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

From: [email-masked] (P. J. Narayanan)
Date: 17 Aug 90 20:20:21 GMT

Much has been said on this issue. Even though there were attempts to
trivialize the issue or analyze it peripherally, the overall level of
discussion has been remarkably high. I think Rao, Veena, Siva,
Parthasarathy and others whose names I cannot remember now have done a
wonderful job of presenting and analyzing the situation. There is
hardly anything that I can say which has not already been said more
beautifully than what I can hope to. But, I am here to state some of my
thoughts and will do it anyway :-(

On the fallacy of the most common argument given
------------------------------------------------

	The most common argument given when such a discussion ensues
is something like this: "My chacha had an arranged marriage. Since
they are sooo happy, nothing must be wrong about it!". This argument
suffers from (at least) three counts.  One is the invalidity of
statistical argument based on one or two samples.  Another reason why
the argument is wrong is that the causality is misplaced. It is not
the "arrangedness" that made chacha's marriage work, but the reduced
expectations and the willingness to compromise on EVERYTHING. Another
facet of this argument, which I consider is the most important, is
that it is an explicit act of perpetuating the system as a whole,
suggesting that no change is needed even when opportunity for change
exists. This demonstrates Rao's claim loudly that one is endorsing the
system and perpetuating inequality when one opts for an arranged
marriage and NOT JUST MAKING A BAD PERSONAL DECISION THAT CONCERNS
ONESELF.  One doesn't HAVE TO BE concerned about sending the wrong
messages to others, but as enlightened individuals we should strive to
send only the right messages to those who will consider us
role-models.

On having no other options (or the convenience aspect)
------------------------------------------------------

  The typical question is: "What other options does one have? Since
the other party involved (the woman and her family) don't consider any
injustice is being done it is not as if we are *really* exploiting the
system, is it?"

  It is clear that to anyone who bothers to ponder for a moment that
the arranged marriage system is skewed in favour of men. It is the
manifestation of centuries of cultural brainwashing that people have
gone through, one that considers "Girls (sic) are the property of others
and until it is given back, the feeling of indebtedness bothers one"
[Kanvamaharshi about Shakunthala in Kalidasa's Abhigyanashakunthalam].
This, coupled with the societal norms that consider being married as
the ultimate goal and virtue, has made women the unequal players in
the game of marriage. The traditionally male-dominated human societies
have all (with few exceptions, if any) evolved this way. Ill informed
marriages[IIM] (I like this term better than arranged marriage) have worked
to the convenience of both men and women ("I will sign on the dotted line
if that frees me of tense situations that are common in a relationship")
except that it perpetuated the system through and through. In other
words, the bias didn't shift qualitatively as generations went by
and the society remained anti-women. Thus the IIM system is very
disadvantageous to women on the whole, though the aspect of convenience
is enjoyed by both men and women. [Of course, being paraded in front
of stangers and being asked inane questions is not exactly convenient.
It is not even clear if that is preferrable over the tensions of (possibly
many) relationships!] 

  Arguing that  the system is OK to follow because there aren't any good
alternatives is as ridiculous as the question that a South African white
can ask that if apartheid is abolished, who will do the dirty jobs so
cheap? The system has been groomed to the man's advantage over the years
so much so that one has stopped seeing the alternatives. Arguing to
continue the system to maintain that convenience is silly and selfish.
You cannot advocate for a system that is plain unfair to one of the
parties involved because we haven't YET been able to find a reasonable
alternative.

On women's responsibility in the matter
---------------------------------------

  Venkatesh has indicated that women are responsible for the state of
affairs to a large extent. I have to agree that women do share the
blame, in as much as any victim shares the blame in an unjust
situation for not crying out loud and taking all steps in their
capacity.  But it is more revealing to probe the issue deeper to
realize why this happens. A society that considers women as
commodities (that are to be shopped for -- wisely if you have the
time) and pageant contests as an honourable way of life, provides
practically zilch opportunities to the women to see the injustice and
to get out of it. The brainwashing during the childhood (glorifying
duties to the husband, paathivrathyam and the like) and the knowledge
that life is practically hell if one choses not to marry complete the
process. {We see women continuing on extremely abusive relationships
because they fear a life as a divorcee}. As a result, blaming the
women doesn't throw any light on the matter or help solve the problem
(other than pacifying one's conscience :-). The appeal is to the
educated and enlightened ones to take the first step in the right
direction. Changes aren't brought about by distant prophets -- each
of us has to take the first, even if small, steps to ensure things
change.

On this problem and US Indians
------------------------------

  Why single out Indians in the US? They are not being singled out.
The discussion is focusing on a problem that most of us can relate to
better. Also, the Indians in the US have had opportunities to see
"both sides" (sorry Rao for the binary implication) well and belong to
the educated and `enlightened' class of people. Thus there is every
reason to believe that they will see the reason more than someone in
an Indian village (or city for that matter). Also, the worst form of
IIMs are the ones that also involve time pressure (such as the 3 week
vacation the phoren person has!) because it gives even less time for
the parties to know each other. It is a moot point if, as Siva says,
the damage is already done when an Indian living here decides to get an
spouse from India (and bring hir to this country like a piece of baggage).
We have to think if the spouse's willingness to settle abroad is an
individual decision based on independent thinking, and not a mere
reflection of parents' and/or society's values.

About participating in the system and criticizing it
----------------------------------------------------

	Is it true that we always follow the best option available?
In other words, is it necessary to support (or remain silent about)
the IIM system because one opted for it oneself? I don't think so, if
one believes in the continuum of options theory. It may be that one
opted for (or is likely to opt for) the IIM system as THE LAST RESORT.
I liked whatever Surya Mantha had to say about it earlier.
[This argument is getting difficult obviously, but I hope you all can
see the point] I draw this analogy with NRA and gun ban issue. It
might well be possible that the neighbourhood you live in necessitates
carrying a gun with you for safety. But, one can simultaneously
support a gun ban, if one is convinced that it will reduce the
criminality in the society.  In case of IIMs, one can reduce the
stereotypicality of it by spending considerably longer amount of time
before committing, thus improving the chances of both parties not
having to compromise on "core" issues, although the decision might be
considered suboptimal by one's own most ideal standards.  (I always
find that defending the system even partially a difficult task, as the
awkwardness of the above argument demonstrates.) I bring out this
issue because I think there are many people on the net who are not
married (like myself :-) who are afraid or reluctant to take a side in
this discussion because they fear IIM may be their only alternative,
and don't want to be seen as contradicting their own well-advertised
position.

  In summary, I think each of us should be concerned about this grave
problem. Solutions (long term) include encouraging the interaction
between boys and girls right from school (and not consider "not
talking to boys" as a great virtue in girls and vice versa) and
instilling the idea in children that they ARE RESPONSIBLE in finding
their own mates. Short term solutions are harder to suggest. But
weighing the H-1 multiple entry visa criterion as very important or
get-a-wife-after-degree-before-job-because-F2s-are-easier attitude are
certainly not worth sympathizing with. Many of Indians, for the lack
of real contact with persons of the opposite sex, lack a clear idea of
what they expect from a spouse, which is not commendable either.
If one is clear about the above two points, one can find one's
niche in the "continuum of possibilities" that essentially gets rid of
the exploitation. *But, the lack of viable alternatives cannot in
anyway justify the endorsing of an unjust system*.

  I think this discussion has matured enough [and shown (for the first time
according to Neeraj Bhatnagar) that SCI *can* have mature discussions :-)].
The next avenues to be explored are (in my humble opinion):

	1. A discussion on what options the male-dominated Indian students
	   and professionals in the US realistically have.

	2. The points brought about by Vikram Duvvoori about the inequality
	   of the partners in many marriage (and the inequality of women in
	   general, particularly among Indians in America).

Sorry for such a looooong article, when the same could have been said in
a far shorter a piece......

P J Narayanan
-------------

 "She didn't consult the elders before making | Sorry for the terrible
	the decision, neither did you         |  translation by me,
  But about a decision by two mature people,  |  from a poor recollection
	what more have we to say?"            |  of the original slokam.

		-- Shakunthala's "elders" to Dushyantha in Shankunthalam.
			(when they bring her to the court)

---

From: [email-masked] (K.V. Baparao)
Date: 17 Aug 90 23:56:41 GMT

This has been an interesting debate...

While I understand the social problems involved, I am uncomfortable with
the idea of turning a life decision into a revolutionary statement. Arranged
marriages are a boon to the shy Indian male, and I feel that it is unfair
to close off that option. (Yes, I am aware that the discussion has been
refined enough to make this objection a straw man, but I thought I'd say 
it anyway.)

My feeling is that the problem lies not in the "arrangedness" of the
marriage, but the anti-woman assumptions behind the arrangement, namely
that the girl is to be, literally and legally, kicked out and kept out
of her parents' family at all costs. It is this assumption that should
be attacked and removed. An Indian Male Marriage Prospect (MMP) 
has considerable clout which he can use for this purpose.

1. Concerning the marriage arrangement itself, the MMP should insist (as a 
condition of marriage) that his FMP be treated exactly 
on par with her male siblings with respect to inheritance, and further 
enter into a legal contract with the FMP to the effect that her share
of the parental inheritance will be at her sole disposal. 

1.5 On the flip side, a man can insist that his sisters share the 
parental property equally with him and his brothers, and offer this 
arrangement to prospective brothers-in-law in lieu of dowry. Where no 
property exists, there is always "vidya-dhanam", which should also be 
shared equally by insisting on equal educational opportunities for his 
sisters and himself.

2. The "viewing" process is qualitatively not different from having a number 
of "first dates", which bring with them their own prospects for humiliation
and disappointment for both parties.  The MMP can 
help mitigate the indignity of the proceedings by defining in advance the 
structure of the process (e.g., no decision to be made until after a certain 
minimum number of contact hours etc.). He can also place limits on the 
behavior of the "elders" of both parties, with respect to types and number 
of rude questions, amount of fawning &c. 

Needless to say, both 1 and 2 should, ideally be undertaken in full 
and equal consultation with the FMP. However, with 
the present power imbalance, the MMP has more initiative at his disposal 
and should make use of it.

Bapa Rao