“Do I want to marry?” “Am I ready to bite the bullet?”
“How do I know—really know—if I have found my soul mate?”
These are some crucial questions that many from today’s generation
are increasingly asking—questions that, to their disbelief, were not
heavy on the minds of their parents’ generation. In those days,
marriage was simply taken in stride as an inevitable event of life. The
spouse you were married to was not unlike the body you were born
with—good, bad, or ugly, you just worked with it. And despite this
finality about it, the matchmaking just sort of happened, without you
having to think too deeply about it.
“Incredible!” today’s youngsters would say. But what is truly
incredible is that despite the light approach to such a weighty
decision like marriage, divorces were rare.
Yes, yes, I know: many simply endured dysfunctional and even
abusive marriages. I am also not blind to the disparity that was
stacked against women in the patriarchal society of the times—which
tainted marriages like it did most everything.
Yet the majority of them were exemplary marriages, if judged by
such criteria as personal growth, sacrifice, endurance, tolerance, and
consideration for the spouse, children, family and society. The romance
was subtle but deep—not the kind that is visible in gestures of red
roses or evenings out. Love was lived, more than it was vocalized or
demonstrated—in such things as a wife making ends meet on a shoestring
budget without a hint of complaint, or a husband making the family
paramount in his life over other interests or engagements.
This is not to condemn contemporary expressions of love, or
contemporary lives that allow for more personal space and luxuries.
Nothing against a beautiful bouquet of red roses or other
indulgences—as long as couples understand that they are the icing on
the cake, not primary (or even necessary) determinants of love and
caring.
These contemplations on marriage, no matter how important, must be
preceded by those on the process of matchmaking. A recurring theme here
is the topic of arranged marriages. While many westerners find this
practice quaint, many Indian Americans seem to be ambiguous about it.
What arranged marriages meant in generations past in India is not what
they are as commonly practiced here in the Indian American community.
In the past, the primary driver of marriage and matchmaking
decisions were the parents and the family. There was a degree of subtle
imposition on the suitor. While outright force was rare, social and
traditional norms did not allow for too much self-will on the part of
the one getting married. Hence, the match was truly “arranged” by
parents and others.
Today, all that an arranged marriage means is that parents or
family simply facilitate the introduction. But the primary
responsibility of crucial decisions about when to marry (if at all) and
to whom, rests squarely on the individual. That being the case, the
difference between an “arranged marriage” and a “love marriage” is
hardly as significant as it once was. To a degree, the difference is
simply about whether the couple met due to introductions facilitated by
others or on their own.
So why such a fuss about arranged marriages amongst some? Why such
a hang-up about having parents or family interested and involved? How
or why would it be different than a friend setting up a blind date?
Unless there is truly a disconnect between parents and a child due to a
prominent generation or cultural gap, or personal dynamics, why do some
consider such parental involvement a less-than-desired option?
A blind aping of your mainstream peers—who generally don’t rely on
any help from family in such a personal decision like marriage—may not
serve your needs as an Indian American with distinct social, cultural
and traditional needs. Are you willing to disregard these integral
elements of your cultural identity? Should you?
A true, healthy assimilation would be when you are willing, able
and free to find your life partner—while also accepting, and even
asking for, help from your family.