Subject: AM: Another netter's response to one netters reply to the first netters questions to [Re: One nettor's reply and questions.( Re: Arranged marriages..)

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 20:25:54 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> One netter
[whose name we would rather not refer to, so as to protect their
privacy and national security, but who, just for the records, happens
to be [email-masked] (Prabhu Balaraman)] writes:

>  All the information that has been presented so far regarding this has
>been of the following kind :
>
>" I know MANY Indian males who confine spouses to spice racks "
>" MOST Indian males treat women as property."
>" Indian guys just import brides from India "
>" 90% of the guys ....",  etc, etc ...    
>

It is interesting that some feel that these are the *only* kind of
criticisms of AM that have been presented on the net. Indeed, it is
this temptation to label any criticism with its extreme version,
ignoring all constructive parts of that criticism, that is at the
heart of the communication problem in this debate.

>   It also makes me wonder how a simple and unsophisticated
>cause and effect relationship has been deduced in respect
>of Arranged marriages and the woeful
>status of women in India. 

Is it really the case that all criticisms against AM can be compltely
categorized under this rubric?

Why is one ready to reache a conclusion that everyone who says
anything against the majority practice of AM system is ipso facto
saying that arranged marriages are the root cause of all evil,
downplaying the role of all constructive criticisms?

When one is so insistent in their demands that whole-sale
generalizations be not made on AM system, and that gradations in the
practice of that system be explicitly recognized, shouldn't one also
show the same eagerness in evaluating the criticisms of the system?

Shouldn't one make an effort to sift through the information
separating the extreme categorical condemnations from other
constructive criticisms?

Why is one so tempted to call any criticism at all of AM practice as
"insensitive", "highhanded", "self-righteous" etc.?  Won't such an
instinctive and indiscriminate defense mechanism be self-defeating in
the long run since all desirable change comes by someone questioning
the current practice?

>Is it a case of rare insight that led
>some proponents to believe that Arranged Marriages are solely responsible
>for disrespect and trivialization of women in India? No doubt this
>system as practised by SOME ( and NOT ALL ) people might be ONE of
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the causes. 
 ^^^^^^^^^

To the extent that we really believe that a non-trivial SOME of the AM
embracers do _help_ (whether directly or indirectly) in perpetuating a
particular undesirable inequality in the society, equanimity dictates
that we be deliberative in sifting through the arguments for and
against such a system. 

A temptation to associate every criticism of the system with its
extreme variants seems to be just as self-defeating as the propensity
to see all maladies of the society as originating from AM practice.

> Are there any compulsive reasons as to
>why the rather low level of educational and economic independence
>of Indian women haven't figured as one of the causes for their
>lowly status, if at all one is to believe that this malady is endemic
>across all strata of Indian society?

Are there any compulsive reasons as to why one has chosen to believe
the assertion that the "economic independence" factor of Indian women has
been purposefully ignored, in spite of the fact that it is indeed
brought up repeatedly on this very same forum? 

Can't one rightfully criticize AM for its own part in the overall
problem, without constantly reasserting that AM is not the only, or
even the most important cause of economic inequality? 

>I CANNOT respect my spouse if I go in for an arranged marriage?

A question such as "how can you accuse me of not being able to do the
right thing just because I did do one particular thing that could be
considered "undesirable" in the past?" is somewhat rhetorical. 

Anyone in the world can do the "right thing" in the future
irrespective of what they have done up until that point in their life
(and believing otherwise is somewhat prejudicial--this, I concede). 

A more relevant question is whether all criticism of a practice be
completely suppressed because "people can always do something better
later".

Here is an analogy, which might make sense if the reader is not
automatically assuming that the analogy is being concocted to "get
them".  Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and was also a man who many
people have no compunction as labelling one of the foremost liberals
of his time.  If someone criticizes the fact that Jefferson owned
slaves, should that be taken to mean that that person is ipso-facto
downplaying the humanness of Jefferson? Should all criticism of
Jefferson based on this aspect of his personality be stifled just
because we want to be "sensitive"? Should the fact that Jefferson went
on to become the most respected liberal politicians of his life be
used to justify each and every practice he endorsed either consciously
or unconsciously, including owning of slaves?

>..and why it is NOT possible to get to know, adjust to and respect
>a person whom I have met only for a few hours? It behooves us to
>respect the diversity of the human mind and let people choose
>what is best for them. If someone thinks they can adjust to a
>total stranger why not let them do so. 

  There are two types of criticisms that can be made, and have been
made, with regard to the AM system, as it is practiced. The first have
to deal with the romantic considerations, and the second to deal with
extra-personal ramifications. 

The completely legitimate argument that people have different
personalities and that should be allowed to lead their lifes they see
fit applies quite well to the criticisms of AM based on romantic
considerations. 

However, that argument doesn't apply as convincingly to criticisms of
AM based on its extra-personal ramifications. 

Our temptation to confuse both types of criticisms under one blanket
and offer the "everyone to his/her own tastes" argument is just as
closed-minded as someone's crusade to change AM system because they
personally, for romantic reasons, find that systems unpalatable.

>Why not let people wear
>colored glasses of their choice and especially so when we ourselves
>wear one? Why this compulsive desire
>to exhort others to follow one's directions? And why this delusion
>that one's methods are more civilized than the neighbour's?

To end on an equally rhetorical note, why this crippling fear that
anyone criticizing a particular aspect of a  current societal practice
is automatically out to uproot the whole system with utmost contempt?

Why not see the criticism as an attempt to improve the current
practice, instead of panicking and attempting to label it as a
subversive tactic concocted by those who hold tradition in contempt?

When we are so adamant about differentiating between the good and bad
arranged marriages, and insisting that the baby be not thrown out with
the bath water (and rightly so, IMO), can't we also differentiate
between the blanket generalizations and incendiary rhetoric against
AM, from a constructive attempt to criticize the ramifications of
current non-minority AM practice in perpetuating certain undesirable
inequalities in the Indian society?

Why should we be credulous enough to subscribe to the foolish
dichotomy that the extremists of either faction in the AM debate (or
any debate for that matter) would like us to subscribe to? Can't we
recognize the symmetric self-defeating nature of such dichotomy?

cheers
Rao
[Apr 19, 1992]
--------

A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as commonsense
or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or
futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's
self respect and inherent human dignity

Aung San Suu Kyi,
Burmese freedom fighter & 1991 Nobel Laureate for peace
Freedom from fear and other writings
Penguin, 1991.