Arranged marriages do suck, I do know, well I'm in one. I was forced into one at the age of 20 when I was on vacation with my parents in India.

she realized that really, it’s more about the “assist” than the “arrange” and she didn’t get all westernized-aggro on our kundis about oppressive traditions

From the post above (where it was in bold, no less):

"Confused": I know my parents will never force me to marry someone I don’t like

Prudence: but as long as everyone understands you will not be pressured to wed the guy, why not

No one sane would advocate the use of "force". Let's lay that out right now at the beginning of the thread. I am very sorry for what you must have gone through, but it seems like the advice seeker featured in this post is in a different situation, no?

Arranged marriages do suck

Prudie was very refereshing. I wonder what hero my mom would have picked out for me. But mamma & pappa bear know me and my quirks. Looking back at my dating life, they were right on when they didn't like a b/f or dude I was dating... I had too much of the romance dust in my eyes blinding me.

Karmabytes, that's the exact same reason my parents never set me up. The wanted zero blame.

I was forced into one at the age of 20 when I was on vacation with my parents in India.

LOL..I am sorry for your ordeal but that is hilarious! marriage while on vacation..I mean DAMN homie

Arranged marriages do suck.

For some. Just as much as a marriage entered into by free will that turns sour. Arranged marriages don't have a monopoly on potential heartache. I'm sorry you are in one.

KB:

Marriages suck if the partners can't get along regardless of how the 2 got together. It's just that arranged marriages give you the chance to blame someone else for your misery :)

Classic!

i thought they sucked, too. untill i met this gorgeous nice-as-hell banarsi doctor one of my friends was setup with this past weekend. i'm totally stealing that girl.

but seriously though, i was really under the impression that most folks had a choice to accept or reject. clueless @ 1... i am so sorry.

A mainstream columnist grokked the concept better than a brownie did; she realized that really, it’s no different from a blind date and she didn’t get all westernized-aggro on our kundis about oppressive traditions.

That's because a mainstream columnist actually had, in my view, an entirely different concept of what arranged marriages are geared to do, and here's the key: "Certainly their knowledge of you, the young man, and the qualities two people need to get along has to be as good as the algorithms of Match.com" So their actually using domain specific knowledge to prefilter people out based on individual characteristics, rather than "Here, meet this person because her parents speak the same language we do"

I'm sorry, but what I read above is a far cry from, "Some so-and-so aunty has a daughter, she lives 2000 miles away from you, works in so-and-so company, and has existed on earth for 25 years, here's her email" and "Why don't you get married? Everyone is asking? What will people think? bla bla bla"

But a couple points I agree with:

1. Romance isn't worth a dogs nutsack in the long run. In fact, the etymology of the word is
"of Rome", pertaining to the fantasy stories coming out of the old capital during the Roman empire.

2. It is nice she made an attempt to understand the tradition, rather than a complete "it's backwards" lash out. but in my view, she
didn't go deeper in her analysis

Seeing as how when my grandparents were trying their darnedest to hook me mum up with a nice boy she ran away from home and moved to Dehli, I don't think I'm getting an arranged marriage, even if I wanted one. My parents would probably ask me if I was feeling all right.

"So their actually using domain specific knowledge "

So they're actually using..

BTW, what does grok mean?

i think it is important to destroy the dichotomy between arranged & non-arranged marriages. there's a spectrum. e.g., "set ups" have a bit of the arranged aspect, while many "arranged" marriages involve a lot of choice within the sample of possible potential mates selected by parents/relatives. the "western" and "indian" norms lean toward one end of the spectrum, but there is a lot of within group variation and both tendencies are average exhibit admixture.

Grok.

1. Romance isn't worth a dogs nutsack in the long run

Huh? Of course romance alone cannot sustain a marriage, obviously. But come now... romance tied together with good bedroom loving do tons for a marriage. A little romance through the days can make ya hot to trot. Romance and good sex = less fighting (generally) and more connection.

Actually, Prudie generally gives pretty good advice; she's no-nonsense. Check out her reponse to the letter below this one. Not that I regularly read her or send in letters or anything like that.

*Actually, I Prudie and Kaus are my two regular Slate reads.

My mother thinks that as long as two people have a certain compatibility and mutual respect, love can happen later.

I don't know this woman or her mother particularly, but in a general Indian society sense:

certain compatibility = from the same community

mutual respect = respect for the tradition of marriage, and to never end it, come hell or
high water.

I think my mom was filling in for Prudie.

New headline -- Slate Says 'Yes' to Arranged Marriage

it’s more about the “assist” than the “arrange” and she didn’t get all westernized-aggro on our kundis about oppressive traditions

Heh. Nice.

Romance isn't worth a dogs nutsack in the long run

Probably depends on how you define romance. It doesn't have to be about the flowers and the champagne all the time. In fact, that sort of thing probably does wear thin after a while. But there are other kinds of romance too, IMO.

aahh... 'kiss them for me'

miss anna.. music lover extraordinaire..

prudie makes sense.
some marriages work, arranged or misarranged.
some marriages don't.

refreshing read, thanks anna and tipster.

I don't know this woman or her mother particularly, but in a general Indian society sense:

certain compatibility = from the same community
mutual respect = respect for the tradition of marriage, and to never end it, come hell or
high water.

I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. I wouldn't have believed this concept of "mutal compatibilty" business unless I'd experienced it for myself. There is a lot more to it than meets the eye. After seeing quite a few cousins getting set up in perfectly happy marriages, and having see so many marriages entered in non traditionally fall apart and having found the right man for me thru an 'introduction' I no longer can knock any methods of meeting the right person. There is no magic method nor is one way more right than the other but I do understand now.

Probably depends on how you define romance. It doesn't have to be about the flowers and the champagne all the time. In fact, that sort of thing probably does wear thin after a while

Well, just look at the synonyms from dictionary.com:

"1. story, fiction. 4. falsehood, fable. 6. allure, fascination, exoticism."

I think it's pretty clear what romance is referring to. In addition, there is a clear implication that the female will be the primary, if not sole recipient of said "romantic" acts. The implication could explain why most people defending it's place within long term relationships.. are indeed women.

TBM - yeah dude. Your mom and my mom.

I'm sorry, but what I read above is a far cry from, "Some so-and-so aunty has a daughter, she lives 2000 miles away from you, works in so-and-so company, and has existed on earth for 25 years, here's her email" and "Why don't you get married? Everyone is asking? What will people think? bla bla bla"

Really? As someone whose parents routinely attempt to pimp her out, I think it's just that their priorities for a good relationship are different from ours -- they look at financial stability, reputation of the family, level of education, BLAH BLAH. Whereas our criteria are more about what we have in common with people and if there's any chemistry, and I guess some of that other stuff is kind of important too.

We should adopt an effort to switch the term here in America from "arranged marriage" to "assisted marriage." Arranged marriage does sound a little scary if you don't know what it's about. I'm sure extreme and very sad cases like #1 do happen but the non-forceful assist is more common, no? (Lest we go off on this topic, emotional manipulation is one thing; FORCE is another.)

Rupa: We should start calling them the 'non-forceful assist'. That would be pretty awesome.

Prudie is my guilty pleasure!

Well I'm sort of like that woman, I'm in my 30's, got a well paid job in the US. My parents live in India, they have never suggested that they would arrange/assist or whatever, but my relatives have every time I'm visiting.

If you ask me, arranged marriages suck at least if you are a woman (I'm a man), it's the woman that gives up everything and follows her man, and I know it happends in love marriages too, but not to that extent. The idea of me going back to India and asking a well educated woman to drop her career and follow me to the US to be my housewife sounds revolting to me.

I think it's just that their priorities for a good relationship are different from ours -- they look at financial stability, reputation of the family, level of education, BLAH BLAH.

Exactly my point. They look at it from more of a group dynamic, "please the folks around you" perspective. People always say to me, "oh but they have your best interests at heart!" No one contests this assertion, only someone morbid would assert they are trying to hurt you by arranging or assisting or whatever word you'd like to use. They don't see it as a question of "finding a good relationship", it's of no concern. Its a question of "find a relationship to be presentable in society, to not be a misfit, and ultimately, to procreate" Good or Bad doesn't even enter the equation.

Romance and good sex = less fighting (generally)

hmm... not so sure.... its more like...
Romance + less fighting = more sex.

Romance + less fighting = more sex.

Romance + MORE fighting = MORE MAKE-UP SEX! Prioritize, people. ;)

"1. story, fiction. 4. falsehood, fable. 6. allure, fascination, exoticism."

Well, I'm going to fixate on words like allure and fascination. Men can find things alluring and fascinating too. For example, my idea of a nice, romantic evening is going to a baseball game, followed by ice-cream. My spouse likes baseball and ice-cream too, so we get to spend time together doing something we both enjoy. Can't see anything wrong with that sort of romance, really. Can't even see where the woman does all the receiving and the man is being gypped.

Right on hema. Romance can be as simple as holding hands or a sweet text message or cuddlig together under a warm blanket to watch a good movie.

I love Prudie. But I'm also not that surprised by her response, as you are. This view is pretty common in the West now, I think. I'm so over the arranged marriage hype, and I think a lot of people--desi and non--are, too.

For example, my idea of a nice, romantic evening is going to a baseball game, followed by ice-cream.

All I can say is, as an example of romance, this is clearly an outlier. It's obvious that romance used in present day context refers to male actions towards the female, of the roses, poetry, etc.. variety. All the stuff you see in Disney.

Do you know what the infield fly rule is?

Can't even see where the woman does all the receiving and the man is being gypped.

As a gypsy, I don't like the racist pejorative employed in this comment. When you say "gypped" you don't just discriminate against my people, you maintain institutionalized hierarchies and further the oppression of a group which is possibly the last "safe" target for mockery. We can't say "faggot" or "re+arded" but "gypped" is allowed? In the immortal and eloquent words of Stephanie Tanner: "How rude!"

>>>Romance + MORE fighting = MORE MAKE-UP SEX! Prioritize, people. ;)

Romance + More Fighting = breakup + re-unifying romance = one wild night ;)

Romance + MORE fighting = MORE MAKE-UP SEX! Prioritize, people. ;)

tried that, never worked for me.

More to the point...
I think what's mildly dangerous is for parents (esp if they live 5000miles away) to use priorities that work there in india but are not relevant here in the US. For example, when my parents were pimping me around (didn't work out for them), they narrowed the search down to one caste of gultis. Perhaps a valid criteria if I were living in India circa 1965. As a result, I got emails from them about girls who mostly grew up in rural India (I grew up in Bangalore). When you plan to live in the US, language, caste and esp "fair-and-loveliness" play a very minor role compared to financial background growing up, urban/rural, etc.

Wow. I have to admit to having no sense of the etymology of the word, so my apologies for any offense caused. I've never heard the term used as a racist pejorative before. Again, sorry.

Do you know what the infield fly rule is?

Yes. But tell me first how you feel about the DH. And Dice K...because you know, because that's all anyone talks about anymore.

They look at it from more of a group dynamic, "please the folks around you" perspective. People always say to me, "oh but they have your best interests at heart!"

I gotcha, HMF. I can only speak for my family, but I know that to them, one's group identity IS their personal identity. Having grown up in America I personally don't identify with whateverreligioussect whatevercaste from wherever, but obviously my experience is vastly different from my parents'. In American independence and self-identity are way more valued than where my parents are from in India. As far as pleasing the crowd with the "right" match, don't you think they're more interested in you being pleased by the folks around you?

Exactly my point. They look at it from more of a group dynamic, "please the folks around you" perspective. People always say to me, "oh but they have your best interests at heart!" No one contests this assertion, only someone morbid would assert they are trying to hurt you by arranging or assisting or whatever word you'd like to use. They don't see it as a question of "finding a good relationship", it's of no concern. Its a question of "find a relationship to be presentable in society, to not be a misfit, and ultimately, to procreate" Good or Bad doesn't even enter the equation.

You don't mean all parents/relations who encourage arranged marriages, right? Sorry, I'm not sure...and my parents don't care what I do as long as I'm happy...but I know based off the many years of not giving a rat's ass about what the Indian community expects, my parents would look for someone who makes me happy.

Not that they're getting that opportunity in the near future, but if I was hitting a dry spell, I would trust their judgment. Augh god, I weirded myself out.

Wow. I have to admit to having no sense of the etymology of the word, so my apologies for any offense caused. I've never heard the term used as a racist pejorative before. Again, sorry.

No problem. It was my gentle riff on this. ;-)

Maybe match.com and speed dating and people waiting until they are older to marry, so have more fix-ups has changed notions about, er, fix-ups? In the West, I mean? Besides, I live in a traditionally Jewish neighborhood and fix-ups seem pretty common here, too.

As far as pleasing the crowd with the "right" match, don't you think they're more interested in you being pleased by the folks around you?

When it comes to marriage? truly, I don't. Individualistic concerns are just secondary.

I can only speak for my family, but I know that to them, one's group identity IS their personal identity

i.e. Personal Identity doesn't exist, or at the very least, is secondary.

As for all the people getting defensive, with the "Well MY family has MY interests at heart first, so THERE. Nanny Nanny Poo poo." responses. I can't challenge your personal experience, but based on the research I've done on the marriage institution and its development through the subcontinent - individual concerns just fall by the wayside. Why do you think "matrimonial" sites exist in the first place?

As for all the people getting defensive, with the "Well MY family has MY interests at heart first, so THERE. Nanny Nanny Poo poo." responses. I can't challenge your personal experience, but based on the research I've done on the marriage institution and its development through the subcontinent - individual concerns just fall by the wayside. Why do you think "matrimonial" sites exist in the first place?

LOL, now change my diaper. Because not all parents are like the ones who care about our interests. I *get* that. I was just doing one of those "I'm in the minority!" fanfare bits and now it's done.

I think (note: not the be-all end-all truth of the world) matrimonial sites also exist because some (note: also read as "not everyone") people are convinced they aren't capable of looking out for their own interests.

Traditional Hindu arranged marriages involve marrying someone chosen by your parents from your subcaste, after consulting the stars. According to Razib, 30-40% of South Asians marry non-South Asians. Among those marrying South Asians, I am willing to bet the clear majority are inter-caste or inter-region. Even those within acceptable traditional parameters are often based on meetups or "dates." Perhaps as few as twenty percent of marriages are traditional arranged here.

But we're not talking about the subcontinent. Aren't we talking about the institute of marriage in our culture here? I agree that individual concerns are far less of a priority in the desh. I understand why, too -- in my family the girl still goes to live with her husband and his whole family, the whole kit-and-caboodle of tradition. It's more important that you find a social group that offers a stable environment where you will be loved and treated well rather than someone who has interests that match yours -- you're marrying the family, not just your husband. (Duh.)

THUS the entire gist of this post -- relationships and dating are way different here, hence the problems in priority when the p-units start the fix-ups.

MD, I like "fix-ups!" Let's use that :)

Aren't we talking about the institute of marriage in our culture here

I'm talking about people who grew up here, but have parents the grew up there. They bring with them their traditions and perceptions and that's perfectly fine I'd do the same thing if I were in their position. As intelligent beings who can carefully analyze both processes, it's up to them to have the courage to discard a system if it's inherently flawed, (based on the above mentioned motivations).

Eiugh. I didn't finish my thought --

HMF, I'm not trying to just prolong an argument here; in fact I think we may agree on some basic principles. What I wanted to say was -- if you feel like your family is more concerned with YOU pleasing those around you rather than your own personal happiness, that really sucks and I'm sorry. I just question that this is how it is "mostly" done.

Actually, maybe this is a male/female thing. Maybe my whole "your parents want you to be happy with those around you" is ingrained in me because I'm a woman. My mom once told me that it was common in our society for people to marry their 2nd/3rd cousins. They were much more comfortable with it than we are, and she said they actually preferred to marry girls off within the family because then they knew the family, and they knew their girl would be treated right. (I still think it's kind of ick.)

if you feel like your family is more concerned with YOU pleasing those around you rather than your own personal happiness

Here's the subtlety I'm trying to make. They are interested in my personal happiness, but subconsciously, they feel I will be happy when I'm serving "large order societal" goals - ie making others happy.

I just question that this is how it is "mostly" done

According to this book:

Ramu, G.N. Family and Caste in Urban India : A case study. (c. 1977)

Studies showed primary rationale for marriage was continuation of the kula (lineage), not personal happiness or "love"

HMF, that study is so old, it's almost ineligible for an arranged marriage. ;)

No one knows that better than me, but somehow I don't think McDonalds and cellphones will really change the attitude.

The "archaic" notion probably comes from child brides being married off to 70 yr old men a la "Water."

But along the lines of what Rupa said, in some of these cases, the bride doesn't just have to marry the husband but the whole damn family!

you're marrying the family, not just your husband.

You're doing that anyway, arranged marriage or not. On the flip side, he's marrying your family too.

Pondatti #49 -- Ha!

Certainly their knowledge of you, the young man, and the qualities two people need to get along has to be as good as the algorithms of Match.com.

The above statement ties into whats below.

Wait- wot’s this? Someone who isn’t second gen can be “confused”? Shocking. Utterly astonishing, I tell you. ;) I thought we American Born-types had a monopoloy on bewilderment.

Anna might understand that a lot of the First genners are confused, but my parents (dare I say a lot of our parents) cannot fathom the idea (they try, but it's beyond their reach). I experienced a lot of what my parents saw and a little bit more.

New people, culture and a very different society creates a hybrid (like it did in my case). Things that were preached as "wrong" are not anymore.

Ultimately it depends on which side you give into, if you and your folks have had the same experience and how much you trust your own judgment.

Rupa asks: >>Aren't we talking about the institute of marriage in our culture here?

What institution of marriage here? One doesn't exist.

M. Nam

its a tough call either way. How long does one need to live with the person before he/she decides to live forever with that person? Its always taking a chance -whether its the first "date" ( pretty much the only date you may ever get in an arranged situation ) Or a 100 dates. So for all those who do not believe in an arranged marriage, I ask you this - How many people do you have to sleep with before you can decide - yes I like this fuck better than all the previous ones and so let me go with this one. In an "arranged" situation, the expectation from one another is REALLY NOT TO EXPECT MUCH, so there is less likely to have any disappointments and more likely to be "oh well, its arranged" kind of an adjustmental/sacrificial attitude with each other. Moreover, there are plenty of people to lean-on for support during any marital issues, as it isn't your responsibility alone and to an extent some problems may be resolved by intereference from interested parties. Whereas in a "self-hooked-up" situation, egos take precedence over anything else, so its less likely that the issues at hand will be addressed amicably. NO ?

What institution of marriage here? One doesn't exist.

Oh yeah? So what does IIM stand for? There's one in Ahmedabad, another in Kolkata, another in Lucknow...

What institution of marriage here? One doesn't exist.

The one that gay people really want to get into, and the one that people don't want them to get into. ;)

Here's the subtlety I'm trying to make. They are interested in my personal happiness, but subconsciously, they feel I will be happy when I'm serving "large order societal" goals - ie making others happy.

So tell them to chill with the Iyengars. Bring home your own honey and them to take that. The pain over dishonoring kula and jati will last a couple of weeks.

arranged marriage is good. i am afraid to talk to girls. without arranged marriage i don't think i would be able to get a wife. plus my mom and dad taught me that i should treat girls with respect, and that loose talk with them may put me at risk of being labeled as having a questionable character within the community.

So tell them to chill with the Iyengars. Bring home your own honey and them to take that. The pain over dishonoring kula and jati will last a couple of weeks.

But I ain't Rick James Bitch.

Iyengars?

hema:>>The one that gay people really want to get into, and the one that people don't want them to get into. ;)

And this is exactly what I tell them as well: You're barking up the wrong tree. Beating around the wrong bush. Buying the wrong stock. There's no such institution remaining in the West.

M. Nam

that loose talk with them may put me at risk

Ha! Is that what we're calling it these days? ;-)

We must allow the gays to marry, that way they can be as miserable as we breeders are. I refuse to hoard all of this resentment and bitterness, not when I could share it with my more fabulous brethren. Pity parties would be way better planned, it’s a total win-win. Why should straight people have all the pain? The gays! I welcome you to the divorce! And the pre-nup! And the boredom!

This topic again!!! Just kidding- not freaking out! ;-)

I think it depends upon how one was raised and what was going on in that area/community/family. It doesn't have to be related to country even, b/c I recently met a gorgeous/successful FOB couple from Bangladesh (my parents' old country) who live together after getting enegaged. I was shocked b/c I had not come across this before, BUT that's my experience.

Yes, you are marrying their family, b/c they will be in your face (or adoring you, depending on how it goes) at typical holidays/vactions/etc. My little sis is now dealing w/ her future mother-in-law (who sounds like a control freak, not unlike my sis- LOL). Seriously, most people have relatives you have to deal with.

Arranged marriage, or even arranged dating, SCARES the hell out of me still. BUT, who knows, one day I may change my mind! (I think it's coming soon, b/c I'm 28!!!)

arranged marriage is good. i am afraid to talk to girls. without arranged marriage i don't think i would be able to get a wife. plus my mom and dad taught me that i should treat girls with respect

Its women son. Well Vimen works too, but if they are looking for a girl, you might want to chill out for a couple of more years. ;-)

Iyengars?

[Insert jati here]. Seriously, the pain will last a couple of weeks. And then they will get back into the business of interfering in your life all over again. :-)

oh my god!!!

i read "dear prudie" religiously!!!!* and when i read today's column, i couldn't help but wonder if it would end up on SM ...

anna, i really you sometimes

*and Margo on Yahoo! who was the prior Prudie, has mini columns on thurs & friday!!!, and is the daugher of ann landers --- not that i'm obsessive about this stuff or anything

And then they will get back into the business of interfering in your life all over again. :-)

Yes and it normally goes something like this..

Mini-Me Boy's parents: [writes] Are you sure you she don't have a little clone in you her?

Foxxy Cleopatra Boy: Yes I'm sure.

Mini-Me Boy's parents: [writes] Would you like to? Well, we would like to.

Well Vimen works too, but if they are looking for a girl, you might want to chill out for a couple of more years.

Amen to that, bro! Amen!

I think the "suckiness" quotient of a relationship is all dependent on the attitudes of the people involved. It has nothing to do with arranged (assisted) or not.

Obviously there are different types of arranged marraiges. What is percieved to be more "traditional" is the type where there's no say in whom you marry, ie. our sad abductee from post 1. That is quite rare indeed. And sure there's the inbreeding/satisfy the community type as well, but from what I've seen that's increasingly rare too. My concept of arranged marriage (as a 1.5 gen) is more akin to a blind date. Those happen in the West all the time. "Hey, I think you'd really get along with my brother/best friend/cousin" is not unlike parents saying, "hey, I know you well and I know a guy whose company I think you'd really enjoy." My father is a therapist, and you'd be alarmed at the number of white folks (to be politically incorrect) who ask him to set them up with the intent of marriage. They feel comfortable talking to him, he knows them well, and it works just like it would back home. Honestly, if I had hit 35 and were single I'd certainly ask him to set me up with someone, and I've been out of the motherland since age 4. Who better than my parents who love me, know me, and want someone who'll take care of me & cherish me?

and 35 yr olds, please don't take offense. That's me saying that I personally would feel lonely, not that that's some cut off age for desperation.

Here's the subtlety I'm trying to make. They are interested in my personal happiness, but subconsciously, they feel I will be happy when I'm serving "large order societal" goals - ie making others happy.

I completely agree with this and I would add that this is not necessarily intentional. Parents believe they really are going to pick the best person for thier child. But the notion that "parents will pick whats best" assumes the parents have a good understanding of who their child's identity. Even as an Indian growing up in the US I know that is very often not true. So, how do the parent's pick their child's mate? They project their notions of identity and necessary qualities on to their child and assume what makes them happy (and what made their own parents happy) will also make their child happy. And, so children are "assisted" into marrying exactly those suiters who fit the mold their parents were raised with themselves and those who maintain the larger social goals.

i think it is important to destroy the dichotomy between arranged & non-arranged marriages. there's a spectrum. e.g., "set ups" have a bit of the arranged aspect, while many "arranged" marriages involve a lot of choice within the sample of possible potential mates selected by parents/relatives. the "western" and "indian" norms lean toward one end of the spectrum, but there is a lot of within group variation and both tendencies are average exhibit admixture.

This is a landmark moment: the first time I've completely agreed with everything razib said. I definitely think the dichotomy is a problem and needs to be broken, while still maintaining some critique of the institutions of marriage and patriarchy overall...

There's no such institution remaining in the West.

Oh but there is if it applies to legality. The piece of paper doesn't bring more love or a guarantee or fidelity or anything for that matter but it certainly guarantees certain benefits that require one to be legally married so I'm not sure I'm ready to throw that institution out yet.

Do you know what the infield fly rule is?

Yes. But tell me first how you feel about the DH. And Dice K...because you know, because that's all anyone talks about anymore.

Nicely done, Hema. As soon as I read HMF's question, the lawyer in me thought: "NEVER ask a question for which you don't know the answer!" Of course, not that your original answer would be any less valid if you had no clue about the infield fly rule or when one might call for a hit-and-run.

My 2 paise....

My in-laws had the classic arranged marriage - Did not see each other till Wedding day etc .50+ years later they are remarkably happy and complement each other so well. My parents had a - gasp! - "love" marriage .40+ years later they are remarkably happy and complement each other so well.

My parents thankfully never believed in arranging/assisting things along. I hope my marriage will be as strong and happy as the examples the in-laws and parents set me.

I have friends (in the US and India) who were madly in love, dated for 7+ years, married and ended up going through ugly divorces.
I have friends ( in the US and India) whose families assisted /arranged their marriages and they are very happy together.

So - though personally I could not fathom going through an "arranged marriage", I am with Prudie here.
Agree totally with # 71

Clueless # 1 : I am sorry things did not work out for you .Whatever you are going through I hope you will find the courage to make a better life for yourself whether within or outside of the marriage.

I think the "suckiness" quotient of a relationship is all dependent on the attitudes of the people involved. It has nothing to do with arranged (assisted) or not.

You're first statement is true, the second statement is partly true. In an assisted/arranged case where pressure was placed externally to make the decision, this can often make the person resentful, and shade the attitude of the person before the relationship ever gets going.

JOAT #76:

My point exactly!

Marriage was a social institution throughout the history of man. Only in the last fifty years or so, it has been converted to a legal institution. And promptly, like everything the Government gets its hands into, the institution has withered drastically.

If you don't want Social Security/Medicare and other related Government handouts from a spousal angle, there's no point in getting married (whether you are straight or gay). Unless, of course, you believe in the Social institution of marriage. In that case, people need to rethink how much of that has survived in the West, and if it's worth the trouble.

M. Nam

Maybe I am a lil bored or have recently watched Chris Rock's HBO special so...

Arranged marriages don't suck.

In that case, people need to rethink how much of that has survived in the West, and if it's worth the trouble.

Personally, I think enough of it has survived that many people still aspire to marriage as a goal for their life, and not just for the benefits that accrue from marriage either. Yes, people get divorced, but the divorce rate in some parts of the US suggests that a lot more people stay married too.

And extrapolating to the West in general, the divorce rate in the UK is considerably lower than in the US. Does that mean then that marriage is more viable as an institution there than it is here?

HMF - I see what you're saying and agree. I think my 2nd statement relied too much on the assumption that everyone can make this decision without external influence. I forgot, prematurely, of the emotional situation some experience when they're confronted with the "did you want to meet so-and-so?". Much like the person who went on vacation and ended up married, I don't know exactly what transpired there, but I'm sure, there was enough influence to help this person make the "right" decision.

Nicely done, Hema. As soon as I read HMF's question, the lawyer in me thought: "NEVER ask a question for which you don't know the answer!" Of course, not that your original answer would be any less valid if you had no clue about the infield fly rule or when one might call for a hit-and-run.

Relax buddy, it was a joke. And anyone can reply "Yes" without a follow up description. But, as I don't really care, I didn't push for a follow up description. But the kind of activities she described, as far as I'm concerned, fall well outside the range of what's classified as "romance"

Intimacy, and having common interests (baseball and ice cream) are indeed things that probably do contribute to lasting long term relationships. One party jumping through hoops (buying chocolate, opening doors, buying roses, etc...) for the other, does not.

Jeez. Yes, anyone can say "yes" without a follow-up, but here's my understanding of your precious infield fly rule.

The infield fly rule is when the bases are loaded, there's two outs (or less). If you have a fair fly ball, the batter is out, as long as the ball was catchable by an infielder, even if it doesn't actually get caught. Or something like that.

So there! ;)

Close, the bases don't have to be loaded, just as long as a runner is on second or third (if there's only a runner on 1st it doesnt matter), and there has to be less than 2 outs, not less than or equal to 2 outs. The rule is meant to take away the easy double play

Allright folks...time for Marriage 101.

Marriage started out as an institution where a boy and a girl requested/were granted permission to fuck. This permission has historically been granted by parents/society in the Indian setup and parents/Church in the western setup. This permission was granted with strings attached: That they would be together for life, and that if they deviated there would be severe physical, economic and social consequences. There was also the stipulation that they would have to largely surrender their individuality for the sake of those who gave them permission and for their children. Those who did not produce children(within a stipulated time) were deemed deviant and had to experience significant amount of pain.

This is how it's been for millennia.

Now tell me, how much of that is relevant today in the West? If you answered "none", then tell me why you want to get married in the first place.

M. Nam

But Hema.. not bad, for a girl..

Marriage started out as an institution where a boy and a girl requested/were granted permission to fuck

Thanks, HMF. I'll take that as the compliment it was so obviously meant to be! ;)

Purush:

love - Alllrighty then...

old-age companionship - there are many old-age homes...paid for by the state

long-term planning: Why bother? The State takes care of you

stable environment for kids: Why have kids? The State takes care of you

propogation of the species: You owe nothing to anyone, least of all to the species.

>>Hope UPenn invites you to teach Evolutionary Psychology next year

I'll reject the invite. Academia is probably the most guilty in destroying the institution of marriage.

M. Nam

Marriage started out as an institution where a boy and a girl requested/were granted permission to fuck.

I'm going to be even more cynical and say that marriage started out as an institution to make paternity (and consequent property inheritance) more certain. Marriage, and the concomitant requirement that a woman be chaste in the marriage essentially ensured that the father of any children was also the husband, and he could then devolve his property on those children without concern.

But over the centuries, marriage has become less about property rights and more about social liaisons. Therefore, it has value in different ways than it once did.

how would you measure "success" in love-matches vs. any variety of arranged marriage?

if it's by longevity, my family's record on both is identical.

any other ideas?

The State...

When I was forced to get married at the age of 20 on my 1st and only ever trip to India, it was my grandparents on both sides and some older aunt and uncles plus relatives I never met before in Punjab who put the pressure on my parents for me to get married. At the time I was as whitewashed or a coconut as one could be, I had little to no understanding of my punjabi culture. Alot of them want off on my parent about forgetting there roots.

As soon I get off the plane for 3 month trip to India, people asked me when I was going to get married. I thought they were joking, but it was the same thing every day. At 1st my parents were against the idea, but after all the criticsm they get as parents for having me as a son, plus my stupid now dead grandmother threatned to disown my dad if I didn't get married my parents caved in.

I saw over a dozen different girls there. One time I met 2 sisters at the same time and asked to pick the one I like. It was weird to see all these people who wanted to me to marry there daughter only cause I had a canadian passport. I kept saying no over and over again. One of the last girls I saw my family chose her to be my wife no matter what I had to say.

If one good thing came out of this other then my beautiful daughter, is that my siblings, younger cousins and the children of my older cousins will not have be put in the same situation that I was put into. They all saw the disaster that was my marriage as example.

This whole "assisted marriage" (across the oceans) thing is only going to work in a situation where the woman is in America and the man in India. For women in India the norm is either an arranged marriage or a love marriage.

Most people scorn at women seen in public with a man they haven't married or are not going to marry. Their reputations are "tarnished" and this is a big reason why girls there wouldn't care for "assisted marriage". She would probably talk to you on the phone for hours but refuse to be seen in public with you unless she's made up her mind and knows you have too.

For men in India the case is a little different. They aren't labeled anything for being seen with a woman.

My point being - The way things are this whole "assisted marriage" thing wouldn't work in India or across the oceans unless its a scenario I mentioned in the first sentence.

If one good thing came out of this other then my beautiful daughter, is that my siblings, younger cousins and the children of my older cousins will not have be put in the same situation that I was put into. They all saw the disaster that was my marriage as example.

I am so sorry.

Muralimannered...I believe there is something referred to as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, a test for assessing the quality of marriage and other similar two-individual relationships. It's a 32 item scale still under some scrutiny, but has by far the highest validity and reliability factors while relationship research continues. As I'm sure many people here have already seen, there have also been many studies comparing the relative physical and emotional health of married, single, and divorced individuals with varying results (depending on what health hype magazine you find it in....).

Clueless, I am so sorry you had that experience and am glad that you were at least able to prevent it from happening to those you love, while gaining another to be part of your life.

Clueless...
Very sorry for you. Peace.

I think the hardest arrangements are the one's we make with ourselves.

I'm so sorry, Clueless.

Clueless, I am sorry and dejected over your experience. I understand the situation that led up to your marriage completely. 20 is a young age to get married - mature understanding of the world and adult relationships is only beginning to be formed - and to be pressured into a supposedly permanent one is harsher.

There are a number of complexities in this discussion. In India, there are numerous example of each part of the spectrum that Razib mentioned (#13), so it would be incorrect to assert that any one part has now disappeared. People are forced into marriages, given choices from a limited set, offered more freedom to locate from 'outside', simply allowed to choose what they will etc. The added complexity on top of all this is NRD (non-resident desi) aspect of things. Expectations/needs of nubile NRDs are decidedly different from family back home, and often from immediate older family in the west.

I have seen many FOB friends go to India, get married to strangers, bring them over, and as far as I know, live happily ever after. However, in almost all cases, they were provided with a short-list of potential mates within a certain set of their specifications (age range, education level, ambition, goal, physical traits etc.). These candidates were already acceptable to the parents (based on their own criteria - caste, standing, financial state etc.). In addition at least a couple of my friends were able to initiate e-mail only, no-commitment conversations with some of them. Both parties were able to assert some freedom in the whole process, and all this really helped them to shorten the list down to one or two people. From here on, it was mostly a trip home, confirm, and seal the deal :)

I can't claim to have friends from a hugely diverse educational background - most of them had gone to masters degree programs, followed by jobs in the US. So perhaps that accounts for the similarity of experience.

I saw over a dozen different girls there

If anybody cares I have forgiven my parents somewhat. It is other people in my family who used there influence on my parents that I do not care. These are relative despite living in the Canada/USA still think they are living in 1950's Punjab.

When I was shown all these girls, I was left in room by my self with them. I was a 20 year old that could barely speak punjabi and they were young girls who leanred and spoke English in school, but were very shy about speaking it to someone else. There was a lot of akward silence, and some of these girls would keep there head down.

What in the world did I have in common with them to speak about.

One thing - I've noticed this before but Clueless's comments involving Punjabi culture/language reminded me - Punjabi (mostly Sikh) ABDs with older immediate family that's lived in the west for a long time seem to be under extra pressure to get married younger, and specifically to people from desh. I just had an acquaintance get married at 24, to an 18 yr old girl in India. I mean 18 yr old girl !!!! I shudder the thought - I consider myself a kid at that age, and had I gotten married then, I would have surely missed out on some awesome student years, not to mention I probably would have been very ill-equipped to handle a married-person 'role'.

I can't place it as to that is so with this specific desi subgroup. Maybe the older immediate family never *really* assimilated? limited education? what? Any ideas? Is my impression even accurate?

Clueless,
I feel sorry for you and your wife. Must have been very difficult for both of you.

Maybe the older immediate family never *really* assimilated?

I can't speak specifically to the Punjabi subgroup issue, but I've certainly observed similar trends in my own extended family. There are a number of individuals who are stuck in a time/culture warp, where India and Indian society remain exactly as in the 1960s, when they first moved to the West. In contrast, my relatives who have remained in India actually seem more "progressive" in some ways, because they have observed/experienced the changes in Indian cultural mores over the last 40 years pretty much firsthand.

Clueless you were very brave to share your experience with us

HMF, Moornam You've both written some powerful words regarding our beloved (not so beloved) institution.

I think that marriage in relation to the westernized middle-classes serves as a badge, like a college or graduate degree; I am finally 'grown up'. Even the uberhip Carrie Bradshaw dreams about marriage with palpable doubts that only 4" Jimmy Choos can bury (for a few days anyways). When you see all your friends getting married you don't want to be alone. This social pressure may apply more to women but even guys...by the time you hit 29 or so..good luck hanging out with your married pals on a regular basis if you're single. It's not a pretty thought..the idea that social pressures have such an effect on independent ole us.....but the subconscious can be a biatch!

Clueless, powerful and poignant story. 20 is young for a woman to get married, but for a man it's VERY young, given our delayed maturity. I certainly understand a lot more now about some of your earlier comments on SM, and their context.

To add to what Seeker said in #106, caste is a very major issue with these tradition-minded families as well. People MUST get married within their specific caste, period.

Punjabi Sikhs as a specific desi subgroup do have a lot of rural or village origin people in the diaspora...which explains some of the conservatism...but Gujaratis in America who hail from a rural origin in Gujurat also have a lot of very traditional notions, and also favor early marriages, within strict caste requirements (think motel owners in the southern USA). I think it's not a regional thing but a rural thing, which desis from urban, middle-class, English-medium backgrounds won't necessarily understand. I'd be interested in knowing if Sri Lankan Tamils in Canada, who also often have a rural origin in Sri Lanka, are as strict when it comes to their 2nd gen kids' marriages.

Clueless, I feel sorry for you and your wife. Must have been very difficult for both of you.

Absolutely, let's not forget his wife...she was probably under her own intense pressures.

Clueless, one more thing if it's any consolation...at least you have your daughter, and had her at a nice young age...while the rest of us (myself included) delay marriage and kids further and further, because we're all so complicated and so hard to please, until by the time we ever have a kid (which I would say is IF rather than WHEN for many of us) we'll be pushing 40.

quite fitting that clueless scored the first response in this thread.

Given the dual lives that a lot of 1.5 and 2nd gen desi kids live, how accurately can parents pinpoint what is best for their child? Their input data is all wrong because they're missing half of the picture. Arranged marriage is a most fearsome proposition to sons and daughters that have allowed their parents to develop an auntie friendly perception of themselves.

Generally speaking, the better your relationship with your parents, the more likely it is that an arranged marriage could work. Ironically, the better your relationship with your parents is, the less likely they are to try and strip you of choice.

And that's what it all boils down to - choice: whether you would rather choose your own disaster or sink into the comfortable blame-free role of blaming your parents for your misery.

ps. Is it wrong that I obtained my mother's email address password for the purpose of inspecting (and filtering) the biodata she receives?

arranged marriages are typically portrayed as arrangements made with business and social status as the primary considerations. This is really not too far off the mark. What is different about living in the states is that the environment here offers so many competing standards of courtship that, pragmatically, any prospective matchmaker (outside of highly illegal abductions)must understand that we cannot be thrown together like mismatched puzzle pieces as some of our parents were.

It doesn't seem to take terribly long for a recently arrived immigrant to become at least curious about many of the individual rights that Americans now seem to take for granted.

I recently met a very sweet Muslim girl who came (illegally) from India w/ her parents to NYC 4 yrs ago. She is getting married, at the behest of her mom at (age 19) to an older, settled (I assume citizen) guy who owns his own house and takes care of his parents as well. She met him once or twice and thought he was "cute" and "nice to this mother." Her former teacher and counselors told her what to watch out for (to determine his character). They were a little bit apprehensive, but that is in her culture, so didn't say anything against it. I wonder if her illegal status can be changed b/c of marriage!

Generally speaking, the better your relationship with your parents, the more likely it is that an arranged marriage could work. Ironically, the better your relationship with your parents is, the less likely they are to try and strip you of choice.

Excellently put. I'd add, the less likely they are to adopt a "we know whats best for you" attittude, refusing to acknowledge that this decision is not one to take it as lightly as their parents, and their parents parents and their parents parents parents, have.

Clueless I gotta give you your props on sharing this story with up man. I have to ask are you still married to her?

Clueless,

Your story seems made up. Your wording suggests someone who has little comprehension of the English language (and I'm overlooking the tons of spelling mistakes). The sentence formation is similiar to that I've seen by conmen on loan applications. A 20+ year old Canadian will not write like this, despite having an arranged marriage!

You've read a lot about various things happening to people in Punjab. You've added all of them up to create this scenario on a public forum for fun. I'm not even sure you're a man. Your choice of words and adjectives are similiar to those normally used by fob women and teenage girls.

I normally don't get into personal lives and attacks, but had to respond to this since there was an outpouring of sympathy for you on this board. If there's anything I cannot stand, it's undeserved praise, criticsm or sympathy.

In the 1% chance that I'm wrong, I have a question. Having shared all this with us, how come you did not share exactly what went wrong after marriage? What is it about her that put(s) you off?

M. Nam

Thank you, MoorNam. I had the same feeling reading all these sympathetic remarks. My guess is that clueless never expected replies to his/her comment and forgot about it. He/she checked back long after the story had been posted and realized that some commenters took the bait, and ran with the it.

I hope I'm wrong.

Here is my story: I am also a 1.5 gen., female. I was forced to get married at the age of 18 by my parents, but I had a say in who I want to get married to. I have seen 35 to 40 guys in India and none of those people fit into my imaginary companion. Anyhow, I finally had to choose a guy because Daddy said I have no other choice but to get married. So I chose a guy who was also my brother-in-law’s cousin and he was only 24 years old. I have to say we fallen in love after the marriage and he is my true soul mate. After 21 years of marriage and 2 kids, our love for each other never ceased but growing stronger every day. Oh, we are celebrating our 22nd Wedding Anniversary this month.

MoorNam and MFunnierThanYou:

For shame, Clueless has pages worth of comments left here, from the same IP, on several different topics, each of which "backs up" his story, not that he should have to do such a thing. If he concocted his tale then he did it months ago and has stuck with it since. I think an apology might be in order.

Clueless, thank you for sharing your story with us. I hope you don't regret doing so because of two skeptics.

To Clueless and all SM-ers,

I sincerely apologize for my remarks about the authenticity of Clueless' story. I was not aware of the now obvious fact that Clueless has a history with SM.

In high school, topic #1 was why won't mom let me date. Now it's arranged marriage. See you in 10 years when it's why the little ones are dating people we disapprove :-)

I had a bad typing attack and meant to write us instead of up.

i know a couple that were an arranged marriage couple. they have been married for 16 years now. they have 3 kids and are truly in love. beautiful post!

"I'd be interested in knowing if Sri Lankan Tamils in Canada, who also often have a rural origin in Sri Lanka, are as strict when it comes to their 2nd gen kids' marriages. "

Other than for Brahmins, caste is not nearly as strong a factor anymore as it is in other south asian cultures.

#126:

Other than for Brahmins, caste is not nearly as strong a factor anymore as it is in other south asian cultures.

I've read this sentence five times now, and I still don't understand what it means.

MoorNam, you've completely lost credibility with me. Now you've gone too far. This guy (Clueless), who was formerly PearlJamFan, has been extremely consistent throughout his time posting here, just as SM Intern mentioned. In previous threads he has alluded to his age, his daughter, his family and relatives, his religions, his being from Canada, his disturbing trip to India in the past, his disgust with many aspects of desi/Punjabi culture, etc. I don't fully agree with a lot of what he usually posts (at least not the extremes he takes things to sometimes, although there is often a lot of sense in what he says) but at least it is clear there is a context and a background to what he posts. He knows firsthand of the things he speaks, even if his conclusions might be controversial. I don't mean to take this thread off-topic but you've disgusted me with your comment and I had to express that.

"his religions" was a typo...I meant "his religion".

40 · Differently-abled Gypsy on April 12, 2007 02:29 PM · Direct link
"Wow. I have to admit to having no sense of the etymology of the word, so my apologies for any offense caused. I've never heard the term used as a racist pejorative before. Again, sorry."
"No problem. It was my gentle riff on this [reference to my objection to the use of "ret_rded in a previous post"]"

Yeah, because it's not like Anna isn't a bit too old to speak like an adolescent boy. Sepia Mutiny is one of the crappier online communities.

*make that ethnic online communities

In the 1% chance that I'm wrong,

This, I think, sums up MoorNam...he can be 100% wrong but only thinks he might be 1% wrong. Yes, this time it was a personal comment, and I'm fine with it.

Yeah, because it's not like Anna isn't a bit too old to speak like an adolescent boy. Sepia Mutiny is one of the crappier online communities.

Boris, if it is so crappy, why do you visit this "ethnic online community"? Post another personal, non-issue focused flame and you won't have to be so burdened anymore.

You have left thoughtful and valuable comments in other threads, what I excerpted above is anomalous, which leads me to believe it's personal.

The best part abt arranged marriages is that you get the credit for its success but the blame for failure lied elsewhere.

#126:

Other than for Brahmins, caste is not nearly as strong a factor anymore as it is in other south asian cultures.

I've read this sentence five times now, and I still don't understand what it means.

It means - I want to be an anti-brahmin troll. Hence I will make incomprehensible equalities like "brahmin" being a "south asian culture".

SM intern - posting one more time will change the fact that every remotely progressive comment I leave gets attacked every single time?

As to why I bother with this particular one - well, it's the only one I know of so far that's my *own* ethnic comm! It bothers me that I get a more thoughtful reception on others but not my own. Oh, and most refrain from using immature derogatory terminology like "ret_rded" (or at least get called out by a bunch of people).

And it wasn't personal - I ought to have said, "The poster" instead when criticizing how using terms like that lowers the tone.

@ #9 - shlok

By any chance is this a certain A. Singh?

Everything I said in my post #95 is true. I was married little more then a decade ago in the Moga, Punjab area.

Sorry I had to step out and couldn't answer a few questions.

My family is very assimlated compare to most other punjabi's in the USA and especially Canada. In fact my parents becoming too western played a part in my marriage. They took alot of criticsm for forgetting there roots and I guess that why they felt I should get married after pressure from other family members.

When I want to India, alot of relatives on both of my parents side from both Canada/USA at the same time. The relatives who put pressure on me to get married, are the ones who live in the west yet are stuck in 1960 Punjab way of thinking, of course with my luck those were the ones at India at the same time.

For those who don't know I born and raised in area where out of 75,000 people, at least 98% of the people were white and there were only 20 desi families all but a couple of them punjabi. The thing is that I had very little exposure to punjabi culture and the few times I did, it want in one ear and out the other. Despite being in area that was 98% white, I never once felt out of place, or feel like I did not belong. But the funny thing is now living in area with the biggest punjabi population outside of punjab I feel like a total outsider.

I was born and raised in Canada, but the closest major city was Spokane Washington. That is somewhat of clue to where I grew up.

Clueless,

Again I apologize for my remarks.
I know what you mean though, about feeling like an outsider within the Indian community. When I hang out with my non-Indian friends, ethnicity isn't even an issue. I'm "allowed" to like alternative music. With Indian acquaintances, it's always, "Uh, can we turn off the 'gora' music?" That's just one example, but you get the idea. It's sucks that it's hard to find an Indian with similar interests as me, especially when your interests are different from the status quo, even within your own background. Then parents get mixed into the equation...
As my friend used to say, "Complications make life interesting." I guess, in a way, that's why this blog exists. So I'm glad our lives are so complicated, because at least it gives us something to have in common.

Now let's all hold hands and skip ;)

Some people said they should also feel sorry for my wife. I agree with them, she too had it hard comming to a new country. To be honest I will be the 1st to say that I have not been a good husband, I have tried my best, but we had nothing in common when we get married, and right now the only thing we have in common is our daughter. I guess so long being in a loveless marriage I have get used to it for the sake of my daughter.

Infact my wife wants another child and I don't want one. Like I told in another topic last week. Alot of punjabi people I don't know that well have told me that I should or need to have a son other wise my life is incomplete.

Also when I get back from India, my friends were all shocked to say the least. Alot of my friends both male and female had parents who said that I could move in with them. One of my friends dad who is a lawyer even offered to help me get out of my marriage for free.

For those wondering yes last year I was PearlJamFan on this blog. At the time I upset some people with my bashing of punjabi culture among other things. I apologize for getting carried away with my comments some time.

But I hope that people also understand why issues like multicultrism vs intergration/asslimation, the type of people who immigrated to western countries, sexism in punjabi culture and other topics like that are important to me after what I have been through in my life.

DMM: Im so happy for you. A very very happy anniversary to you :)

Clueless: Clueless, feel really bad about what has happened. I hope something works out for both of you. I really wish those horrid people would stop creating more misery for you with the "you should have a son" bit :(

You know, this reminds me of the time when I was also supposed to marry some 2gen. guy from New York. His folks were friends with my folks. they had left for the US some 20+ yrs back and since then never met my parents- only exchanged christmas cards every year. One fine day they call up from out for the blue- and guess what they want to get their son married to me! My relatives were like "Ohhh we know the family...they're very nice..he's a US citizen.. bla bla bla". But what about the boy, I used to ask! They had never seen him, never known him! And just because you know the parents doesnt mean you know the son/daughter by default! It was too creepy for me. My parents were very keen on it as well, but I was way too scared, so they backed out!

After a few years, I met someone- and he was everything I had hoped for in a partner! Only he was muslim. We had a tough time convincing our parents, but at last it was a wedding blessed and attended by all. We had a Christian ceremony, a muslim ceremony and then a civil marriage :) Everything worked out just fine.. Its been four years since and our parents couldnt be happier for us.....

I'm not even sure you're a man. Your choice of words and adjectives are similiar to those normally used by fob women and teenage girls.

Not that I distrust the story or source or anything, but to be truthful, the quoted statement holds an iota of truth with me. I've thought the poster was female all this time as well. But what I'm curious is, can other Punjabi's relate similar stories? or at least the existence of them? 20 seems quite young for a male, even in the most backwards of backwards cultures. I'm not doubting the account, just wondering if it's commonplace or an aberration.

Iyengars?

YEAH!

risible (#59):

So tell them to chill with the Iyengars.

Just be careful which Iyengars you chill with...

Allright Clueless. Let me give you the benefit of doubt and apologise. But I would like you to hear my side as to my skepticism...

1. Your English is very bad for a 30+ year old who's born and brought up in Canada in a mostly white neighbourhood/culture. It's more like that of an fob's who went to "Lurn Inglish in too months" school in India to nail a software job abroad.

2. There was an overwhelming amount of sympathy for you on this board, and you did not thank anyone for it. Not one line. This is highly unusual and is more likely from a person who made up the story (and hence did not need the empathy).

3. You're still married, and yet brought your personal martial life onto a public forum. This is highly unusual as well. People talk about their ex'es on public forums all the time, but almost never their spouse (unless it's for general informational purposes like "My spouse was born in Uganda").

4. You claimed that you had no inkling of Punjabi culture, but your some of your writings are a direct translation from Punjabi. Like "It went from one ear to the other". That strikes me as odd.

5. When a commentary that tantamounts to "I cry myself to sleep every night" comes from a man, it is highly unbelievable. Men deal with their issues differently.

I could go on, but then what's the point? One thing is for sure. Yours is a very unique case.

M. Nam

MoorNam, he said "it want in one ear and out the other", not "It went from one ear to the other". So he got it right. Furthermore his English is no worse than anyone's who writes quickly and informally FOR A BLOG post...it's not like he was trying to write an essay to get in to college or anything. As for bringing his personal story on this forum, so what? It's not like we know his real name or his address, or are ever going to meet him. He has lost absolutely nothing in terms of privacy by sharing his story here. Lastly, there was no element of crying himself to sleep; if anything, he seems to have accepted things, and to be focused on his kid. Obviously it did leave him with a bad taste in his mouth for many things desi. It is a unique case only in that 20 is extrememly young for a man...but if you push it up to the 24-26 age range, you'll find countless men who were pressurised into marriage. Granted women have it MUCH worse.

Amitabh,

By no means am I implying that the hurt is not there. Indeed, Clueless's frustration shows very well in all comments. And I do agree that such cases exist. I was only skeptical about the story because everything went wrong, and yet he's still married with a kid (and maybe plan to have another).

I was thinking that Clueless was an unmarried Punjabi woman who has seen someone close (sisters/cousins) suffer from these kinds of marriages and wants to bring it out into this forum to learn how to deal with this kind of situation.

Lastly, another thing strikes as odd. When I posted my skepticism, there was an outburst of anger from many. But nothing from Clueless. A 30+ year old man who does not get angry when his deepest feelings are rejected as a fraud? Unusual.

M. Nam

I'm going to put myself out there and say this without apology and am seriously not trying to derail the conversation but since Moornam is getting heat I feel the need to say it.

I called Clueless out as a troll several times in the past because after having dealt with insanely similar posts in the past for so many years on that other desi board I'm not going to apologize for spotting one. However I shut up after I realized that no one seemed to share my sentiment on it and really in the grand scheme of things it was pointless to really argue. It is definitely one handle I avoid and do not interact with.

But I'm on Moornam's side on this. The situation may as well be real, I would never deny that. I know people like that and it's unfortunate and sad and it evokes empathy because we all know someone that has been thru this.

However I'm sorry but I haven't yet bought the notion that the situation is his own. So be it. And yes I've followed his posts and what he writes and not just this story but haven't bought most of what he seems to portray as his story in the past.

And this isn't any personal attack on him because I don't know him from the nail on the wall but when your empathy has been milked by virtual people looking for personal entertainment as much as mine has you learn to spot the signs. Moornam unfortunately and I'm really sorry to have to say this has nailed it.

But I'm on Moornam's side on this.

Damn, this is huge. This is almost like Cassius Clay's joining the Nation of Islam, total reversal.

I guess I'm going to be the cynic here, and ask what difference it makes whether Clueless's story is his own, or simply a retelling of something that happened to someone else. The issues raised are still relevant for discussion, aren't they?

The next time someone accuses us of being cliqueish, I'm going to point them to this thread and say it's not us, it's some of our commenters. I am disappointed in those of you who would continue to "call someone out" even after we have intervened to say that he is not a troll. MFunnierthanyou, good for you for having the grace to admit your error and apologize. I wish more were as mature and sensitive as you.

MoorNam and Jane of All Trades, please stop it. If you have your doubts, keep them to yourselves. No one wants or needs to hear about them. You are wrong and trying to "build your case" as a means of explanation is inappropriate. It's not fair of you to gang up on someone needlessly and it isn't right to make this space unsafe for others, lest they worry that you two would judge them and accuse them of being fake. Did you stop and think about that? Your actions might prevent someone from interacting with others here, because really, the last thing a victim needs is more pain. Further comments about whether or not someone is "real" will be deleted.

Ok.

M. Nam

And just whom do you plan on reporting me to, MoorNam? Are you seriously comparing my moderating a thread to a cop brutalizing a suspect? That doesn't trivialize the latter at all.

You can't ever accept that you're wrong, can you? Pity.

Sweet.

Thanks SM Intern and Amitbah

If anybody wants to asks any questions they can email me.

Moornam you are right about one thing, I can't spell to save my live.

For those people who think I'm making this story up. Why would I be the 1st person to comment on this story?

I love Prudie. I wait for her new post every Thursday! There, I've admitted it!

She gives really honest advice and that is why I thought it was great that she gave an open minded perspective toward arranged marriage. I don't know much about Clueless' situation, but I do think its strange that people expect his perspective to sound more "female".

In terms of my experience with the pressures of marriage, women seem to get it from 18-35, whereas men seem to start getting it more from 28-30+. However, even though the incubation period is shorter, it seems to be more intense. I actually do know a Gujarti guy who is in his 40s, who was raised in America and was forced into an arranged marriage with someone he didn't want to marry. He is also still in it, and has 2 kids. I think if some of us 1.5 gens came here in the late 60s or early 70s, the perspective would have been very different. I am not trying to underplay the pressure on women, but have come to understand that guys get a lot of it too.

For another perspective on arranged marriage, does anyone know what happened to that guy AC who had a blog that was devoted to the ups and downs of his arranged marriage? He was HILARIOUS! Please comeback if you are out there!

-The Fish Eyed One (You're welcome, A N N A)

Seeker (#106), I don't think this is a strictly Punjabi (or Punjabi Sikh) thing. I've met many desi women who get married young. Just depends on their parents, where they're located, personal attitudes/pressures, etc. Many of them felt that they wanted to be married straight out of college or whatnot, so they went for the arranged thing. They felt it was a faster way to meet people and decide. None of them were forced into marriages. Some are happy, some are less happy. I think this is the same for "love marriages." I would hope that if people's parents respected their wishes, they would not "pimp" their children on the "suitable girl/boy" circuit. That said, I think a lot of parents are just looking out for the kids and want the best for them (what they think is the best for their kid is, of course, debatable).

At the end of the day, I think it's really important for us to untangle "arranged" (meaning match-maker style) versus "arranged" (meaning forced from birth) marriages. I know we said we'd talk about the former, but I want to reiterate that because I think our own conflation of the two terms makes it hard to have relevant conversations about the topic it hand, which is match-maker style marriages.

But what I'm curious is, can other Punjabi's relate similar stories? or at least the existence of them? 20 seems quite young for a male, even in the most backwards of backwards cultures. I'm not doubting the account, just wondering if it's commonplace or an aberration.

That said, I have even more 2nd gen. desi friends who don't have this experience. I think it depends on the family, and on the girl!

But like I said, I have NEVER IN MY LIFE heard of a guy being pressured to get married at such a young age. Probably this is b/c of the whole "first get a career and be secure before you get settled" mentality that is tagged onto men. Just my conjecture.

However, even though the incubation period is shorter, it seems to be more intense.

This loadbalancing is an important point, for women, the pressure is, "get married before you can no longer have children" for men, it's "get married before you're too old to be marketable" Of course, there's a "too young to be marketable" age as well, hence the shorter timespan, and pressure cooker like behavior.

I believe the male pressure is more of a "you're not doing your duty to large scale society" variety, whereas the female pressure is "you'll be unprotected and uncared for" Different pressure, one's not necessarily greater than the other.

Some people have said it's not necessarily an east/west [hemisphere, not coast] thing, rather a rural/city thing. I've spent a great deal of time in rural America (so when I dog it, I do so from observed information), and I have yet to notice anything remotely close to an arranged/assisted system. There is of course the shotgun system, but that's usually for accidental pregnancies. Because, getting married and not having an abortion is the "Christian" thing to do..

Did JC authorize holding a gun to the groom's head? We don't worry ourselves with those little details.

I was talking to my father the other day and he said, "I want to show you this passage from this book I'm reading by Benjamin Disraeli". He is a stanch believer in arranged marriages because he really believes that the Indian system is responsible for the supposed higher stability of the Indian institution of marriage.

I wish I had the exact quote, but the gist of it was basically this: "Marrying for love is foolish because by the time you get to the altar, the love is all used up." It's implied later in the passage that if you get an arranged marriage, at least you can discover the love later so it will be there while you're actually married.

I've had one non-Indian girlfriend and one Indian girlfriend. Neither one worked out. I'm ashamed to say it but I started my second relationship more because the person was Indian, she had many great qualities, and I wanted to see if I could grow to love her (I knew she was interested). I found out I could not.

A lot of 2nd gen Indians I know, who are very adept at living the "dual life", have been brainwashed into accepting the Indian system at some level, deep within their psyche. I know that's why my first relationship failed, because the topic of culture clashes / eating habits in family gatherings / etc would come up often, and for some reason these things are very important to me. I know this drama plays out frequently in Indian / non-Indian relationships. However, in my second relationship I found I was violently internally opposed to the idea of giving myself the time to fall for someone.

So I guess my point is that what works for a person has almost everything to do with their mindset. If I was like Disraeli, I probably could have made my second relationship work. If I was a less fobby ABD, I probably would have been able to make the first relationship work. Unfortunately, because of the "dual life", right now I find myself both resisting assisted marriage and also yearning for a perfect match along all biodata rows, which is honestly the most restrictive position to be in. Ain't life grand?

To all those skeptics:

I grew up in Northern California and was raised with Sikhs, not Malayalees. I used to live near Yuba City. I went to Davis. All Sikh, Sikh, Sikh. There WERE 20-year old guys who were pressured in to getting married on a trip to the pind. There were even younger girls who faced similar; my best friend in college ran away from an arranged marriage she was supposed to enter at age 18. Just because it didn't happen to you or those whom you know, that doesn't make it any less real or any more deserving of scorn, contempt, skepticism.

Enough.

You can't ever accept that you're wrong, can you? Pity.

and the intern delivers the final knockout punch!!!

ANNA,

I don't think my question had any scorn in it, sorry if it did, but it was a genuine curiosity of a community that I don't know about. If someone posts something out of the ordinary, I think it's a reasonable question to ask whether its commonplace in any sort of setting or situation (e.g. Punjabi community).

What is the Pind?

A pind is a name for a village in Punjab.

HMF, that wasn't aimed just at you, several people seemed incredulous about it. Thanks for clarifying your intentions...anything which makes this thread less toxic is awesome, at this point.

HMF - being "from the pind" means "from the village." Whether or not it's derogatory depends on the context (e.g., I've had several Punjabi taxi drivers ask me what my parents' pind/shaher (village/city) is."

ANNA, I also did not mean any offense or disbelief of Clueless's story. I just meant to address HMF's question regarding whether it was common for Punjabis in the diaspora to experience marital pressure. I should have contextualized that many of my friends are from the Bay and Central Valley, but the fact that many of us met in college also means I don't meet many of the men and women who experienced these situations.

Was just trying to provide more context. Apologies if it came off as disbelieving or discrediting.

Some people have said it's not necessarily an east/west [hemisphere, not coast] thing, rather a rural/city thing. I've spent a great deal of time in rural America (so when I dog it, I do so from observed information), and I have yet to notice anything remotely close to an arranged/assisted system. There is of course the shotgun system, but that's usually for accidental pregnancies. Because, getting married and not having an abortion is the "Christian" thing to do..

I was the one who said it was a rural thing...but I meant rural INDIA (and I asked about Sri Lanka too)...I wasn't talking about rural AMERICA which is a whole different situation and culture.

Oh, God, Clueless,

My heart goes out to you. Your comments make me want to cry. It's just because, now I have a little son, and I would never in a million years allow him to be pushed into a marriage at the young age of 20. I mean, you are usually not even out of college! My husband and his brother were both advised not to marry before the age of 25 so they could at least be on their feet in the world. Before I had children, I thought of people in their 20s as peers, but then after my daughter, I saw them as children. I know, legally they are adults, but there is still so much left for them to grow through. My husband and I met in college and have been together for more than a decade too, but we chose each other, discussed the future, and came to a decision together (married later) and I think it would have been terrible to have been forced to marry at that young age, even for love. 20 year old kids are just not ready for that. I'm glad you have your daughter. Children are wonderful. I hope that whatever happens in your life, that you get the chance to be happy, and have what you want, and I wish that for your wife as well.

I was the one who said it was a rural thing...but I meant rural INDIA (and I asked about Sri Lanka too)...I wasn't talking about rural AMERICA which is a whole different situation and culture.

Understood. But some other people have also surmised the same behavior takes place in rural America as well.

For those who don't know I born and raised in area where out of 75,000 people, at least 98% of the people were white and there were only 20 desi families all but a couple of them punjabi. The thing is that I had very little exposure to punjabi culture and the few times I did, it want in one ear and out the other.

Hey, Clueless, I think know how you felt. I grew up in a (mid-sized) city where most people were white or Mexican-American (NOT a variety of other Hispanics like in NYC). There were only a handful of Bangladeshi families; all the others were single, (mostly) male grad students at local university. We didn't hang out much- once in a few months (after we weren't kids anymore, and started to get on each other's nerves). Yes, I have heard of a few stories where parents want their ABCD or 1.5 gen kids to marry someone from Bangladesh (or old country, as I say) b/c they wanted to keep the culture alive. When I lived in the Phoenix area, an 18 year old from wealthy family told me that he didn't need to speak Bengali b/c "my parents are going to find me a wife who will teach our kids all that." LOL!!!

Understood. But some other people have also surmised the same behavior takes place in rural America as well.

Well, I would say that even in rural or backwoods America, people tend to get married fairly young, and probably a higher percentage of people do get married, as compared to urban/suburban middle class folks. But A LOT end up divorcing and then becoming single parents, who usually proceed to have numerous affairs and inflict their choice of serial love interests on their poor kids who have no choice but to accept the situation.

Speaking of 'arranged' marriages, did anyone catch this story on Chicago's airwaves?

Actually Clueless's story is not that unusual for Sikhs living in the Yuba City area in California or around Vancouver.

My best friend in college in Punjab was from the Nakodar area in the Punjab and her family was split into two halves with her dad living permanently in Vancouver (actually the rural bit). Her brother was married off at 21 so that her mother could have a female companion on the farm in Nakodar. It was a really poignant story and saddest bit I thought (in retrospect of course) was that her brother was scared to sleep on the farm veranda by himself but they thought he was old enough to get married. This was in the early 80s.

This same friend eventually moved to Vancouver and fell in love with another Sikh guy at a technical college. Both sides opposed the marriage for 5 years as they were from different Sikh subcastes. Death threats were issued, etc...her parents stopped speaking to her. Eventually, she married the guy but her parents have cut her out of their lives...their only daughter.

Also, I've been friends with a Sikh woman in the US now for 20 years...she was imprisoned in her aunt's house for 6 months in the Central Valley when her dad found out that she had a Sikh boyfriend in 11th grade. He wasn't from the same subcaste so her dad took her to India against her wishes when she was barely 17 and married her to a guy who was 21 and in his second last year of engineering school. My friend's dad told her that she could not return to the US unless she married someone for the same subcaste in India....She didn't graduate out of high school and the marriage eventually ended in divorce after 9 years. This was in the mid-eighties.

Oh and in my own family…my dad’s first cousins in the Chicago area are hardcore Khalistanis. When their daughter and son turned 20, each was taken to India and married off to kids from the Punjab villages because you know otherwise “they will slip out of their hands” due to the evil influence of Amrika. One of them is now divorced with 3 year old and dropped out of medical school coz her husband from the Punjab couldn’t stand it and the other loathes India with a passion to be seen to be believed.

sp

Jesus, Clueless. I can't even imagine going through something like this.

I guess I had a very different experience from most of you; I wasn't really raised in a dual culture, I was pretty much raised as an American. My parents are entirely secular, and quite apathetic to the whole Indian community thing. Our family friends aren't all Indian (although many are), they were Iranian, Jewish, Chinese, Black, and White. The only traditions in our house were the ones we made up. Its a good thing and its a bad; I'm going on a solo India-exploration trip this summer, because I really am beginning to feel like I should know my roots, at least a little.

I feel like in order for a (traditional) arranged marriage to work at all, both the partners have to be raised in a traditional culture. I feel like my background is much like Clueless's; I also was raised in a town that had almost no Indians, steeped in Western culture, very little knowledge of Indian culture. Someone who grows up expecting to be able to look around and find a mate on their own simply will not have a successful arranged marriage. I know I'd fail terribly. There's a girl in a class of mine who is 23 and is getting married next fall -- I cannot imagine taking such a huge step so early in life! Kudos to those who can, but its simply not for me.

Sonya #175,

Is this sort of thing common only to Sikhs? Because the word Punjabi is thrown around a lot in such posts. I rarely see Hindu Punjabis with these kinds of problems (although there are some cases).

M. Nam

I feel like in order for a (traditional) arranged marriage to work at all, both the partners have to be raised in a traditional culture.

Maybe, but I think tradition is less important than having a similar sort of upbringing and background. This is completely anecdotal, but I have friends who were raised in fairly Westernized/secular households, and ended up having arranged/assisted marriages with men who had also been raised in fairly Westernized/secular households. They seem to be quite happy with their marriages.

My parents were very western for a punjabi family in North America. Sikhism and punjabi culture did not play a major factor in my parents life. Also my parents had friends of other races, which is very rare among most punjabi's in Canada.

It was these factor's that some older backward people in my family used to pressure my parents into me getting married.

Sonya #175,

Is this sort of thing common only to Sikhs? Because the word Punjabi is thrown around a lot in such posts. I rarely see Hindu Punjabis with these kinds of problems (although there are some cases).

M. Nam

Like someone else said, it seems to be more of a rural issue than a cultural issue. I've seen cases like the one Sonya mentioned as well and all of those families moved to America from villages vs. larger cities. I'm not saying these incidents happen with all families from villages or vice versa - but there is definitely a pattern.

Is this sort of thing common only to Sikhs? Because the word Punjabi is thrown around a lot in such posts. I rarely see Hindu Punjabis with these kinds of problems (although there are some cases).

I think in the context that we are discussing these issues, in terms of adherence to caste, and intense family pressures, social pressures from the rest of the community, etc. it is more of a Sikh thing than a Hindu Punjabi phenomenon. This goes back to my rural-urban theory...almost 90% of rural Punjab is Sikh, whereas only 25-30% of urban Punjab is Sikh. So Hindu Punjabis are an overwhelmingly urban community. Additionally, there are nowhere near the numbers of Hindu Punjabis in the West as there are Sikhs. Also, many many Hindu Punjabis (if not most) in the West are descendents of people who left urban areas of Pakistani Punjab in 1947, and moved either to urban areas of Indian Punjab or more likely New Delhi, before eventually migrating here. Their cultural patterns are quite different to those of their rural Sikh brethren.

Moornam

Is this sort of thing common only to Sikhs? Because the word Punjabi is thrown around a lot in such posts. I rarely see Hindu Punjabis with these kinds of problems (although there are some cases).

It is not just the Sikhs. The examples are from my own experience, which is Sikh Punjabi even though I myself don't live immersed in a Punjabi culture here in the Bay Area. I think a lot of confluences must come together for something like this to happen: religion, at what point did one leave India, general progressiveness versus clinging to one's customs/faith/religion beyond reason, fear of the unknown, educational levels (though this is not an indicator of progressiveness) and so forth.

I do know that the motel-owning Patel community in the United States does something very similar...to keep property and kids in control, they are frequently known to marry off their kids as young as 16. About 10 years ago, someone did a cultural anthropolgy thesis (Masters or Ph.D, I can't remember) and I remember reading the thesis.

sp

One more thing on my Dad's cousins in the midwest...

Two younger cousins after watching the lives of the first set of cousins destruct, now openly say that they will never consider arranged (read coerced) marriages with women from India.

My dad's cousin told us the last time he was in India that the two younger grandsons openly say that they don't want their lives ruined like the two older ones had theirs ruined.

sp

I do know that the motel-owning Patel community in the United States does something very similar...to keep property and kids in control, they are frequently known to marry off their kids as young as 16. About 10 years ago, someone did a cultural anthropolgy thesis (Masters or Ph.D, I can't

Yes. And most of them hail from villages in Gujarat.

I went to India in January for my cousin's wedding. He's 27, my new cousin-in-law is 20, 6 months older than me. After being molested by this guy went I was younger, I am terrified for her because she's one of those "good girls" that has no opinion on anything and will do whatever anyone tells her. I hope one day she grows a brain, but until then it's not like I can say anything to her that will help her. Maturity comes when it comes, you know?

I'm not asking for pity here, believe me. I feel blessed that I have a brain and half a choice when it comes to marriage. It's just that I never thought something like this would happen in my own family, and I can't really talk to anybody in my family about it because they're all ecstatic that he got married and would like to believe that they'll live happily ever after. The whole "ignorance is bliss" angle, I guess. That's a pity.

Speaking from Bangladeshi-American perspective (emphasis on the American, of course)... My parents (50s) are friends with an educated, liberal, older couple (60s) who came to small college town in Midwest almost 40 years ago (v. rare for our peeps). They had 4 kids (now in their 40s and 30s), BUT the eldest daughter is the only one w/ 2 failed (arranged) marriages; she has 2 kids to show from the 1st. The other 3 married white folks they met through school or work, and seem pretty happy. They grew up in a white community, so no big deal! Last year, the eldest lady got married to a Sikh-American colleague from work.

#127:

#126:

Other than for Brahmins, caste is not nearly as strong a factor anymore as it is in other south asian cultures.

I've read this sentence five times now, and I still don't understand what it means."

#135:

It means - I want to be an anti-brahmin troll. Hence I will make incomprehensible equalities like "brahmin" being a "south asian culture".

Sorry, I guess I didn't clarify. By "south asian cultures", I meant 'Sri-Lankan Tamils", who Amitabh referred to in the comment I quoted:

"I'd be interested in knowing if Sri Lankan Tamils in Canada, who also often have a rural origin in Sri Lanka, are as strict when it comes to their 2nd gen kids' marriages."

What I meant was that caste is not as major an issue in marriage for the Sri-Lankan Tamil diaspora in North America as it is for other "south asian cultures" like Gujuratis, Punjabis, etc. in North America. However, Sri-Lankan Tamil Brahmins are the exception, as caste is still quite a major issue for them in regards to marriage, as opposed to Sri-Lankan Tamil non-brahmins.

Hope this cleared that up for you guys. Not sure where that whole "anti-brahmin troll" thing came from. Perhaps you guys shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions?

Sorry, but I forgot to ask this question before: How are Sikhs broken down into separate castes? I thought that there was no caste system in Sikhism. I had a former classmate in college, who was Punjabi Sikh, and she said that her family would want her to marry a Punjabi. There were many white converts in her gurdwara, but she said she wouldn't go out with them. Isn't that about cultural background, not caste?

There should be no caste in sikhism. But punjabi culture has the caste system. The sad part is too many punjabi sikh's practice the caste system.

There should be no caste in sikhism. But punjabi culture has the caste system. The sad part is too many punjabi sikh's practice the caste system.

There should be no caste discrimination in Sikhism, but do any out the gurus actually reject caste itself? curious to know...

There should be no caste discrimination in Sikhism, but do any out the gurus actually reject caste itself? curious to know...

Yes, explicitly. That's why caste names were abolished, so that there would be no markers.

@mfunnierthanyou, #185: your cousin is despicable, and I'm sorry for what you've gone through. Is there any way to maybe send his wife (or maybe his parents?) an anonymous letter? It might not change their opinion of him, but it's a warning, and it might plant a little seed of doubt...

Stuff like that - parents that are blind to their child's jackassery - is what worries me more than a little. It makes me a little queasy, but I've decided not to unequivocally close the door on arranged/assisted marriage. It COULD work out, especially within the parameters in which Prudie seems to understand the practice.

I don't know if my qualms are unique or shared (probably a bit of both): I've grown up in Canada, and like Clueless, my parents' ideas of 'how the world works' are very firmly rooted in the small-town punjab of half a century ago (I don't see this as a flaw, just as a point of constant perspectival negotiation between us). Anyways, long story short: on the one hand, I'd like to be a good daughter to my parents (they've been good parents to me!); on the other hand, I'm into what might be considered a 'western' embrace of openness when it comes to setting restrictions on my behaviour. I don't think my family take well to my interest in queer culture/practices, amongst other things, let alone take this into consideration when searching for a partner. HMF's comments early in this thread ring true for me: my relatives are interested in a "good family" (assuming that said family would have a good son). Also, having lived in Canada for so many years, the family is a little disconnected, with the exception of a few aunts that are into the old-school variety of engagement.

It is probably WAY too late in this thread to open a new little can of worms... but I would appreciate any thoughts.

I don't think my family take well to my interest in queer culture/practices, amongst other things, let alone take this into consideration when searching for a partner.

Yeah...that one might be a little tough. You're interested in marrying a desi man?Who is essentially straight but wants to explore queer culture and practices with you? And your family should be on board? That's a lot to ask. I'd suggest in order to find the kind of person you're looking for.. you'll probably have to do it on your own, and accept the probability he may not be a desi.

hey clueless, sorry for your traumatic experience :(. My heart goes out to you and your family.

There should be no caste discrimination in Sikhism, but do any out the gurus actually reject caste itself? curious to know...

Emma, it sounds like your anecdote is very much more about people's personal opinions vs. the teachings of the religion. Clueless also nailed it when he mentioned that there are ideals in Sikhi, but many times the ideal doesn't match the reality or practice on the ground.

As Sonya and Amitabh mentioned, a lot of these trends seem to be more prevalent in rural areas - both in India and in the U.S. I'm not sure what contributes to this, but oftentimes it feels, to me, like two different communities/worldviews unfold.

There should be no caste in sikhism. But punjabi culture has the caste system. The sad part is too many punjabi sikh's practice the caste system.

And do they ever! Gujarati Patels seem to be notorious for being so self-righteous but I think Sikh Jatts are worse. Most would rather have their kids marry ANYONE (black, white, yellow, blue, green, whatever) than marry a Punjabi Sikh who is not a Jatt. Of course I speak only from my own experience, but I have yet to meet a Jatt who said they would/could marry a non-Jatt Punjabi.

Apologies for the mass quoting and reactions but I'm catching up after a few days offline...

Oh and in my own family…my dad’s first cousins in the Chicago area are hardcore Khalistanis. When their daughter and son turned 20, each was taken to India and married off to kids from the Punjab villages because you know otherwise “they will slip out of their hands” due to the evil influence of Amrika. One of them is now divorced with 3 year old and dropped out of medical school coz her husband from the Punjab couldn’t stand it and the other loathes India with a passion to be seen to be believed.

Sad stories...I know a Punjabi Sikh girl who had a boyfriend when she was 16, and when her parents found out they forced them to get married...when she was 16! They were from Yuba City...I am so glad my family didn't grow up in an area where there were a lot of Punjabis. I go to UC Davis now and have a Punjabi Sikh roomie from Yuba...God she gets on my nerves like no other! She's afraid to go in the sun because she'll "get dark."

I wonder if her illegal status can be changed b/c of marriage!

I believe so, as there are far too many cases of people who are here illegally using citizens to marry them to become legalized. My best friend's ex-boyfriend was counting on her for his status to change so never bothered getting his own life together...he got what he deserved when she left him hanging, if you ask me. He was an asshole.

HMF, that study is so old, it's almost ineligible for an arranged marriage. ;)

Cute!

You're doing that anyway, arranged marriage or not. On the flip side, he's marrying your family too.

Not as much as you're marrying his though...essentially, by tradition, you're joining his family, not the other way around

Who better than my parents who love me, know me, and want someone who'll take care of me & cherish me?

You're lucky though. There are a lot of (backward) families that care more about what other people think of them than about what their children want.

ps. Is it wrong that I obtained my mother's email address password for the purpose of inspecting (and filtering) the biodata she receives?

haha more power to you...

Not that I distrust the story or source or anything, but to be truthful, the quoted statement holds an iota of truth with me. I've thought the poster was female all this time as well. But what I'm curious is, can other Punjabi's relate similar stories? or at least the existence of them? 20 seems quite young for a male, even in the most backwards of backwards cultures. I'm not doubting the account, just wondering if it's commonplace or an aberration.

I know of a Punjabi Sikh boy who went to India and married when he was 21 and the woman was 19...does that help?

5. When a commentary that tantamounts to "I cry myself to sleep every night" comes from a man, it is highly unbelievable. Men deal with their issues differently.

A 30+ year old man who does not get angry when his deepest feelings are rejected as a fraud? Unusual.

You place your expectations of how people should react based on gender. Contrary to what this macho, sexist society would have you believing, men do have emotions too and just because they are discouraged from expressing it that does not mean that they don't still have them. Men cry too you know, and not all of them are too insecure about their masculinity to admit it.

Allright - let me try this again....

In the phrase "Arranged marriage", the first word is redundant. Marriage itself has meaning only when it is arranged. That is, you get to fuck someone who is chosen by others(parents/society) and you surrender your individuality(to a great extent) for the common good.

Once you take this out of the picture, marriage is meaningless. The term "Love Marriage" is meaningless. Those who are in love don't need to get married (unless they want Social Security/Medicare etc).

Purush said earlier on that even those who are not arranged need to marry for : love, old-age companionship, long-term planning, stable environment for kids, propogation of the species

My point is: Why do you need to get married for all that? You can both just live together and have it all. Marriage is necessary only if you need outside sanction - when you fell in love you repudiated the necessity for that sanction - otherwise you would have checked with your parents/society/church before going out on a date.

The whole idea of (Arranged) marriage is that without the aid of parents/society etc, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have old-age companionship, long-term planning, stable environment for kids, propogation of the species etc etc.

The whole idea of Love (marriage) is that Love conquers everything.

Choose one and stick with it.

M. Nam

MoorNam( # 198) ,

Your logic about marriage being meaningless/redundant unless it is "arranged" suffers from a fatal flaw.Sure,if you are in love you do not have to get married. However,your assertion about repudiating the need for outside sanction when you fall in love is - pardon the expression - BS. Just because you fall in love with someone who neither society nor your parents chose for you, does that mean that you are forsaking all other relationships? It does not.And to include those relationships in your new one , you sometimes do need marriage.I speak from personal experience - I fell in love and wanted for us to live together.My partner - and now husband - insisted that we should get married because his parents would have freaked out. ( This was back in India)

Love conquering all is a romantic notion.The reality is that most of us do need parents/society because we can't live in isolation.

arranged marriage rocks. i have been in l.a. for three years and been with fourteen girls. i have carried on relationships with girls without having to break off others and no one has asked and no one has told. while some of these girls have displayed characteristics i would like in a wife, ultimately they are not what i want to settle down with. none of them have been desis either, not that i have not tried hard to get action within my race. my point is that just as someone mentioned, with one call i can have my mom on the case of finding me a beautiful indian girl with whom i can return to family life (ie the family oriented lifestyle i used to lead before i moved to l.a.). i am not sure why everyone stresses over arranged marriage so much, especially the guys. instead of being "trapped between two highly different culutures" go between the lines and take the best from each culture and learn to chill.

200 · canada on April 15, 2007 01:13 PM · Direct link

arranged marriage rocks. i have been in l.a. for three years and been with fourteen girls. i have carried on relationships with girls without having to break off others and no one has asked and no one has told. while some of these girls have displayed characteristics i would like in a wife, ultimately they are not what i want to settle down with. none of them have been desis either, not that i have not tried hard to get action within my race. my point is that just as someone mentioned, with one call i can have my mom on the case of finding me a beautiful indian girl with whom i can return to family life (ie the family oriented lifestyle i used to lead before i moved to l.a.). i am not sure why everyone stresses over arranged marriage so much, especially the guys. instead of being "trapped between two highly different culutures" go between the lines and take the best from each culture and learn to chill.

This exemplifies another issue with arranged marriage and how it benefits men more than women...men can call their mamas up when they want a homely "virginal" Indian wife, and until then they take it upon themselves to fuck around. 99.9% of men are incapable of holding themselves to the same standards they expect women to follow.

#200 canada

This post illustrates the vulgarity, corruption and sexism that lurk within some supporters of arranged marriage. I am fine with the institution of assisted marriage, but I have also seen it offer institutional support to this sort of distasteful Madonna-whore complex (which is often coupled with racism-- as in, western women are whores) too many times.

Both sides opposed the marriage for 5 years as they were from different Sikh subcastes. Death threats were issued, etc...her parents stopped speaking to her. Eventually, she married the guy but her parents have cut her out of their lives...their only daughter.

There should be no caste in sikhism. But punjabi culture has the caste system. The sad part is too many punjabi sikh's practice the caste system.

And do they ever! Gujarati Patels seem to be notorious for being so self-righteous but I think Sikh Jatts are worse. Most would rather have their kids marry ANYONE (black, white, yellow, blue, green, whatever) than marry a Punjabi Sikh who is not a Jatt. Of course I speak only from my own experience, but I have yet to meet a Jatt who said they would/could marry a non-Jatt Punjabi.

Interesting that low caste Jatt converts to Sikhism, which rejects casteism, still cling to this pernicious divisive apartheid so tenaciously. As long as there is someone lower in the hierarchy (chamars are lower than jatt sudras in the original hindu punjabi system) this silly pride in caste status survives. Even after leaving hinduism. So strong is the power of social ranking in humans.

Of course whites outrank desis of all castes indiscriminately. But within their ghettos, mental and/or physical, many desis still derive great satisfaction from outranking fellow desis.

arranged marriage is good. i am afraid to talk to girls. without arranged marriage i don't think i would be able to get a wife. plus my mom and dad taught me that i should treat girls with respect, and that loose talk with them may put me at risk of being labeled as having a questionable character within the community.

arranged marriage rocks. i have been in l.a. for three years and been with fourteen girls.

hey canada, your 2 post don't jibe w/ each other. are you the loveable shy suitable boy or joe francis meets anand jon (minus the rape)? i mean, you're afraid to speak to girls but you're having sex with a new one every 2.5 months.

I am fine with the institution of assisted marriage

Heh. sounds like "assisted suicide"

Runa:>>Just because you fall in love with someone who neither society nor your parents chose for you, does that mean that you are forsaking all other relationships?

Not at all. You still be un-married(live together) and continue to visit each other's families, Diwali dinners etc. You can have it all without marriage.

>>My partner - and now husband - insisted that we should get married because his parents would have freaked out.

Sorry to say this, but your husband should have taken a stand and refused. If one does not have the courage to stand up for oneself, then one should not fall in love.

Love = 1x1 relationship.

Marriage = NxN relationship(where N>1).

M. Nam

MoorNam,
You still have'nt countered my point:

-You may think and want to have everything without marriage but,like I said, if you want to live in a particular society , you will need to folow its rules whether you agree with them or not. For example, if the husband and I had chosen not to get married , I don't think there would have been ANY dinners Diwali or otherwise with the family! In retrospect,I am glad we got married because I like having strong family ties -just a personal preference.

Your opinion/suggestion is alright in theory but fails miserably in practice in the context of current social mores.If its any consolation, I read somewhere that the majority of couples here (US) are choosing to live together and NOT get married.So maybe the change will come slowly to society and the 1X 1 marriage will actually be reality and not just a pipe dream

If one does not have the courage to stand up for oneself, then one should not fall in love.

Moornam, I think you will like these: 1 2 .

Moornam #206:

Marriage has meant different things in different societies and times. Marriage as practiced in Nordic or Nordic-derived societies --even before the sexual revolution-- is not an NxN institution to the same extent as among caste Hindus (or even Latin cultures-- I remember reading about how Americanization committes in the days of southern european immigration would teach courtship as a "Protestant way"). The nuclear family based on romantic love between husband and wife has been a bedrock of Protestant cultures for a fairly long time. You are generalizing your cultural biases.

Prema at #203:

"Interesting that low caste Jatt converts to Sikhism, which rejects casteism, still cling to this pernicious divisive apartheid so tenaciously. As long as there is someone lower in the hierarchy (chamars are lower than jatt sudras in the original hindu punjabi system) this silly pride in caste status survives."

Right on, Prema! Finally someone has pointed out the backward status of the Jatt caste. Personally I don't understand why they are considered a "forward caste" in every state of India save Rajastan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Castes), making them ineligible for the Indian Government's reservation benefits.

Runa,

What's happened is that marriage has been reduced to a meaningless ritual to appease certain family members so that they don't cut you off. Morevoer, the notion of marriage has been glamourised so much that an expensive wedding has become more important than a loving marriage. People want to get decked, invite powerful people, cut business deals etc on the pretext of marriage.

This will come crashing down. Give it a couple of more generations. Eventually, theory wins.

M. Nam

What's happened is that marriage has been reduced to a meaningless ritual to appease certain family members so that they don't cut you off.

I have to disagree on the "meaningless ritual" issue. Marriage continues to hold a much higher place in the social mores of all than other relationships do. It remains an aspirational goal for most people. Even in cultures where social sanction isn't necessary to commence a sexual relationship, people still get married. It's not an even a statistical outlier, it remains the norm in relationships.

I think this is because marriage allows individuals to make a public affirmation of their relationship. X wants to be with Y, and they both want the whole world to know about it. This is neither meaningless nor insignificant.

Interesting that low caste Jatt converts to Sikhism, which rejects casteism, still cling to this pernicious divisive apartheid so tenaciously. As long as there is someone lower in the hierarchy (chamars are lower than jatt sudras in the original hindu punjabi system) this silly pride in caste status survives. Even after leaving hinduism. So strong is the power of social ranking in humans.

Although I should probably leave this for a Jatt to respond to, but since I have Jatt friends I'll tackle it... I think the above is a common misconception and doesn't show any understanding of the situation on the ground. Although Jatts have traditionally been considered low caste by Brahmins and Khatris/Aroras, but that consciousness (of being considered 'low') never pervaded the mentality of the Jatts. As a community they have a lot of self-esteem and pride, and actually tend to look down on both Brahmins and Khatris/Aroras. Furthermore, despite whatever supposed rank they may have held within the Hindu caste system of the medieval era, the modern reality (which has been true for a long time now) is that they are the socially and numerically dominant group within Sikhs. They are also the main landowners in a rural culture where ownership of land confers immense status, and being a shopkeeper or a pandit who performs rituals (or providing any kind of service for payment) is looked down upon. In all likelihood, the only reason they were considered low caste in the first place, is because they are largely descended from Scythians and other Iranian-type invader migrants, and as they became hinduised culturally, they had to be placed somewhere in the existing caste structure, and obviously the Brahmins were not about to make them high caste...especially since Jatts traditionally never really obeyed Brahmins or held them in regard. It's true that a lot of brahministic ritual and cultural influences did creep in over the course of centuries, as it did for society as a whole...which is one of the things the Sikh Gurus (who were non-Jatt) were against.

What's happened is that marriage has been reduced to a meaningless ritual to appease certain family members so that they don't cut you off.

I'm witchu on this.

I think this is because marriage allows individuals to make a public affirmation of their relationship. X wants to be with Y, and they both want the whole world to know about it.

But historically speaking, especially in western traditions, the affirmation is made not so much for "X wants to be with Y" rather "Z,Q, and R better stay away from Y, and vice versa" The commandment says, "Thou shalt not covet another man's wife", not "Thou shalt not covet another man's long term girlfriend that he's been living with for 5 years even though she always complains about too many dishes in the sink."

To me, marriage = guilt escaping. Most people, in particular in the Indian context feel they "owe" it to someone to get married, whoever that may be. And its usually not one's self.

>>Even in cultures where social sanction isn't necessary to commence a sexual relationship, people still get married...marriage allows individuals to make a public affirmation of their relationship. X wants to be with Y, and they both want the whole world to know about it.

Have you seen how dogs go to sleep? They walk round and round(on the carpet/marble floor etc) many times over and flop down in the middle to sleep. This is a hangover from their non-domesticated jungle days for millions of years where they had to pad down the forest floor to kill bugs/level the grass to get a good night's sleep. This is not necessary on the living room carpet, but they continue the meaningless ritual.

People had weddings throughout civilisation because of their strong sense of community belonging. When the marriage was in trouble, they needed help from their family(that has been outsourced to shrinks today). When they needed money they had to go to relatives (which has been outsourced to banks/Government today). When they were sick they needed people(which has been outsourced to Medicare/Medicaid). Yet, they continue the meaningless ritual of inviting people who will play no further role in their marriage apart from burping loudly after dessert.

Human beings are not dogs - they are many times smarter. They won't carry out these rituals for millions of years. The idea of marriage has changed only in the last 60-70 years throughout the world with the advent of pre-martital sex. As I said earlier, give it another couple of generations.

By no means am I putting down the institution of marriage. I think it's the bedrock of society. I'm just saying that the institution is dying due to government intrusion into personal lives (see my link earlier on). People are mindlessly going around the fire/exhanging rings so that they can see the videos and tell their friends that so-and-so came to their wedding. They will come to their senses soon.

M. Nam

Amitabh Kindly give a single proof of any thing you have mentioned regarding jatt and please no link to Jattworld Jattwarior and sikhnet
give a real scholarly example b/c this seems like BLA BLA coming without any evidence something those sites are known to do.
How are Jatts Iranian Scythians descendents?
(yest my dear sir i am aware of 3 books by Englishmen who made these claims on skull measurements phrenology but give at least a Spencer Wells type arguements showing dna)
How are (or ever were) Jatts Low Caste? ( at present all jatts seem to treat non Chudhas chamars mazhabis pretty lowly and violently at times, and pay brahmins handsomely )

Ennis, Camille:

Thank you for the clarification regarding the Sikh gurus stance on caste. I was under the impression that they were against discrimination - one could dine together, e.g., and still see no problem with endogamy, or maintain that people were spiritually equal and still have no problem with endogamy - but you sugest that they challenged caste altogether, the entire order, which is quite remarkable.

Although Jatts have traditionally been considered low caste by Brahmins

Thats the bottom line. The caste system is brahminical in origin. If brahmins assigned Jatts to the low Sudra caste, then thats their caste. Period.

despite whatever supposed rank they may have held within the Hindu caste system of the medieval era, the modern reality (which has been true for a long time now) is that they are the socially and numerically dominant group within Sikhs.

Its irrelevant what the modern reality is. Casteism isnt a modern system. Dominant Sudras are still Sudras based on the ancient varna system. Dalits have become presidents, scientists, businessmen, soldiers etc but that has not changed their outcaste status. Thats the reality of this idiotic system.

In all likelihood, the only reason they were considered low caste in the first place, is because they are largely descended from Scythians

Nonsense. Caste has nothing to do with race. As the fact of Jatts being assigned the lowest caste while the Rajputs who also "supposedly" had similar origins being assigned the second highest caste, proves. In any case its delusional to think that Jatts are "largely" descended from non-Indians. DNA studies and simple observation of a Jatt gathering should dispel such wishful thinking. Punjabis are much closer genetically to the rest of Indians than to west asians.

Jatts traditionally never really obeyed Brahmins or held them in regard.

Thats silly and irrational. Jatts were once all hindus, so they of course held brahmins in high esteem before most of them converted to Islam or Sikhism.

The fucking bane of Indians -- caste. Makes me want to puke sometimes. Somehow it seems even sadder that some Sikhs cling to it because at least the gurus had the moral foresight and courage to condemn it systematically hundreds of years ago, making it a relatively progressive religion and social movement.

I remember being amazed at how caste figured in The God of Small Things amongst Syrian Christians too.

Ah to hell with it, I just watched Amitabh Bhachan in an Indian version of Lolita, if it wasnt for the cute actress playing his 18 year old paramour that would be almost as detrimental as the caste system. Indian cinema still sucks.

RedSnapper writes: >>that would be almost as detrimental as the caste system.

You mean, the caste non-system?

M. nam

Whatever MoorNam. Either way, lame, half hearted, slightly creepy attempts to film Nabokov novels by Bollywood should be eradicated as an abomination.

I am fine with the institution of assisted marriage Heh. sounds like "assisted suicide"

Haha.
And what would be the opposite of assisted marriages? Hindered marriages? Not far off the point, really.

Somehow it seems even sadder that some Sikhs cling to it because at least the gurus had the moral foresight and courage to condemn it systematically hundreds of years ago, making it a relatively progressive religion and social movement.

I couldn't agree more...yet even gurdwaras are segregated by caste. In Sacramento, in the Rio Linda area there is a Dalit gurdwara, and I'm sure this is the case elsewhere too. Those Jatts who truly think they're better than non-Jatt Punjabis and impose such caste-based separation are the equivalent of white supremacists.

Thats the bottom line. The caste system is brahminical in origin. If brahmins assigned Jatts to the low Sudra caste, then thats their caste. Period.

It doesn't matter what the brahmins 'assign' you as if you don't accept it. If I decide my next-door neighbour is lower caste than I am, he as a Korean-American will laugh it off and think I'm crazy...without ever for a moment accepting that he is lower...even though I might persist for the rest of my life in my belief that indeed he is. It sounds like you have an axe to grind with Jatts. Since I have no particular interest in defending them beyond a certain point (they can certainly speak very well for themselves), nor in knocking them down, and certainly no interest in making them the next big topic here, I'm going to bow out now. But I think you're trying to force a discordant reality to fit in to your viewpoint, regardless of whether it's a good fit or not. Now, there are certainly other castes (baniyas are a good example) who accepted that Brahmins and Rajputs were higher than them, while in turn considering themselves higher than other castes like chamaars. THAT'S the caste system and mentality in full effect.

As the fact of Jatts being assigned the lowest caste while the Rajputs who also "supposedly" had similar origins being assigned the second highest caste, proves.

OK, one last comment, regarding the above...Rajputs were assigned a high status because they filled a (perceived) needed role for one thing, but also because they completely capitulated to the system.

I will really try not to comment further on this stuff, at least on this thread.

Prema, speaking directly to the more modern history of Jatts (i.e. the last 600-700 years), Amitabh is right on. The whole Scythian/Iranian thing, eh, I'm not so sold. But, regarding their role in the Sikh community, their appreciation for land-owning, and their appreciation for people who "work hard with their hands," is, in my opinion, a really accurate description.

And, with respect to whether or not they respected Brahmins, the answer is no. Why? Because many Jatts have a strong appreciation for people who work, and the historic anecdotes I've been told say that many Brahmins relied on alms and the support of members of the community to survive. I'm not saying this derision is justified, again, just providing context.

Also, I have no evidence for this whatsoever, but what I was told anecdotally by relatives is that one of the reasons Jatts are so "low caste" is because they didn't fully buy into the caste system to begin with when they moved into the Indus River Valley. In retaliation for not conforming to the prevalent social order, they were assigned a low caste rank. As a result, you have a community that was already very clan based and close that becomes even more tight knit, but this time with a strong identification as a Jatt, not as a Sudra. This also helps to explain some of the caste-vs-caste violence, because for many Jatts it's not about your caste, it's about your clan. I know this may be splitting hairs, and I don't think it's justified or ok, but I do think it's important to realize that not everything breaks down into the standard conceptualization of the caste system.

Ennis, Camille:

Thank you for the clarification regarding the Sikh gurus stance on caste. I was under the impression that they were against discrimination - one could dine together, e.g., and still see no problem with endogamy, or maintain that people were spiritually equal and still have no problem with endogamy - but you sugest that they challenged caste altogether, the entire order, which is quite remarkable.

Just a word on what 'Iranian' means in this context. It doesn't simply refer to the Persians of Iran. It's a broader term for various peoples, current and historic, speaking various languages in the Iranian language family. By that definition, Pashtuns are an Iranian people, as are Kurds, as are the Baloch. As, of course, are the Persians. There is a lot of phenotypic variation between these groups as well as within these groups, they do not all look exactly the same. Scythians, now extinct, are also believed to have been speakers of a language in the Iranian language family, and therefore an Iranian people. It is very likely they looked somewhat different from the Persians of today. I don't think ANY group in India is pure Scythian by any means, but I think it's likely that some groups have some amount of Scythian blood (mixed, of course, with other strands, including indigenous desi).

Rajputs were assigned a high status because they filled a (perceived) needed role for one thing, but also because they completely capitulated to the system.

So did the Jatt hindus. Jatts were low caste hindus before they became Sikhs, muslims or Arya Samajists. The jatts who have remained hindus, such as the ones in Haryana are considered Sudras and treated as such by the upper castes. Indian courts have also recognized them as low caste sudras and eligible for reservations. Most Jatts converted to Sikhism to escape their low caste status in hinduism. Note that while all the 10 sikh gurus were khatris, most khatris have remained hindus. Why? Because unlike Jatts they had a high status in hinduism.

It doesn't matter what the brahmins 'assign' you as if you don't accept it. If I decide my next-door neighbour is lower caste than I am, he as a Korean-American will laugh it off and think I'm crazy...without ever for a moment accepting that he is lower..

You should be embarrassed for making such a silly argument. You can consider a korean whatever the hell you want it will not apply to him because he does not subscribe to your ideology. Jatts being hindus subscribed to the brahminical caste system by definition (before Sikhism, Arya Samaj etc). If brahmins considered them low caste sudras, thats what they were, as long as they were hindus. Sikhism does not assign caste. The caste-conscious Jatt sikhs need to face the fact that if they have any caste at all it is the sudra caste carrying over from the time when their ancestors were hindus. They can then feel superior to the Chamars, which is probably why this idiocy continues among so many of them despite the fact that Sikhism rejects casteism.

Prema, speaking directly to the more modern history of Jatts (i.e. the last 600-700 years), Amitabh is right on.

Casteism didnt originate in modern times, in the last 600-700 years, in case you and Amitabh didnt know that. What was the caste of the Jatts when they were/are hindus? Thats the point. Most Jatts converted to Sikhism or Islam many centuries ago. Neither sikhism nor islam assigns caste to its followers. So if muslim or sikh jatts want to boast about their caste they should be reminded of their lowly origins. That they are dominant in their villages now doesnt change the fact that they were sudras when they were hindus. As the hindu jatts of Haryana still are.

I was told anecdotally by relatives is that one of the reasons Jatts are so "low caste" is because they didn't fully buy into the caste system to begin with when they moved into the Indus River Valley.

This is really the height of naivety. Dont fall for such absurd anecdotes which are inspired by shame of lowly origins. If they were hindus which they were, they bought into the caste system. The fact that they are still ashamed of the caste status of their ancestors tells us that the influence of hinduism remains with them even after conversion to sikhism. You dont see such shame among the descendants of european serfs and such desperate attempts to rewrite history. Shame is on those who created this system and who perpetuate it. Seems like many sikhs continue to be part of the problem even though the sikh gurus were part of the solution.

OK, at this point I'm continuing this NOT because I want to defend Jatts, but because I want to counter Prema's ridiculous arguments.

The jatts who have remained hindus, such as the ones in Haryana are considered Sudras and treated as such by the upper castes.

BULLSHIT. Jats in Haryana are the socially and economically dominant group...combined with a rather aggressive temperament, so NO ONE treats them like 'sudras'. The days of treating brahmins like royalty are long over anyway even in other parts of India. Who else would you like to define as 'upper caste' who treats Jats poorly? Baniyas? That's a joke. Rajputs? The Rajput presence in Haryana is miniscule. You just have an ideology to defend at any cost despite all the evidence against it, and you have some sort of an axe to grind.

You should be embarrassed for making such a silly argument. You can consider a korean whatever the hell you want it will not apply to him because he does not subscribe to your ideology.

That's exactly my point...that Jatts did not subscribe to the ideology you describe. And you can't simply say that 'since they were Hindus they AUTOMATICALLY must have subscribed wholeheartedly to the caste system'. Some nuance, please. Jatts as Hindus were not the same as Tamil Brahmins as Hindus. Entirely different society, culture, and power dynamics. Hindus are not all the same throughout India. You're approaching this whole thing ass backwards...first you come up with an ideology (that all Hindus by definition did X) and then you try to force that ideology on actual real living breathing human beings who show several orders of magnitude more complexity than your simple equation, and it falls completely on its face.

The fact that they are still ashamed of the caste status of their ancestors

You don't actually KNOW any Jatts, do you.

Anyway, I have seen discussions like this really get out of control on other forums in the past, so maybe it's time to consider closing this thread (please let Prema have the last word of course).

I'm with Amitabh on this one and really don't have much more to say. Additionally, I am not naive in providing a family anecdote. I offered the story I was told to provide a sense of the narrative that many Jatts tell their own families. Is it shame over having a low caste? That's not how it's been told to me, although I could see that logical extension (why argue against your low caste status if caste doesn't matter?). Rather, it has been an explanation for fierce clan-identification. I'm not saying casteism didn't exist, and the anecdotes was not a comment on Jatts after their conversion to Islam/Sikhi and whatnot. I think the critiques brought up of Jatts are important to bring to light, but that said, I also think using an ancient historical index to measure behavior today is not entirely helpful, and furthermore, I don't think it's right to label an entire group based on your outside interpretation of a community. However, given that you're dead set on painting the entire community as a group of casteist crazies, I don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

I don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

Neither do we, especially since we are long past discussing things which are on-topic. Thanks, all and fare-thee-well.