Political hypocrisy
There was an extremely interesting article in Mint a couple
of days ago, regarding arranged versus love marriages in India. It
treats this controversial subject in an interesting manner. A link
has been made between arranged marriages and democracy, and the
author argues that the prevalence of arranged marriages in India
suggest a "schizophrenic society", a cleavage between our political
and social ideas.
Looking at this more closely, I tend to agree, but feel that he has been too harsh on the existing system. First, many arranged marriages these days are moving towards explicit consent by both parties, and the domains of "arranged" versus "love" marriages are blurring into each other. Second, the sociological reasoning behind arranged marriages in the past were cultural similarities between members of the same community (now, happily, a thing of the past). Third, the role of women in society did not allow for much room to meet new people (this was a flaw in societal structure, but arranged marriages were a symptom rather than a cause of this), and arranging weddings was a convenient method to maintain this role of women. And finally, arranging weddings also helped continue the familial structure of society in general - India has been well-researched as a joint society, rather than an individual one, and this system encouraged a further ossification of this structure.
Not to imply that I am an ardent believer in arranged marriages. The fundamental premises of an arranged wedding - (1) your parents understand you well enough to have an idea of what is best for you (2) Your community characteristics - caste, religion, income level, profession - indicate some general characteristics and (3) The role of women in society is largely familial in nature, have all been eroding. Some of these (2 and 3 in particular) are simply indications of a freer and more just society. But the foundations of an arranged marriage remain simply, an active role of your parents and loved ones in identifying your life partner, and these are still both sound and desirable.
http://www.livemint.com/2008/09/10220756/Marriages-and-democracy.html?h=D
Looking at this more closely, I tend to agree, but feel that he has been too harsh on the existing system. First, many arranged marriages these days are moving towards explicit consent by both parties, and the domains of "arranged" versus "love" marriages are blurring into each other. Second, the sociological reasoning behind arranged marriages in the past were cultural similarities between members of the same community (now, happily, a thing of the past). Third, the role of women in society did not allow for much room to meet new people (this was a flaw in societal structure, but arranged marriages were a symptom rather than a cause of this), and arranging weddings was a convenient method to maintain this role of women. And finally, arranging weddings also helped continue the familial structure of society in general - India has been well-researched as a joint society, rather than an individual one, and this system encouraged a further ossification of this structure.
Not to imply that I am an ardent believer in arranged marriages. The fundamental premises of an arranged wedding - (1) your parents understand you well enough to have an idea of what is best for you (2) Your community characteristics - caste, religion, income level, profession - indicate some general characteristics and (3) The role of women in society is largely familial in nature, have all been eroding. Some of these (2 and 3 in particular) are simply indications of a freer and more just society. But the foundations of an arranged marriage remain simply, an active role of your parents and loved ones in identifying your life partner, and these are still both sound and desirable.
http://www.livemint.com/2008/09/10220756/Marriages-and-democracy.html?h=D
0 Comments