Indian Roulette

At the beginning of Jhumpa Lahiri’s excellent book “The Namesake,” the parents of Gogol meet for the first time in the infamous “interview.” I’m talking about the curious Indian custom of arranged marriage. Ashima and Ashoke have never met each other and know essentially nothing about each other except that their parents think they might be an acceptable match. Ashoke never says a word; he just looks down at his knees. Ashoke’s father talks in detail about the qualifications of his son. The interview lasts for maybe two hours and then each of the principles, the prospective husband and wife, must give either thumbs up or thumbs down. If it is thumbs up, they will wed relatively soon: probably within two months.

From a western perspective, the Indian arraigned marriage appears like Russian roulette with a spouse replacing the bullet: it’s a gamble with your life of the most extreme sort. Of course, love and marriage is always a gamble, and western marriages do not succeed in nearly half the cases despite the advantages of love. However, in the west, at least the participants get to throw the dice themselves, and not let their parents control their fates. Perhaps the advantage of the arraigned marriage is the low expectations that such unions bring: they seldom yield a big disappointment because no one really expected true love.

Perhaps I have a voyeuristic mind but I cannot help wondering what the wedding night for Ashima and Ashoke would have been like. Wouldn’t that first intimate meeting be a bit…awkward? How do people who are strangers and are not really physically attracted to one another find the emotion to perform the act? Of course, some westerners have many casual relationships, and I really don’t understand that either. But, again, it comes down to choice: you get to choose whom you would like to make love to. What strikes me about the arranged marriage is that it seems so passive. How do emotions emerge from a passive pairing of people, or is the sexual union completely emotionless?

On the other hand, perhaps there is genius in focusing purely on the objective qualities of each spouse. One reason why so many western marriages fail is that the two people are incompatible. Why is it that people are naturally inclined to find spouses that are so different than themselves? Perhaps it’s instinct: we always find the girl (or guy) in the other tribe to be especially cute because she (or he) has fresh genes to enrich the gene pool. But marrying outside your own culture creates a natural tension in that marriage: there is never a common vision about how things should be done. And marrying outside of your socioeconomic class is always just folly.

Many people have noted that arranged marriages are more like a business merger than a friendship. The marriage is designed to align two dynasties (minor dynasties in most cases to be sure) and therefore the extended family should have a say in this business decision. On the other hand, this dynastic view of family and marriage reinforces the incestuous process of breeding with caste and sub-caste. (Sunil Laxman has a nice article about caste here.) In a world of love marriages, caste would tend to dissolve over time because, as I said, “The girl in the next tribe always looks cuter,” (and I’m sure the same holds true for the guys in the next tribe).

I have been married for twelve years and observed many marriages; some love marriages and a few arranged marriages. I have seen only a few love marriages that have failed; this might be an example of small sample bias. The arranged marriages I have seen have seemed happy on the surface but there was typically enormous tension underneath: I would say that many of these marriages would have failed if divorce had been an option. But, again, this is a very small sample.

My belief is that the age of arranged marriages will gradually pass. Young people will insist on exercising their own sovereignty over their choice of spouse. In some sense, arranged marriage has qualities like the old socialist system: the decision is made by third parties in the best interest of the greater society and not necessarily in the best interest of the betrothed. In a free market system, the potential bride and groom make the mutually beneficial deal, and third parties either embrace it or sulk. Parents might not approve at first, but if they respect the fact that their children are now responsible adults and captains of their own destinies, they can learn to accept their children’s choices.

The essence of freedom is allowing people to make their own mistakes instead of insisting that they live with the mistakes others have made for them.

In the case of my wife and myself, we dated only ten weeks before I proposed to her. It was totally impulsive on my part and the best decision I ever made. Why was the courtship so fast? When you know, you know. Hesitation merely reinforces the notion that maybe you’re not sure. I was too intelligent to be anything but sure.

There is never a day that I don’t thank my lucky stars that such a wonderful woman came into my life.