On the Ethics of Arranged Marriages (in India)

Much has been said already. Yet I feel the need to speak out on this matter over and over again.

Despite the apparent success of arranged marriages in India, I must tell you that such success is only apparent and the actual structural basis of such marriages is morally questionable. I will try to analyse the arguments put forward by the traditional apologist (read, for instance, this article published by Times of India) in favour of arranged marriages. In doing so, we will hopefully realise that it is not a matter of lifestyle or culture to choose other forms of marriage over the traditional setup of arranged marriages, but a matter of moral imperative to condemn such established social practices that are inherently evil.

NOTE: This article is not a mockery of agencies (such as dating sites or a family) which one approaches for finding or arranging a partner/spouse who has shown similar interest in finding a partner/spouse, out of his/her own free will. I reserve the term 'Arranged Marriage' for the social institution that unites under a marital contract two people of opposite sex, strangers to each other, approved by participating families, effectively undermining individual freedom of choice (and some more human rights).

Let us begin!

Argument 1: Successful Precedent

Arranged marriages have been very successful in this country for as long as we can trace history. In fact, if you are an average Indian, there's a good chance that you are the product of an arranged marriage. Therefore, you can rely on the success of arranged marriages. Compare this to the staggeringly high divorce rates in countries where love marriages are rampant.

This is one of the strongest arguments in favour of arranged marriages. However, it suffers from the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Let me explain this issue by drawing light on why arranged marriages in India seem to be so successful. How do you measure the success of a marriage? The natural gauge is to look at divorce rates. Official figures do not exist, but estimates suggest that it is as low as 1% in India. Apologists immediately attribute this to high family values. Naively that may seem to be true, but that is not the full story.

Divorce rates are a good estimate of the success of a marriage provided that such divorces happen freely, and are motivated only by factors (such as interpersonal incompatibility, lack of monogamous exclusivity, etc.) that lead to general unhappiness in a couple's married life. If you are thoroughly unhappy with your partner and irreparably so, then whatever else prevents you from getting divorced only forces you into a life of bondage. I wouldn't call such a married life successful.

The important question is the following. Are men and women in their right minds free to independently choose divorce in the context of arranged marriages? The answer is clearly in the negative. Families are intricately involved and this decision effectively belongs in the hands of our extended families who ultimately view it as a taboo. 

Much of their lives, women are trained to cope with their married lives without complaining. Our family values teach women to think of their husbands as पतीपरमेश्वर (Pati-Parmeshwar, Supreme Lord) or that paradise lies under the feet of their husbands. Songs such as mera pati mera devata hai (good or bad, my husband is my Lord) paraphrase the brainwashing that women are subjected to. Essential skills such as cooking, cleaning, maintenance of household etc. are taught from a tender age in order to prepare our girls for marriage. Education, even elementary, is seen as a luxury given only to a few pampered ones. In an urban setting, girls are allowed to indulge themselves in a little more education so long as they do not forget the ultimate life-goal of getting married. For the majority of women who live in rural India, without education financial independence is a fantasy. Divorce because of flimsy reasons such as incompatibility or even domestic violence, is hysterically impractical. Furthermore, the social status of a divorced woman is brutal. A husband is as vital for the average woman as air, water and food.

Therefore, the longevity of arranged marriages and lack of divorces thereof are not indicative of happy successful marriages. They only portray the continued lack of personal, social and financial independence of individuals, especially women in our society.

P.S. It is very important to note that the rise of divorce rates in some urban areas is indicative of empowerment, not lack of moral values!

Argument 2: Interpersonal Compatibility

There is a high chance that your partner belongs to the same caste, religion, language and/or society. A shared cultural background ensures that you are interpersonally compatible. Arranged marriages, therefore, provide enough common grounds (such as similar upbringing, cultural identities, moral values etc.) that helps in the bonding process.

This argument is very strong and popular as well. However, its strength falls apart when we notice that one of its key premises is precarious: "A shared cultural background ensures that you are interpersonally compatible." This assumes that people who share a similar background tend to fit in together very well. In contrast, there is an equally plausible view in social psychology, namely that complimentary characters in partners ensure compatibility: If a person's behaviour (such as dominance) expects a complimentary response (such as submission) from a second person, and if the second person reacts accordingly, then the first person is satisfied, otherwise frustrated. Anyway, the crucial point to note is that there is no general theory in psychology regarding interpersonal compatibility. It is a highly debatable and opinionated subject as to what makes some people click, and others not. The said argument is, therefore, unreliable.

On the contrary, instead of getting married first and then expecting to click, how about getting married to someone you already clicked with?

Argument 3: Elderly Wisdom

Your parents have had much more experience of life than you, and are thus wiser than you in matters of life. They know how marriages work and therefore, they can give the best advice on who you should choose as your partner. So listen to them.

While it may be true that our parents have had more experiences than us because of their age, it does not necessarily guarantee that they have equally enriched their wisdom by means of these experiences. For instance, if I have experienced fever, that does not make me a physician. My experience of eating food does not make me an expert in the culinary arts. Similarly, the mere experience of living longer does not make me any more enlightened about life than one who hasn't lived enough. Wisdom demands effort from one's part. Wisdom requires the continued use of one's critical faculties to analyse and forge arguments being careful of one's own biases and prejudices.

This argument, therefore, suffers from appeal to irrelevant authority.

Argument 4: Courtship After Marriage is More Exciting

You do not know much about your husband/wife and are trying to build a romantic relationship for the first time. Since everything is so new and exciting, the joys of anticipation and discovery make this courtship period very pleasurable. On the contrary, love marriages probably suffer from romantic fatigue as there is nothing new in the relationship that comes after marriage.

To be honest, I have had a difficult time summarising the above argument because it is probably a Non Sequitur: I do not see how any conclusion follows from the given propositions.

This chain of thought, however, raises a valid concern. Consider the unromanticized version of the above scenario, especially from the point of view of a woman. What happens when a complete stranger, somehow trusted by your extended family, becomes the Supreme Lord of your mind and body? What if you are not ready to have sex? The only thing you could do is pray that he be kind. Otherwise, you will be downright raped the first night of your marriage and your family will cherish it as a sacred ritual. You are the one who has to adjust and accept without question. In a country where marital rape is legally allowed (shame on us!), you have no place to complain. If you do not conform, you will probably be burnt, beaten to death or driven to suicide. To hell with excitement when fear is the first natural response. [You are lucky if your husband is kind.]

On the other hand, premarital courtship originates from mutual romantic interest. The lovers' mutual rights are protected by the very possibility of free termination of the courtship. There is nothing more to add to that.

How premarital experiences influence future marriage is a different question. I do not find any reason to believe that such influence should be negative.

The Counter-Argument:

"Human progress is not measured by industry," said The Doctor, "it is measured by the value you place on a life."

The value we place on every human life, thereby conferring on it a certain primal dignity, is very important for those of us who care about absolute morality and justice. Human life, thus valued irrespective of its gender, colour or ideology, deserves equal respect. It is with this basic notion of humanity that we talk about the empowerment of women who have long suffered discrimination and domination from patriarchal societies such as those prevalent in India today. While some people may speak against the need for female empowerment and homogenization of gender roles, and others argue that women empowerment is the cure for poverty, there is no denying that majority of Indian women suffer a direct assault on human rights because of the existing gender bias. From denying them their right to education to the abundance of rape and sexual assault to child marriage and dowry, it is clear that something is heinously wrong with how we treat women as a society.

Mark these words now. One of the essential tools of a patriarchal society against women is the institution of arranged marriages! 

Consider the following hypothetical. Imagine a factory that manufactures artificially intelligent humanoid robots for men, which are capable of working in your homes as cooks and housekeepers, which can be used as sex-dolls and can even serve as artificial wombs to raise your children. You could choose between several models based on how pretty they look and what functionalities they offer within your budget. The question is this: would you need human wives after this?

If you raise your girl child for the purpose of consumption as a wife, if you dress her up in cosmetics and garments to be chosen by a bridegroom and his family based on the worth of her pretty face, and if you practically do away with her after marriage because she was her husband's amanat (a property placed in trust or security), what value have you acknowledged in her as a human being? Take away all the material utilities you desire of a wife and cast them in a hypothetical robot, and ask yourself if you value her still as a human being and if she deserves the same respect and opportunity that you would expect of yourself.

Think about this. If you honour the value of a human life, could you at the same time honour the institution of arranged marriages?