original poster finds sexist.  
You go on to write --

*         But on a lighter vain, let me pointout that:
*       
*     1. In India, we only "see" the girl instead of "sleeping" with the girl
*   
*     2. In India, dowry is demanded prior to marraige instead of suing later
*  
*     3. In India, marraige is a life-long union and not a simple contract
*        or a bond to be exchanged every now and than as in stock market.
*   
*     4. In India, the concept is to "love a person whom you marry" and
*        NOT necessarily "marry a person whom you love".
*
*    Finally, as with many other cases, it the fault of the persons who take
*    undue advantage of the system (of arranged marraiges etc.) than the
*    system itself. Hence, I would appreciate if you, my friends, express your
*    views and suggestions on preventing the misuse of the system rather than
*    finding fault with the concept of the system.

You have not addressed the issues raised by the original poster. Let me refresh
you. The original article says--

(a) The process involved in "arranging" a marriage is sexist, and favours the
male.

(b) This inherent bias cannot be the basis of an equal partnership later, and is
perhaps the cause of the dowry deaths.

(c) The reason an arranged marriage "works" is tied up with the above points. It
is the woman who makes all the compromises and adjustments, as she has been
conditioned to in our society. And in the view of the original poster (whose
name I have forgotten), this cannot be a civilised way of ensuring stability.

Since I do not wish to sit on the fence, let me come out and say that
I agree with the original article. You have raised
some points (for some reason you think they have a light vein to them). I do not
understand the point of your first point. And so I will not touch on it.
Your second point astonishes me. Dowry in India is always paid by the Bride's 
side, whereas "suing later" here is mostly done by the wife. If you think dowry
is the reason there is no "suing later" in India, you must be naive. If anything
it should act as a catalyst for suing later, for according to the arranged
marriage theory, dowry is paid to ensure a fair treatment for the bride, and 
hence any inequity in treatment should raise the shackles of a spirited woman. 
The fact there are very few divorces could mean one of
(a) An inordinate number of Indian males are very considerate.
(b) Indian women are willing to compromise.

I find the the phrase "inordinate number" in the first option hard to believe. 
The second only shows how far the stem has rotted.

As to your third point. You seem to think that arranged marriages have no 
commercial intent. I must have lived in a different India. The whole point of
the exercise seemed to be to ensure a few things. Arranged marriages were
regarded as the guarantees of certain treaties between families. The marriages
ensured that property stayed in the hands of a few families. It reeked of
commercialism and the woman was simply a mute observer.

I have nothing to say about your fourth point. You could be right, but I do not
see the advantage of one over the other.

Finally you go on to talk about a noble system that has been abused. I find it
hard to distinguish between the working of a system and the system itself. If
it pleases you the attack was on the way the system works. And what is being
attacked is not merely the selection process that is demeaning to women, but
the very way society ensures that arranged marriages "work".
>      " Shop, but shop wise "

This is of course in line with your non-commercial view of marriage.

>          venkatesh

Pramath

---

From: [email-masked] (Vishwanath Prasad)
Date: 13 Aug 90 12:53:14 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes:
>The following is a slightly expanded v........
>
>
>

 A major assumption is already made in saying that everybody who goes thru
arranged marriage is doing it with the express intent of juicing the last
drop out of his resume', a major achievement on it being that he works in 
 the dreamland -USA. Well, how many professionals here are in fact pained
 by the dilemma the face when the time comes to settle down and how many of
 them have unsuccessfully tried to find a girl on their own ?  Is our system
really conducive to guys finding their own girls like in a western society ?
 That is a whole different can of worms and I think eradicating the system
of arranged marriages *is* very much related to million other things in
the Indian system like keeping the girls well protected from all the guys
 when they are growing up. And I have seen more and more guys who are
 really ashamed of going thru arranged marriage, but they are stuck here and
 the chances of finding a suitable mate here is like looking for a needle in a 
 hay stack, what with the ratio of guys to girls here !

>    NON-COERCIVE ARRANGED MARRIAGE: AN OXYMORON?

 I don't think this is true. Let me give two examples from my family. My
 father is an uneducated businessman ( middleclass) and I have two sisters.
 I have had serious problems with the way my first sister had to go thru
 the deal of being 'seen' by a prospective groom. But, she wasn't the kind to
 fight my parents and she settled down with the first guy who wanted to marry
 her and as far as I have seen there have been no problems in the marriage so
 far and she pretty much controls the show. The second sis is a bold one and
 she threw out a few guys before she agreed to marry one she liked and she is
 happy so far. My brother on the other hand said that he was going to meet
 just one girl after going thru the photographs of the girls he received and
 marry her. Sure enough that's exactly what he did ! He is well settled now
 and has two kids. Does this prove anything ? I am not sure, but, I have
 tried hard for years to look around and see how many of these arranged
 marriages are utter failures and are just a charade. Frankly speaking, I
 am not really convinced that the western system has produced more
 successful marriages. May be your experience is different.

>    THE "CONVENIENCE" FACTOR:
  I know this still tends to barbaric for some girls in very conventional
 families and education has nothing to do with it. But, I think, at least
among the Indians who have come here and then gone back to look for a girl,
 majority have been more civilized and have talked to the girl personally and
 have had a mini-date ( may be a few hours ) and then decided on marriage.
 Now does this make it any easier for the girl involved ? I don't know and
 I hope somebody from the other side can shed some light on that. I would
really be interested in a detailed opinion from educated girls who have gone
 thru this deal (ordeal ?) and bachelorettes. Are the girls now confident 
 enough to venture into relations that may not necessarily lead to a marriage
 in the end and if they are, then how liberal are the guys and how they handle
 a girl who has come out of another relation ?

>    SKEWED SOCIAL VALUES:
 Ultimately the fight for their rights has to come from those who perceive
 themselves as oppressed - in other words, I can tell somebody to fight for
 their rights and I may even stand up for them. But, if they are not ready
 to face the consequences of their fight then we have a problem on hand.
 To put simply, I was advising my sister that she shouldn't get into a 
marriage if she doesn't want it and she felt the same for a while and then she
 couldn't handle the thought of being an unmarried woman in the society. So
 she started crumbling and made up her mind that she will get married. This
 tradition continues. How many mothers out there can tell their daughters
 that they will stand by her even if she chooses to stay unwed ? How many
 moms twist the bride's family's arms for dowry ? How many women out there
 ridicule unwed women, even if their marriage is a hell on earth ? 

>    "ILL" vs. "WELL" INFORMED MARRIAGES:

 This again requires a lot of guts from the bride's family and the bride
herself. I think the bottom-line is that women have to be the ones in the
 frontline of this battle for changing social values and men have to be
 told that they can not get away with something that women can not tolerate.
 As long as there are scabs among women, the battle is going to be undermined
 and there will be men taking advantage of the situation. Somebody posted
 an article on India-l (on bitnet - India interest group) that there is
 nothing in a guy listing out all the requirements he has, for any aspirant
  who wants to be his wife. Well, what do you say to a guy who says, I want
 a good looking girl, who loves to cook and never gets a headache and I will
 look around till I find one ? I think the society is now such that he will
 find a girl with all his requirements because, not all mom's will stand up
 for their daughters.

 I have basically tried put forth my confusion about this whole thing because
  my personal experience has taught me that it takes two to tangle and only
 men couldn't have sustained such a system over centuries. I think women
 have either been too passive or they have actually abetted the perpetrations
 by men. I am against arranged marriages in principle, but would like to see
 a viable alternative which gives a chance for everybody to find their own
 partners. That is easier said than done. There was an effort on sci by somebo-
 dy to form a group of people interested in finding a suitable match. May be we
 need more of those and the lack of response to such a thing need not necessar-
 ily be washed off as chauvinism, I personally feel slightly diffident about it
 and I feel it is because of my failure so far to find a mate for myself.

 Raghu.

<name of the sender deleted as it was an email>
To:      [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated
Indians

Hi Rao,
       Read your interesting article on sci. Just wanted you to notice a
little bit more about the arranged marriage scene and so am sending it
to you instead of posting it on sci.
       I felt your article stressed on the inequality aspect of the sexes when
it came to choosing a partner. And I think you tried to say that it was the
worst thing about it. I agree with you on this but I feel it isn't as bad in
the middle class families as it is in the lower income and the rich families.
In an arranged marriage, the only criterion that the person going to get
married has in his/her hands is the PHYSICAL LOOKS of the possible partner;
all the rest being taken care of by the parents and relatives. So to make the
final choice based on this criterion, every man lets quite a few brides parade
before him (using your words). But from what I've seen till now among my
relatives and friends, everything doesn't get fixed when the man makes his
choice. The engagement or whatever takes place only when the bride-to-be feels
okay about it. I've seen a number of cases where things didn't proceed further
when the girl straight away said 'No' after having one look at the guy. This
happens much more often if the girl is educated and/or is earning.
       So 'rejection' is experienced by both sexes in middle class families.
And maybe, except for the fact it's the guy who goes to the girl's house to
see her and enjoy her hospitality, the inequality of sexes aspect is not
that relevent. Both the members suffer nearly equally. Maybe what's more
important is the way two fully grown individuals are made to choose their
life-partners.
       What's surprising is that the only means of entertainment for the
common man till recently have been movies and movie songs. 99.9% of them
deal only with love and romance and the guy and the girl falling in love
and living happily ever after. Even this extremely heavy dose hasn't made an
iota of difference in the society. What will?

<name of the sender deleted--email>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Cc: 
Status: R

Your article is biased in many ways, particularly re the
exploitation of women.  Men abroad are also regarded as simple
sources of income by many people, and many women who want to
go abroad without the rigours of an engineering eduacation or
whatever find it an easy way out.  Regarding the ignorance of
the people getting married, i don't believe that until you are
marreid you know a person properly.  
also don't forget that in an arranged marriage, people can
also fall in love and keep it going, thus cancelling all the
previous perhaps unsavory reasons for the marriage.  At least
it is all up front.  Of course I am not for one form of
marriage or another- all depends on the individuals and
God/luck/circumstances.

<name of the sender deleted.. email>

   Dear Subbarao: I read your article on the issue of arranged
   marriages. I agree that most of the points that you mentioned are
   valid. No, I do not have a prospective bride to arrange a marriage
   with you but I was just curious if you are married. 

Theoretically--in terms of the "marriage license"--No. But
practically, yes. But that is still besides the point..

   In my opinion an
   ummarried person is only half equipped to evaluate the merits/demerits
   of either of the two systems. A married person will discover several
   more advantages/disadvantages of the two systems.

Possible. But notice that I am not saying that enlightened "arranged"
marriages are NOT possible. I am merely pointing out that the
_prevalent_ system is very sexist and depends on the marginalization of
women. I have much less problem with the syntactic "arrangedness" of
the marriage (and most of that might be coming from a preconceived
romantic notions) and would be satisfied if these were taking place
among two EQUAL parties. Try as I may, I (and others) have not been
able to convince myself that the women play an equal part in the
typical marriages (and certainly not in the 3-way ticket
marriages--WHERE IS THE TIME?).

rao

<name of the sender deleted.. email>

Hi Mr. Rao:
	Your article on the so-called arranged marriages, its
so-called convenience and its rationalizations was no doubt good.
But if it was meant to be thought-provoking, I think you were
addressing the wrong audience.  What makes you think that people
like us, who represent a minority of the top Indian class and typically
the more powerful castes have any kind of rationale for justifying
unfair trading practices?  Dont you know that we Indians, no matter how
hard we try to blur reality, thrive on inequality, glorify the injustice
in our society?  If you have ever lived in a hostel, you would have a fair
idea of how sexist our society is....  

Probably the most useful thing anyone can do in such a setup is to put
into practice as much of one's own ideals as possible.

Anyway, good luck with your ambitious endeavour.

<name deleted... email>
   Dear Subbarao,
		  Did you say you have written a letter to Manushi? Do you have
   a copy ? Will appreciate one.

sure.  I have the version I sent, which I will send you in my next
mail.  They published an edited version of it; I don't have an
electronic copy of that.

   Because of this
   splurge of postings, I have had many changes of heart. Now, I no longer
   know what to think. My own marriage was non-traditional (I married my
   classmate, a non-Telugu, a North Indian in fact), but I had a tolerant
   regard for the more traditional ways of going about the whole thing. Over
   the years I lost this regard, and by the time your article arrived I was
   firmly against the way we in India go about things (cf. my defense of
   your posting while replying to Venkatesh. BTW have you heard from him ?
   I haven't).    Now nothing seems totally clear. My wife (the one whose
   opinion should count) always had ambivalent feelings about my attacks on
   tradition, and now so do I. All I know is that I will not be indifferent
   to this problem, even if I never find a solution.

Well, I think it is futile to see what is the "right" way--we _have_
to grant that beyond a certain lower bound, these things become
extremely personal matters. One thing I learnt over a period of time
is to separate "romantic" considerations from "extra-personal
considerations" when discussing these issues. 
Here is my favourite "palo-alto bar" scenario

 COnsider the following scenario: if a friend of mine tomorrow puts a
notice infront of the Paloalto bar, and finds an appropriate person
and gets married in 20 hours, I will not get as agitated as I am with
the three-way ticketers.  The fact of the matter is that there is
large empirical evidence to believe that while the person who may
respond to your ad in palo alto vwould have done so on their own
accord, the person who responds to your overtures in India would be
doing so as a not-completely-independent person. In the latter case,
there is a lot of pressure on them to say yes irrespective of whether
or not they really wanted to take part in such marriages. Going
through arranged marriage system, knowing all this, in my opinion is
wrong in that it perpetuates the secondary status of the opinions of
the women by giving your indirect endorsement to the existing biased
system.

That is why, in my posting I carefully skirted around the issue of
"traditional" vs.  "modern" and concentrated on the question of the
practises one endorses. I have no doubt in my mind that the current
system is rabidly sexist (successful marriages notwithstanding). I
will however not say that enlightened "non-bartering" versions of
arranged marriages are not possible.
What I am objecting is not so much the 
"arrangedness" of the marriage but the "exploitativeness" of the
marriage.  I would have to admit that my reservations won't hold in
special cases where both parties concerned actually made an honest
effort to prove to themselves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no
exploitation involved.  (afterall how you got introduced to each other
makes scant difference in the long run--what matters is HOW you came
to your final decision...)  (Ofcourse, this option might very well
mean that the blighter cant get back in 3 weeks time, and that is
usually considered a NO-NO in terms of the his silicon-valley
career objectives, apparently..)

-rao

---

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 17:41:28 GMT

[Even though I am responding to Siva's posting, I am addressing some
issues raised by other posters, as well as those who sent me email -rao]

>that should hit close to home for many s.c.i.-readers.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey, count on me! ;-)

>> on marriage ...

I completely agree with Madhu Kishwar's analysis (infact, see my
letter to Manushi in the current issue, where I say the same thing, if
not as eloquently). 

The main point of my article is NOT at all that all facets of sexism
derive exclusively from arranged marriages (see the third para), but
that it is endorsed and perpetuated by the prevalent system of
arranged marriages to a greater or lesser degree.

>to why women are forced be in this disadvantegous situation.

I do not mean to advocate "non-arrangedmarriages" as the panacea for
sexism in Indian society. I am fully aware of the inter-connectedness
of the problems and the deeper reasons for why women are forced into
this disadvantageous situation. However, my intention is to START the
change, START a conscious dialogue about the pluses and minuses of the
prevalent norms. After all what use is our overwhelming
yearning for equality of sexes, if we practise gleeful indifference
and exploit our advantages? Conscious marriages are definitely not the
cure-all for the ills of the society--but what rational grounds are
there to believe that one who is so indifferent as to fully exploit a
marriage system so completely biased in their favour will stop to think
carefully about other issues of sexism!?

"WAITING FOR COMPLETE CHANGE VS. STARTING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION"

>and I'm not sure how they can be effectively achieved.

Precisely my point. The deep and complete change can be achieved
effectively only at a personal level and over a long period of time--I
can make sure that my children are free from the pervasive
conditioning; but I can't do that on a global scale.  So, if you
wait on "COMPLETE" change, you are essentially going to suspend this
generation's grief on the promised bright future of the next
generation. Even this promise is really only illusory, if the current
generation does not start consciously questioning its endorsements.
Thus, by being selective about the societal norms that we
endorse--rather than wait for some messiah to come and change the
world--we can start the ball of change rolling in the right direction.
One of the important endorsements that needs to be introspected, in my
opinion, is that of the sexist marital norms.

"EMPOWERING VICTIMS VS. INTROSPECTING ENDORSEMENTS"

In every problem of social repression, there are two broad ways of
bringing about change. By empowering the victims, and by the
"spectators" withholding their endorsement to malicious practises.
These two ways are really complementary--any longterm solution WILL
have to involve both. [In my opinion, during the initial stages of
change, the second plays a more important role, while soon, the first
takes over as the empowered victims defend themselves].  In my
article, I was addressing  the second type of solution--viz,
withholding endorsement. But, I by no means imply that the first is
any less important.

"AREN'T WE A DROP IN THE OCEAN OF INDIA"

I am acutely aware of the fact that even if all the potential 3-way
ticketers do the right thing, it will still be a drop in the ocean.
But, I believe in the efficasy of a few good examples and in the
concept of transitive closure...  I am not a big fan of refrom by
hypocrisy, neither am I naive enough to legislate that expatriate
indians somehow have higher responsibility in curing the ills of
Indian society than others. But, at the same time, it is naive to
think that societies change because everybody suddenly realizes the
intrinsic merit of good things. They change because some people who
had a chance to see good from bad help make the bad "unfashionable".
This will have the effect of eradicating the symptoms in the short
term, and the disease in the longterm.

If the people who have had the MOST chance to change and introspect
their biases, the people who had the MOST chance to question their
actions and conditioning--if these people themselves choose to
practise rank indifference towards the maladies arising from their
endorsements, where, pray tell, does the change come from?

"THE POSITION"

To summarise, the main point of my article is NOT that stopping
arrangedmarriages will magically make the society better. It is NOT
that everyone embracing that practise is a fulminating fiend in human
shape. It is NOT even that there cannot be any good "arranged
marriages" or that the mere presence of people other than the couple
in the decision making process makes the marriage black and white BAD.

It IS that the prevalent practise leaves a lot to be desired, and that
being a group of people who had been given the most chance to change
and question our conditionings, we should consciously weigh the
ramifications of our endorsement of the prevalent system against any
temporary convenience such a system gives us. This attempt to "think"
consciously about the problem and how your own actions exacerbate or
ameliorate it is really the first step towards change! 

We may not all completely disavow the prevalent system. But I am sure,
all of us will make variations in it that will reduce the sexism
involved in the practise [Mayhaps, some of us might decide NOT to
parade people, NOT to try to complete the Search-and-Consummation in
under a week, to reorder our priorities in life to reduce our
endorsement of malicious practises--and who knows, might even feel
damn thrilled with it all!].

[[The last few sentences above are the beginnings of my answer to the much
advertised question "But what really are the choices of poor NRIs?"
The right question is not whether they have any choices (they do), but
whether they have tried to take a careful look at the choice space. If
we artificially prune the search space with inflexible constraints
such as you HAVE to get married acc. our parent's wishes, HAVE to do so in
under 10 days, and HAVE TO get married right after MS just before
joining JOB so we can maximize visa chances and so on and on and on,
it is no darned surprise that we have no more choices than
indifferently exploiting a biased societal structure!!]]

The ensuing minor changes in the norm will go a long way in setting
good examples in the prevalent tradition-bound society. If nothing
else, individuals trying to fight the system in India would not have
to worry about the question "So why is arranged marriage which served
Ajay Palvayantheeswaran, that much educated and much traveled
gentahlman from pittsburgh, is particularly distasteful to your royal
highness??".

How do I know people don't do this  consciously right now? I can't go into
peoples minds, of course. But, the astounding uniformity in the
marital practises of the people surrounding me gives me little
rational basis to believe that there is any conscious introspection
involved in their decisions.

>as perpetuating inequality and patriarchy? 

Yes, we should! But, more importantly, we should MAKE a start and
individually introspect our current practises--rather than waiting for
some WHOLESALE change...

>Siva  ([email-masked])

Regards
Rao
-----------------
"It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the
eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have
other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his
hands of it, and if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it
practically his support. "

                      -Henry David Thoreau
                       Civil Disobedience

---

From: [email-masked] (Veena A. Gondhalekar)
Date: 14 Aug 90 20:49:56 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> 
   [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati) talks of

>		EXPLOITING AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE
[.. article not reproduced ]

An excellent piece.

	While most of (almost all) what's written in the article is
undoubtedly true and widely prevalent, I don't believe that all arranged
marriages are coercive, though it might be true for a large percentage.
There is no doubt that the woman's wishes are secondary or ignorable 
(in the eyes of the parents/elders) most of the times,  yet society has 
changed somewhat in letting the woman have some say in her marriage.  
Speaking entirely from personal observation may not be a justification 
for my conclusions though.  Female relatives and friends of mine who got 
"married through arrangement"  got a definite say in the choice of their 
husbands even though some of them belong to extremely MC households and 
are not, IMO, liberated enough.  Here I'm talking of women born during 
or after mid/late 50's.

	Of all the arranged marriages,  those between US residents of 
Indian origin (GC holders or equivalents) and Indian women in India seem 
the most deplorable considering the manner in which one goes about them
in most cases (I haven't yet heard of a female Indian GC holder 
going to India for a couple of weeks and returning with a hubby). These 
guys have nothing to their merit (except a GC) that local guys 
don't/couldn't have. And this little piece of paper gives them so much 
power.  In the circumstances,  I do not know how much the guys can be 
blamed for exploiting the situation (if one condones exploitation of
any degree and any form at all) but what I find appalling is the consent
of the women and their families to such a proposition.  Is the attraction 
of a foreign land stronger than one's self-respect?  Since this 
exploitation is perpetuated by the "most enlightened" people of our 
society,  how could one point one's fingers at the deeds of the less 
enlightened ones?  

	The question is what choice do Indian males have here if they 
do not wish to get married to a non-Indian woman.  Considering the 
extreme imbalance between the male and female population of Indians 
here,  this question does not obviously have an easy answer. But a
3-way ticket marriage is definitely NOT IT.

	People often TALK very disdainfully of the institution of 
arranged marriages but ultimately do nothing different when it's 
their turn and even go in for a 3-way ticket kind.  If done the right 
way,  there's nothing wrong with arranged marriages.  But hardly ever 
does anyone go about it the right way and therein lies the need for
change.

>    that the deep-rooted inequalities between the sexes  will disappear as
    
Couldn't have made a more astute observation.

The fact that the time spent on buying an automobile is more than that 
on selecting a life partner seems all the more incomprehensible when 
getting rid of an automobile that one may later find unsuitable is so 
much simpler (and definitely not tragic for anyone concerned) than 
getting rid of a spouse (I regret putting it so indelicately).

>    Let not our indifference take us to a stage where

Let us not only get rid of this indifference but also avoid the unquestioned
continuance of practices performed because it is more "convenient" and,
more or less, universally pacifying to conform to the norm than to pause,
reflect and challenge - acts which are likely to cause more than a few 
ripples of disapproval among a mojority around us.

******

On the same issue,
  [email-masked] (venkatesh ravirala)  observes

   #              I have come across morons who possess little
   # education or wealth, but have taken pride of "interviewing" even
   # upto 200 matches (an astronomical figure by any standards I suppose).
             
  And more likely than not,  given no specific reasons for rejecting
  all those matches beyond perhaps the apparently most popular one of 
  "incompatibility of horoscopes", in their heightened expectations 
  from prospective brides under illusions of bloated self-worth.

  #  But, I believe that viewing a particle make or shade or price range and
  #  choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. 
  
  There is much more to a human being than, say, to a suit-length. If you
  get the shop attendant to show you all possible materials, colours and
  what have you and then reject every one of them finally,  I'm sure
  none of these suit-pieces is going to mind [the sales attendant
  might mind though and (if (s)he is a ghati) express hir disgust in no 
  uncertain terms, perhaps tell you how a "kanjoos" (miser) like you 
  should never go shopping and doubt your honest intentions of buying
  anything in the first place :-) ].  And I'm equally sure that every
  single one of these rejected women does mind, especially when there
  is no apparent reason other than the horoscope-mismatch, which, I 
  assume nobody really believes.
       
  #    " Shop, but shop wise "

  Inherently wrong when applied to human beings.  So long as one half
  (approx.) of the human population constitutes the shoppers and the
  the other half the objects on sale, this can never be an acceptable
  system. If both halves get an opportunity to play the dual roles of 
  shoppers and items on sales,  then maybe yes.

******

In article <[email-masked]>
   Raghu [[email-masked] (Vishwanath Prasad) ??]  adds

% Ultimately the fight for their rights has to come from those who perceive
% themselves as oppressed - in other words, I can tell somebody to fight for
% their rights and I may even stand up for them. But, if they are not ready
% to face the consequences of their fight then we have a problem on hand.
% To put simply, I was advising my sister that she shouldn't get into a 
% marriage if she doesn't want it and she felt the same for a while and then she
% couldn't handle the thought of being an unmarried woman in the society. So
% she started crumbling and made up her mind that she will get married. This
% tradition continues. How many mothers out there can tell their daughters
% that they will stand by her even if she chooses to stay unwed ? How many
% moms twist the bride's family's arms for dowry ? How many women out there
% ridicule unwed women, even if their marriage is a hell on earth ? 

Aptly put.

There is no doubt that women share a major responsiblity in bringing
about these changes but considering the way "power" is currently
bestowed on males in our society, I am not sure how much can be
achieved without the cooperation of men.

******

Veena

---

From: [email-masked] (Sanjeev Mahajan)
Date: 13 Aug 90 19:19:06 GMT

>     benefit of such a system.

And, pray tell what the 'benefits' of the system are.

>     choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. 

I am sorry, I don't understand this. Could you perhaps rephrase this?

>          But on a lighter vain, let me pointout that:

Does this mean that we should not take the ensuing points as a joke?
I personally do not see any humor in them. So I will respond to them
seriously.

>      1. In India, we only "see" the girl instead of "sleeping" with the girl

Is 'girl' a passive object to be either seen or slept with?

>      2. In India, dowry is demanded prior to marraige instead of suing later

I am puzzled about this. Are you saying that, although in the West they
do not demand dowry, after the marriage they (I mean, the husbands) start
suing for dowry? This is totally nonsensical, but then it perhaps, wasn't
your point. Could you please clarify.

>         or a bond to be exchanged every now and than as in stock market.

Well, the point is that it is worse than a contract. I think it is one
of the worst dehumanizing experience for the bride to be.

>     finding fault with the concept of the system.

I think, Subbarao's article was quite balanced and very well-thought out.
I don't think that he was trying to find fault with the system just for]
the sake of finding fault.

>       " Shop, but shop wise "

What does this mean in this context?

Sanjeev

---

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 14:50:17 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Biswadip Ghosh) writes:
>
>I think what you have written applies to the RURAL environment in India and 
>also to the ECONOMICALLY backward sections in Indian society.
>

Huh? I am sorry to point out that my article was written for and
applies to the so-called highly educated Indians. Unless you for some
quaint reason have classified the silicon valley professionals, the MS
and PhD graduates of Indian origin at US universities as
representative of RURAL and ECONOMICALLY backward communities of
India. If you are, please explain why..

>
>Of course, the above two sections account for 75 % of India's 
>population.  But in the remaining 25%, who are outside the above
>the practice of arranged marriages work fine; in fact several 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>magnitudes better than any other marriage practice in the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>world.

Please explain why you think they work "Fine"--what measures are you
using to come to this conclusion? And please try to resist the cliched
"oh, we have such a small divorce rate" type arguments.

>
>So, the custom of arranged marriages is not the root of the problem,

My original article pointed out clearly that I do not believe arranged
marriages to be the root of the problem (see third para). 

> neither is it a part of the problem.

Oh, really! Please explain why it is not a part of the problem, in
particular, it would be educative for all of us if you can refute the
parts of my article that argue to the contrary at a great length.

>Education must be directed to the RURAL and ECONOMICALLY backward
>sections for their upliftment.
>
>Bish

I remember the saying "physician, heal thyself"--if we who are
supposedly well educated can't sort out the good, the bad and the ugly
of our practises, what right do we have to talk in these condescending
terms about the RURAL and ECONOMICALLY backward [sic]? THe latter
atleast have the excuse that they were not given as much chances to
change and introspect their practises which the former, the educated
section, do not have!

-rao
[Aug 15, 1990]

---

From: [email-masked] (S. Mantha (co-op))
Date: 16 Aug 90 15:13:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Sanjeev Mahajan) writes:

|>Well, the point is that it is worse than a contract. I think it is one
|>of the worst dehumanizing experience for the bride to be.

	Wow! Let's not get carried away now. I had a hate-marriage 
myself :-).  Ofcourse, there weren't all those hundreds of women
lined up for me. Actually not even two! Felt a little cheated, I did.
I couldn't even be a lout in style! I consoled myself with the thought
that the quorum, at least, had been established. Need at least one, you see.
Also, my bride seemed to hold herself
much better than I did. The pandit, ofcourse, lost all interest in 
the proceedings on learning that I was a poor graduate student without
the magical green card in my possession. He was used to marrying sons
and daughters of expatriate lawyers and doctors. 
	But, yes. We (my wife and I) were both terrified at the prospect
of having to live and share everything with a perfect stranger (a year
of correspondence having confirmed my initial suspicions that people
caught in strange situations lie desperately.) The more
perverse among the supporters of the "system" would cite the sense of
"mystery" and "adventure" as a plus. It ain't so.  
	But, hey, I survived. And the last time I looked, my wife
seemed to be alive too.

cheers
Surya [in the market for the right dogma] Mantha

---

From: [email-masked] (Rama Krishna Pidaparti)
Date: 17 Aug 90 00:23:13 GMT

>of a foreign land stronger than one's self-respect?  Since this 
 
I know of one case where the girl to be married was well educated(CA) and
from very welthy family, was not married and a lot of matches were rejected
by the mother of this girl as the mother was hell bent on marrying her
daughter(2nd) to a PHOREN Indian.  She did achieve it, though the girl
had to wait for a few years before her mother's dream came ture.

I know the girl and her family considerably well and I don't know what
the girl felt but this PHOREN attraction was very disturbing especially
when it is the parent(s) who insists.

It was finally an arranged marriage and I don't know if the guy should be
blamed for wanting to marry an Indian girl.

I don't mean that Rao or any body finging the loopholes in the system are
wrong but like Veena asks now that we know quite a few loopholes/problems
in the system we got to see if we can have *good* solutions for these desi
bhais who want to mearry desi behens only.  

I dont' think that bride burning can in any way be attributed as an offshoot
or any thing like that to arranged marriage system.  It is inherently from
greed of the parents and/or the guy marrying.  And most importantly, the
guy not behaving like a MAN when he himself doesn't subscribe to the
idea of demanding the dowry.  Not rebelling against his parents if they 
are *demanding* dowry is the serious problem.

If it can help I wouldn't mind giving my personal story in this regard.

I come from a big family(6 children) and there have been 5 marriages out
of which 4 of them were arranged(including mine).  The marriage which
wasn't an arranged one was between my sister and a very distant(if any)
ralative but a close neighbour(2 houses away).  This too was not arranged
in the sense that they knew each other since childhood and nothing more.
Though they had the advantage that parents on both sides approved it very
easyly.  That would be an altogether a different problem if they had anyone
parents'(or Both) disapproval and I am sure it would have been hell for them
for some time at least.

The 4 marriages(arranged) in my house were a strange coincidence or a 
conscious effotr but all of them had only one *interview* after
going though the photographs, horoscopes etc., and yes all of them are
at least graduates(both spouses of the all the 5 couples) if being
educated(possessing a degree) counts.

Now the qeustion is don't these marriages have any problems?

Yes they do have the usual domestic middle class family problems due to
sometimes misunderstanding and/or ego hastles but none of them have any
problems involving *dowry* or any wealth/assets' related problems.

So from this I think that the system itself is not the main culprit but
the people who take advantage of it.  Especially coming from a society
like ours where dating or other similar concepts are not very much in vogue
at least if you ignore the big cities(like Delhi, B'bay, Cal, B'lore Mas etc.,).

So when in a society where knowing the partner before marriage is not so easy
and/or acceptable *arranged marriages* do happen and of course nobody
should take any undue advantage out of the system.

>getting rid of a spouse (I regret putting it so indelicately).

There is a lot of difference between automobiles and spouses although
you find some people more attached to their cars and other material things 
than their spouses or people in general.

---

From: [email-masked] (Charudutta S. Palkar)
Date: 17 Aug 90 00:22:11 GMT

[The following posting is on behalf of someone who could apparently
not get it successfully posted from hir site.  All flames to hir]

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>These guys have nothing to their merit (except a GC) that local guys 
>don't/couldn't have.

   Do you really think having a GC is a merit for getting married ?

   All I can say all you guys in SCI are looking at marriage as some
commodity were you / girl are for sale. Or to be more blunt you guys
are looking for free *screws* , in your own styles. Since  you  guys
cannot manage them here you all run back home and talk about your 
'GC' and '$`s' and how you miss home food etc. But you dont mention
that you went to 42nd St or its equivalent.

   You all may be offended by what I have said but this is the truth.

   csp - [email-masked]

   "As the Iron turns to RUST you great men will turn to DUST"

   SORRY MAMA.

---

From: [email-masked] (PRAKASH PHALKE)
Date: 17 Aug 90 01:12:26 GMT

Arranged Marriages: Is there a solution ?
     First of all I am not advocate of arranged marriages and
secondly choices for getting married by other means are very
limited for majority of us. 
     I think one of the objective of starting this discussion on
net is/should be to find/come up with solutions which can 
effectively be used to avoid arranged marriages.
     It is my opinion that women should raise and fight for this
issue. Men alone will never change this system, but they can be
very effective in helping women, if they agree.
     NRI's go for arranged marriages because they cannot find
suitable partner here: first of all they cannot date effectively as
they are far behind in this area compared with the girls they plan
to date. To my knowledge every Indian student wants to date an
American Girl and many of us want to get married to an American
Girls (no hassal to go through ? to obtain GC). I have seen many
Indian girls dating non-Indians but very few mens. It seems that
girls have better chances to date than mens here. Again these are
my opinions and should be not taken seriously.
     To me, American system of dating is not ideal choice to
replace the arranged marriages( Indian morality, The divorce rate
in US etc. etc.). Also it seems to me that arranged marriages
issues should be raised in India and not in US. As the NRI's
getting married through this system get married in India. Though
there are very few NRI's (compared to INDIAN Population) they have
great impact on the overall system as many people respect NRI's
mainly from US.
     As indicated earlier the women can play great role in changing
this system. The solution I am proposing is based on Chinese system
and it seems to fit Indian quite well and women can be very
effective in this system:
     The idea is that respectable and/or known person(such as
teacher, doctor)  in the society introduces you (he or she) to the
other person. He knows both of them and believes that these two
people can be good couple. After that they start getting to know
each other through social functions, letters, phone and so on.  If
there is enough interest from the both sides they  start dating and
try to know each other. All this can be accepted in our society if
it is known and some one known and/or respectable person is
involved. Depending on each persons need, they can get married very
soon or they can continue dating till they are comfortable in their
relationship or try other. This is not great solution neither new
but will stimulate the discussion and other might come up with
better solutions. ----P

---

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 06:49:47 GMT

[[[[[I am again breaking from the main thread to address two important
points (viz. "marriage is a gamble anyway", and "Compromise is the way
to go") that are being consistently raised by those people who want to
compare their concepts of "arranged" marriages with their conception
of "love" marriages and say they are funcitionally equivalent.

Before I start, let me repeat my main spiel again: I think that the
"dichotomy" of "love" vs. "arranged" marriage is ARTIFICIAL and trite;
(enforced typically for the express purpose of evading the issue or
making everything into a discussion of "OUR (indian)" values vs.
"THEIR (western)" values).  What we really are faced with is a
CONTINUUM of possibilities.  There are a SPECTRUM of arranged
marriages and a SPECTRUM of what you may want to call love marriages.
Let us decide individually which point in that spectrum is best for us
and go with it rather than be befuddled by LABELS. The issue is how
well-informed is the marriage, not how to pigeon-hole the darned
thing.

Having said that, let me go to the main item of business, yep the
fatalism thingie.]]]]]]]]

  FATALISM IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE, COMPROMISES AND COMPATIBILITY

(please excuse the somewhat pedantic tone of the following; and please
let it not deter you from getting the main point(s). I wanted to
communicate my ideas in as unambiguous a way as possible --ed)

  We have often been told by those people whose business it is to
characterize the "national psyche" (I am refering to the
T. Vaidynathan, Nirad C. Chaudhari kinda blokes), that Indians are
"fatalistic" in their outlook--that the

        "WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WILL HAPPENAY HAPPEN"

brand of philosophy permeates their thinking, decisions and actions. 
I generally dismiss such blanket characterizations and cannot really
say whether this particular one has any statistical truth to it.

But I am startled by its applicability to a number of people who have
taken time to express their views in the "Exploiting unjust
advantages" thread.

Let us follow a typical argument in favour of the currently prevalent
arranged ("pre-packaged") marriages.  It starts by saying that
 
  "compatibility is more important than romantic "love" in determining
    the success of a marriage."

Fair enough.  Adds that 

  "Compatibility can never be judged cent percent"

again true. But then it  over-extends itself to say 

   "at least in arranged marriages the "phyamilies" look into the
   compatibility issue rather thoroughly, and what is left for us is to
   jhust fall into love ("In India we fall in love AFTER marriage" aka
   raavirala et al), make a few compromises and everything will be 
   fine and dandy."

See the obvious fallacy in the third step?  But when you point this
out to people, they resort to the arguments such as the one in the
following quote [from Sumitro Samaddar's posting] (and by the way, you
only need to flip back the postings to see tons of other people saying
very much the same thing):

>>                                                Beating up on a 3-way
>> ticket marriage is not going to help. A 10-way ticket marriage is 
>> probably going to be as much of a gamble.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What this type of attitude essentially amounts to is the following:
 
   I will first assume that the function I am dealing with is a 
   binary vaued one. Second, since I cannot tell FOR CERTAIN the exact
   outcome of this binary valued function for any given choice, I might
   as well be indiscriminate about my choices. (****)

But this is ridiculous--in life--be it academic, professional or
personal--we are always faced with situations where we cannot tell the
outcome with certainity. And we are called upon to make educated
decisions with incomplete information.  We don't always resort to such
cynically indiscriminate choices (if you do GOD help you!)--so why
suddenly now???? 

Unlike consonance with your primary views etc., which can be
determined in a reasonably short acquaintance period, compatibility is
a long term property which is difficult to decide COMPLETELY a priori
FOR ANYONE. But that doesn't mean that there is absolutely no room for
individual initiative in "estimating" compatibility! Fer cryin' out
loud, it is neither a 0 1 kinda thing nor a completely random
function! [What is more, to think that your parents (or worse yet,
horoscopes) will know more about compatibility with
(N+25-odd-year-old) you, rather than you yourself--is rather quaint,
and shows a willingness to delegate important and complex decision of
your life to someone else or to "Phyate", so you can happily escape
any responsibility.]

The real culprits are an inability to distinguish between DEGREES, an
insistence on "guarantees," and a proclivity for looking at everything
in black and white. 

And the same inability shows up in the arguments that unconditionally
glorify role of "COMPROMISES" in a successful marriage; several of
which appeared in this thread, notably Mr. Satyam, Mr. Alok, Mr.
Raavirala, Mr.  Pidaparti (and probably completely unwittingly by
Vikram Duvvoori).

Before jumping on the bandwagon of "Compromises nature as the vehicle
of successful marriages," it is imperative that we develop an
understanding of what SORTS of compromises are out there and
introspect our yardsticks for judging the success of a marriage.
Consider:

* If I like to sleep on the left side of the bed, and my spouse also
  wants to sleep on the left side, and I compromise--that is one kind of
  compromise.

* If I want to take part in social service, and my spouse
  hates it and is bent on actively discouraging me, and I compromise,
  THAT is another form of compromise

* If I want to hit my spouse every other day to discipline hir, and
  my spouse (bless hir soul) doesn't really like it but accommodates,
  that too is a compromise --of yet another sort. 

Some of the compromises--like the first--are trivial and they do not
take off anything from your essential persona; some compromises like
the second might be "compromising your values" and as such affect your
essential persona; and finally there are compromises like the third
one above, which are none less than sacrificing your persona entirely.

If the inability to make the compromises of the first sort [No way
Jose! I am not gonna give up my left side, if you insist, I will call
my lawyer, I will keep Appeswararao and you can keep Mangataayar with
you] shows an immaturity of the parties concerned; an indiscriminate
willingness to make the second and third type of compromises to "keep"
a marriage demonstrates equally clearly the OVERLY diminished
expectations and the fatalistic view of the marriage that couple
harbor.

Yes, any darned union can be made to work if one or both of the
parties are willing to compromise indiscriminately; there is no
question of prejudging compatibility.

And if we judge the "Success" of a marriage SOLELY BASED ON ITS
LONGEVITY, we will say that all such marriages are higly successful!!

If on the otherhand, we start seeing the degrees of compromises being
made by the parties, we might start revising our initial opinions
about the success of various marriages in our culture, and our
highbrow pronouncements on the "triviality-driven divorces" in some
other culture. MORE IMPORTANTLY we will start noticing the importance
of making well-informed decisions:

  If we start with NO knowledge of the other person, there is a high
  PROBABILITY that we will wind up making compromises of second and
  third sort to "keep" the marriage going. Any knowledge that we glean
  about the other person will DECREASE this probability.  

Notice that we are no longer talking about GUARANTEES, but increasing
probabilities through our actions. [in other words, palvayantheeswaran
and padmavathi might wind up having a perfectly ghastly marriage,
inspite of their prolonged courtship, while Ramshands and
Sitamaalakshmi might live a completely happy life even though they
went through the completely pre-packaged version--but your willingness
to use such isolated instances to justify indiscriminate choices shows an
elementary lack of understanding of probability and decsions under
uncertainity.]

So, what is the punchline?

One sign of maturity is to stop looking at the world and your choices
in a binary black and white fashion and start contending with the
grayness and uncertainity. A 10-trip marriage (at least in the way
samaddar meant it [though I do like veena's interpretation ;-)])
provides 10/3 times higher probability of judging compatibility, and
a correspondingly lower probability that you will have to make
compromises of second and third types, as compared to a 1-trip (3-way
ticket) marriage. 

Any amount of extra time you spend in making a well-informed decision
will COUNT-- thus giving you a SPECTRUM rather than an artificial
dichotomy of choices.

-Rao
[Subba"Phooey, There goes another night"rao Kambhampati]

Ps: (Veena (@cs.utexas.edu) reflects these same points in her response to
      samaddar, if a bit more concisely--Hey, who ever accused me of
      terseness and taciturnity, right?)
      
(****) for a telling if hilarious example of the the ridiculous
       outcomes of such indifference based decisions in the face of 
       uncertainity, see Martin Gardner's "Life on Mars"  parable.

-------------

     "Dear Asian mail-order bride #203006, I am deeply in love with you.
      I am very handsome--kinda like Don Johnson ...."

           [Hope it reminds you of the hilarious Bloomcounty cartoon strip
             featuring Steve Dallas and the aforementioned #203006 ...]
 
     "Planning is the activity of INCREASING the PROBABILITY OF GOAL
      SATISFACTION"   

           [From a AAAI-90 talk]

      "Gaalilo deepam petti, devudaa kaapaadu anadam moorkhatwam"
       [It is foolish to place a lamp in the wind and start praying to god to 
        keep the lamp alive]

	   [My mother]

---

From: [email-masked] (Raj Bhatia)
Date: 17 Aug 90 17:13:50 GMT

I have been reading this thread for a while now, and have noticed
some inconsistencies. 

First of all, very few NRI men holding h-1/GC/citizenship go to India
to get married do it in a 3 week period. They might start out with 3
weeks but usually extend it to 6-8 weeks depending on whether they expect
to find someone suitable. I myself spent 7 weeks. And that was after 
a number of people were already at work in India, and all I had to do 
was meet the girls/parents.

Second, nobody expects to search, meet, interview and get married in 
three weeks. Most people have relatives who should have done the 
appropriate ground work.

Third, how is an educated NRI male/female of marriagable age holding 
h-1/GC/etc different from a well-educated very-well-paid employee in 
India (someone on the fast-track) or an educated person from a very
well-to-do business family ? What is the difference, given the last
two types may spend a little more time selecting, they will probably 
make exuberant demands on the girl's family, that an NRI will not
because he does not want material things to take back. In general 
I have found NRIs to be less demanding (not to condone the practice)
then their Indian counterparts. A lot of girl's parents know that
and appreciate it. 

Fourth, as NRIs we have a certain advantage, that does not mean all of
us exploit it. Indian parents generally look for a boy that is better 
qualified then their daughter, in terms of finances, at least. Girls
themselves prefer to marry someone better off then them income-wise.
So, who is exploiting who ? Even in India, the guys that are doctors and
engineers get the better looking girls, because they have an advantage.
So why should we be ashamed of our advantage ? We have worked hard
to get where we are.

Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage
trip.

Raj Bhatia

---

From: [email-masked] (P. J. Narayanan)
Date: 17 Aug 90 20:45:50 GMT

>three weeks. Most people have relatives who should have done the 

	There are literal meanings to sentences and arguments and
there are "inner senses" to it. Seems you haven't understood that
concept too well, while most others have had  no trouble! If you think
that people are getting agitated because NRIs take three weeks or less
to get married and will look other day if they spend 22 days or more
in India, I have nothing to tell you sir!

>then their Indian counterparts. A lot of girl's parents know that

  The difference between the two classes you mentioned is indeed very
little in this issue (apart from the longer time period that you
mentioned). But, the NRIs have seen another side of the issue and
can't deny that she or he knows better. Most NRIs "adopt" what they
think are the good things about American society (like informality,
accents, work culture). Shouldn't they learn something about finding
their life partners, given that an arranged situation is risky, the
convenience notwithstanding?

>So why should we be ashamed of our advantage ? We have worked hard

	I have addressed this issue in another article that I posted
today. The gist is: The custom of women (or their parents) looking for
`someone better off' is the product of the brainwashing of the
male-dominated society that considers the men as the guardians and the
women as `supplementing the men' etc. If that is clear, it is easy to
see why men have as greate a responsibility in effectivating a change,
if not greater. (this is not to say that women should keep quiet if
this is not forthcoming).

>Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage

	Not entirely true. Nobody has suggested any alternative that is
*as convenient* to men as the 7-week deal is. The bottom line is: finding
one's life partner is not meant to be easy. Indians have been given the
wrong notion that it is. That notion is wrong and should change. An
alternate (and fairer) system WILL evolve once this is realized. We can
discuss on what that could be, in the meanwhile.

>Raj Bhatia 

P J Narayanan

---

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 23:13:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (kishore s kumar) writes:
>
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (P. J. Narayanan) writes:
>>.......................................... The bottom line is: finding
>>one's life partner is not meant to be easy............
>
>Probably it is meant to be easy.
>
>Finding  the right  person is   difficult  because  defining the 'right
>person' is  difficult. So, if you agree  to give up  the  idea  of the
>'right person' as a myth (or  say as an  ideal and hence non-existent)
>this difficulty vanishes.
>
>That  means  you invariably marry the   wrong  person. If  you realize
>this,   then  finding  a life  partner  becomes easy  (if  anyway I am
>marrying the wrong person, selection becomes that much more relaxed).
>
>Does marrying the wrong person make any  sense? It  sure does. You now
>are  faced  with the task  of  making the  'wrong'  person the 'right'
>person  over  ,say , the next  50   years.  (That  sounds interesting,
>doesn't it?)
>
>Kishore Kumar

 Do *I* have an article for you, sir! Yes! Just for you--all posted and
ready to go--read the article titled 

 "fatalism in the attitudes about marriage, compromises and compatibility"

 that was posted JUST yesterday night. 

 After reading it, do tell us if you still believe in your theory of 
 "find any old  wrong person first, and modify them to fit your needs".

-Rao

ps: looks like you have a REALLY flexible modification strategy--we
oughtta talk..

----------

  "The CRUX  of AI is to get the considerations underlying the Test phase
   into the Generate phase [so costly Debugging can be avoided]"

                   -On Generate, Test and Debug as a successful
                         problem solving metaphor
			[Minsky?]

---

From: [email-masked] (S. Mantha (co-op))
Date: 17 Aug 90 17:08:47 GMT

Yo Subbulu -- I may call you that may I not -- lighten up dude! You 
may actually start taking yourself seriously. 
On a more pragmatic note, you could probably make some money as a counsellor
to brothers on the brink of matrimony in the bay area. Makes more sense than
dishing out advice in language that has me scurrying to the dictionary 
embarassingly often. 

And ofcourse, there is always the danger of letting one's professional
prejudices (PLANNING and so forth) take the fun out of one's life. 
"Just do it" I say, as others have said and done before me.

cheers

Surya [member of Alonzo's Church] Mantha

---

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 20:50:47 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>
> You may actually start taking yourself seriously. 
> [...]
>

Hay, hay, hay! Thanks for the advice man!  

Makes sense of course! The right thing to do is to make partitions in
your life and be very strict about letting anything from one partition
get into another partition.

Otherwise, how can we continue our glorious "cattle sale" (ooops
arranged marriage) traditions, while still pouring good money to see
billions of "romances" in hindi movies? How can we do pooja to Rahu
and Kethu during eclipses while mugging everything about the theory of
eclipses? 
How can we get hitched up to complete strangers while knowing fully
well (in theory) that it can be a traumatic experience for all concerned?
How can we continue to be completely irrational and
simplistic in our personal lives while writing a paper a day on the
virtues of rationality?

So, to continue the status quo, to feel completely thrilled that 
we have "survived" inspite of our asinine indifference all through, we
DEFINITELY do need to continue not taking ourselves seriously, live as
if everything is a big game, and PARTITION our lives such that the
complete inconsistencies in our outlooks are swept under the rug by
saying "hay--that is movie reality" "hay--that is just for science
books" 

>"Just do it" I say, as others have said and done before me.

"Just do yit"--hmmm--great brand of philosophy--just let me know when
your "yit" has been reified.

>Surya [member of Alonzo's Church] Mantha

ciao
Rao [seriously considering Surya's suggestion of becoming a member of
     schizophrenics church

Ps: By the way, I did take note of your "counselling" suggestion. If I
    do start it, the first visit is FREE for you! (Do get your
    LIFCO "children's dictionary" along though).

Pps: By the way, your whole response, revolving as it does around
     "don't take yourself so seriously, MYAN!" is a completely novel
     way of argumentation that shows that you have thought through 
     and through about the issue under discussion. 

     You have just scratched the surface of 
     the uses of this argument--its potential is unlimited, I tell you.

Pps: Here is a nice little glossary, made especially for you, so you don't
     have to run to your dictionary "embarassingly often"

re.ify \'r<a^->-<e>-,f<i^->, r<e^->-\ vt re.ified; re.ify.ing (1854)
 [L res thing -- more at REAL]
    :to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing

---

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: 18 Aug 90 20:57:42 GMT

>prejudices (PLANNING and so forth) take the fun out of one's life. 

Hay, hay, hay! Thanks for the advice man! Nice of you to come just in
the nick of the time and open these eyes of mine.

What all you say makes sense of course! The right thing to do is to
make partitions in your life and be very strictly forbid anything
from one partition seeping into another partition.

Otherwise, how can we continue our glorious "cattle sale" (ooops
arranged marriage) traditions, while still pouring good money to see
billions of "romances" in hindi movies? How can we do pooja to Rahu
and Kethu during eclipses while still mugging everything about the
theory of eclipses?  How can we get hitched up to complete strangers
while knowing fully well (in theory) that it can be a traumatic
experience for all concerned?  How can we continue to be completely
irrational and simplistic in our personal decisions while still
writing a paper a day on the role of rational reasoning in intelligence?

So, you are RIGHT! 

To continue the status quo, to feel completely thrilled that we have
"survived" inspite of our asinine indifference all through, to ensure
that nothing bothers us unduly, we DEFINITELY do need to continue our
good practise of not EVER taking ourselves seriously (and what is
more, form cadres to discourage anyone else trying to break this
canon!); live as if everything is a big game; and PARTITION our lives
very strictly such that complete inconsistencies in our outlooks can
be swept under the rug with such evergreen arguments such as

  "hay--that is movie reality"
  "hay--that is just for science books" 
  "hay--that is all AI hogwash"
  "hay--that is well and good for USA, but we do it different in India"
  "hay--too much concern about these things takes FUN out of life"
      .....(adinfinitum)

>"Just do it" I say, as others have said and done before me.

"Jhust do yit"--hmmm--sounds great and catchy of course--just let me know when
you get around to reifying your "yit". Oookay?

ciao
Rao [seriously considering Surya's suggestion of becoming a member of
     the Church of Rational Schizophrenia and Indifference]

Ps: By the way, I did take note of your "counselling" suggestion. If I
    do start it, the first visit is FREE for you! (Do get your
    "LIFCO children's dictionary" along though).

Pps: Also, your whole response, revolving as it does around
     "don't take yourself so seriously, MYAN!" is a completely novel
     way of argumentation that should definitely be added to the chest of
     rational dialectics.
     You have just scratched the surface of 
     the uses of this argument--its potential is unlimited, I tell you.

Ppps: Here is a nice little glossary, made especially for you, so you don't
     have to run to your dictionary "embarassingly often"
     [Note: other readers can safely skip this part -ed]


di.a.lec.tic \,d<i^->-<e>-'lek-tik\ n (14c)
 [ME dialetik, fr. MF dialetique, fr. L dialectica, fr. Gk dialektik<e^->,
fr. fem. of dialektikos of conversation, fr. dialektos]
    1: LOGIC 1a(1)
    2 a :discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual
    investigation; specif: the Socratic tech niques of exposing false beliefs
    and eliciting truth
    b: the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
 
can.on \'kan-<e>n\ n (bef. 12c)
 [ME, fr. OE, fr. LL, fr. L, ruler, rule, model, standard, fr. Gk kan<o^->n]
    1a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council
    1b: a provision of canon law

---

From: [email-masked] (Vikram Aaditya Chaudhary)
Date: 18 Aug 90 01:21:05 GMT

In article <a9z=[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Raj Bhatia) writes:

 [   Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage
 [   trip.

Why man, the only *real* alternative for us high-flying NRIs is the
1-weekend marriage trip.  For us playboys of the desi order, accustomed
to the grind of the week and living for the weekend, this is the perfect
solution.  Work hard during the week, then, when Friday arrives, play
hard in India.

Relatives would have already done the groundwork, as Raj suggests.  But
in this case, they will have to be warned that this is no
run-of-the-mill 7-week marriage trip.  This is serious stuff, the only
marriage trip worth our yuppie lifestyles, the weekend special.  So the
relatives must be forewarned and foreskin... uh, forearmed.

Since this is a special trip, all the usual formalities will be
dispensed with.  No need for a visit to the woman's...oops, girl's
parents house.  We can do away with the tamasha of watching the girl
walk across the room, listening to her parents expound on what subzis
she can cook blindfolded, etc.  All the info you need will be provided
on pre-recorded video casettes.

And to return home fulfilled and yet make it to work on Monday morning,
I sugest you fly Cathay Pacific (no, this is not going to be a Khalistan
joke).  They provide beds for you to sleep on so the marriage can be
consummated in-flight.  Of course, remember to save the sheets and send
them back to your Mom to assure her that all your blushing bride had
ever done before marriage was blush.
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Vikram Aaditya Chaudhary                         Tools & Graphics Development
 uunet!oracle!vchaudha        (415)506-6172    Oracle Corporation Headquarters
	My opinions are...uh... company policy.  Really.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Sanjeev Mahajan)
Date: 18 Aug 90 00:39:12 GMT

I think Raj Bhatia's and Ramesh Vishwanathan's postings are a few of
the postings on this topic that have the dubious distinction of being
embarrassing and juvenile.

Sanjeev

---

From: [email-masked] (Writing for Idjitrao)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 22:34:43 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (RAMESH VISWANATHAN) writes:
>In article <a9z=[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Raj Bhatia) writes:
>>
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is a cop-out.  Take a stand on either for or against arranged
>marriage.

Yeah, Mr. Bhatia! Listen to our all knowing friend Ramesh Viswanathan.
You JHUST gotta take a FOR/AGAINST decision.It is Either "arranged
marriages are COMPLETELY GOOD" or "arranged marriages are STINKIN'
ROTTEN"-- there IS no middle way. Don't you see--It is a Dharma
Yuddham out here. And there is no compromise allowed. No grayness. All
black and white, zero one binary world (that George Boole would love
to inhabit!). [phurther more, this makes the argument easy--we can
jhust count off the "GOOD GUYS" and the "BAD GUYS"!)

>At the risk of sounding a "tad" harsh let me pose this question.  How
>many women (subjected to the 3 WT) are complaining?  Can life be all 
>that hard when you have to deal with driving a nice car, and living in
>a nice house?  Even if she is relegated (!) to cooking and keeping house,
>which she might have been anyway back home, it is not quite that bad.  I
>do all the house-cleaning now and have a certain way of doing it.  Surely
>after getting married, I would insist on still doing the work for the
>same reason.  And once again, as Raj Bhatia pointed out, *most* NRIs
>are usually less demanding.  
>
>So although arranged marriages may be "deplorable", I not convinced
>that the women are always getting the short-end of the stick.  The stick
>may be even shorter if they chose to wed a desi and remain home.
>
>
>                                                      or 3-week
>>Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage trip.
>                                                           ^

>Right again.  All I have read so far is whining from some (disillusioned ?)
>people.  If these people have the "perfect" solution why not share it with
>others.  Like the saying goes, put up or shut up!
>
>Ramesh Viswanthan

Grreat bola, tum ne! Ramesh bhayya! "Put up or shut up"--nice ring to it!

 Tring tring-- 
 
  "Yelloo?"

  "Yelloo, Ramshands? This is Pal. Hey listen, your house is burning"

  "What do you mean my house is burning? I don't see no flames"

  "No, it is burning from the center"

  "So? My bedroom is still cozy and cool--why do I care if the house
  is burning!""

  "Ramshands, I see a strong wind. It is dangerous. Do something 
  about it, fer godssake!"

  "Hey, listen Pal! STOP whining, you disillusioned fellow! Either tell me
  what EXACTLY I should do, or just SHUTUP!" 

  "Bbbut but, Ramshands, it is YOUR HOUSE"
 
  "SO?  It is not like *I* need to worry about *MY* problems.  I didn't
  even KNOW that my house was burning until YOU started whining! So, 
  like the saying goes "JUST PUT UP OR SHUTUP"! 

-Idjitrao
  [with due apologies to mr25+]

----------------

                   "Don't worry, be happy"

---

From: [email-masked] (Anay S. Panvalkar)
Date: 19 Aug 90 02:51:52 GMT

As a 'johny-come-lately' in this debate, I would like to say to all
concerned not to use the "but-my-cousin's-brother-in-law's-uncle's-arranged
-marriage-has-been-great-for-34.3419 years" line so U shee arranged marriages
work!! 
Even if it's your own sister or brother, how do YOU know that their marriage
has been free of problems? Also, can the arranged-marriages-are-good
believers come up with a better supporting point than the longetivity
of the marriage?? I think the most imp. point that needs to be mentioned 
here is that a 45-year long marriage does not automatically mean a 
"successsful" marriage. More often than not, it was only because the woman
chose to be indifferent to her pati's wayward ways and silently endured,
was the marriage so long-lasting. Let's go no further than last year-
Sudha Chandran, the leading lady of 'Mera pati-mera parameshwar (or some such
crap title)' informed us with authoritive knowledge that it is our 'great
Indian tradition' that the wife must always "sacrifice" for her husband
and try to bring him TO the right path. No kidding! 

I wish to highlight one more point that went unnoticed. In Veena's 
very insightful and thought-provoking article, she mentions that the
worth of a woman is much more in the lower strata of our society than 
in the so-called educated class. I have never been in more agreement 
about anything than this observation. It is a BIG MYTH that as one 
goes higher up the social and educated ladder one finds more respect for 
the woman as an equally responsible partner in a marriage, or even as 
the newborn female child. Infact, the richest people of India would 
probably be more tradition-bound than anybody else. 

The winds of change, if we are to see the end of such dehumanizing traditions,
must come from the women- for it is their sacrifices which allow such 
things to continue. 'Traditional' education is NOT the answer. The process 
starts right at the birth of a baby girl- a society that is so heavily
biased for the male child as to allow selective abortions of the female 
foetus will obviously consider equal say to a woman's opinion a complete
non-issue. It is here that the battle must start. (In a small town in 
Rajasthan, for ex., only one female child was born in two years- amidst 
dozens of male children. Fate? Naah, just willing doctors and parents. This,
appeared in India Today a year or so ago.) There was an excellent 
Marathi street-theater play which became very popular thruout Maharashtra-
"Mulgi Zhali Hoe" (Alas! A girl is born.) which also did a first-rate
job in highlighting how discrimination starts even before a girl is born. 

Forget trying to correct the practice of arranged marriages, forget equal
oppurtunities for women, forget women's rights- a society which does not
even allow the female child to be born is not even concerned about such 
non-issues. That, my friends, is the stark reality and indeed the 
raison-d'-etre for ALL those issues which we are discussing. Btw, the above 
statement "does not allow to be born" may not be taken too literally- the 
connotation is :A society that so overwhelmingly "PREFERS" a male child to 
a female one. 

>From "Mulgi Zhali Hoe"- (I saw this play several times, and also know a few
of the actors. I *personally think* there has never been a better play on this 
subject in India.)

Woman defending her pref. for a son, "Mulga manje vaushacha diva..."
Her friend replying, "Kiti ujed padalay paha...."

Loose translation:
1st woman: A son is the torch-bearer of the next generation....
2nd woman: Look at all the light around us..
( Sorry, the punch is evident only in Marathi!)

Anay.
-- 
===============================================================================
E-mail:anay@[alvin or natasha or simon].mcnc.org    Among the things MCNC and I
                                                         agree on, this posting
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be!                             does not count.

---

From: [email-masked] (S. Mantha (co-op))
Date: 20 Aug 90 18:04:14 GMT

Hello everybody (and Mr. Rao in particular),

	It's apology time, I guess. First, for the unwelcome (that  it
was unwelcome was conveyed in no uncertain terms!) expression of familiarity
(yo Subbulu).  Can't say, I didn't ask for that one. 
	As for the rest, it was not my intention to "trivialize" the discussion
in anyway, though I seem to have accomplished exactly that. 

|>So, you are RIGHT! 

	About what? In trying to inject a little humour into the thingie.
Apparently not, since it seems to have backfired in a rather grand way.

|>To continue the status quo, to feel completely thrilled that we have
|>"survived" inspite of our asinine indifference all through, to ensure
|>that nothing bothers us unduly, we DEFINITELY do need to continue our
|>good practise of not EVER taking ourselves seriously (and what is
|>more, form cadres to discourage anyone else trying to break this
|>canon!); live as if everything is a big game; and PARTITION our lives
|>very strictly such that complete inconsistencies in our outlooks can
|>be swept under the rug with such evergreen arguments such as

	Strong words these, uttered --undoubtedly-- in a moment of passion. 
To take a few remarks made in jest and paint a horrible picture of a callous,
despicable creep requires dishonesty and lack of integrity on a grand scale. 
Anger alone would suffice as well. From what little I know of Mr. Rao
through his
postings, I dare say it is the latter. Whether his response shows an
unreasonable
degree of sensitivity and moral "hauteur" or a passionate faith in the
principles
he espouses is a moot point and not at all the purpose of this article to 
determine -- or question for that matter. The tone and contents of my previous
posting seem to have agitated him not a little. I am sorry. 
	Now, whether I would have apologized if my remarks had not drawn such
a sharp response is an interesting question. It is not at all obvious that
I would've. But on some thought, I realize that independent of Mr. Rao's real
and perceived peeves with my attitudes (as evidenced in his posting), my
flippant
and irresponsible remarks could have damaged an interesting and thoughtful
discussion on what marriages should and do mean to us. While I have
reservations
on the tone -- the verdict is already in : guilty; now let's decide on the
sentence --  adopted by some, the only purpose my posting would've served would
have been to sabotage the debate and reduce it to exchanges not very different 
from "Don't tell me what to do", "How can you even contemplate such a
disgusting
thing as an arranged marriage, you loathesome cockroach!" and so on ...

|>"Jhust do yit"--hmmm--sounds great and catchy of course--just let me
know when
|>you get around to reifying your "yit". Oookay?
	
	A perfect instance of what I was saying above. I am sorry I started it.

|>>Surya [member of Alonzo's Church] Mantha
|>Rao [seriously considering Surya's suggestion of becoming a member of
|>     the Church of Rational Schizophrenia and Indifference]

	The virtues of "indifference" are many and the universal applicability
of "rationality" is at best suspect. But that is not relevant to any of this.

|>Pps: Also, your whole response, revolving as it does around
|>     "don't take yourself so seriously, MYAN!" is a completely novel
|>     way of argumentation that should definitely be added to the chest of
|>     rational dialectics.
|>     You have just scratched the surface of 
|>     the uses of this argument--its potential is unlimited, I tell you.

	It serves admirably, if what one wants to do is to kill all serious
debate (and it's effectiveness has been recognized for some time now). That,
however, was not my purpose.

sincerely
Surya Mantha