Sunday, July 16, 2000		Lead Article

SNEHLATA PANDEY is agog with excitement as she is all set to meet a prospective groom for her daughter. At the same time, she is apprehensive. "I hope this proposal gets finalised and we don’t have to again run around looking for a match." To a bystander, her anxiety might seem misplaced. Her daughter has everything — status, looks and education --- and finding the right husband should not be a problem. After all, we are not dwelling in ancient times when a girl’s impending marriage loomed like a dark shadow over parents’ lives.

In fact, the modern urban Indian woman isn’t just a myth but a reality. She is poised, confident, self-assured and, above all, armed with enough educational degrees to be economically self-sufficient. With so many positive attributes to her credit, finding a suitable husband should be the least of her worries. But if one scratches the surface, a different scenario emerges. The Indian matrimonial market (pardon the term but no other word in our lexicon suffices) is essentially a groom’s market. Small wonder then that the mother of an eligible bachelor says smugly, "What choice do the girl’s parents have? Only the boy’s parents enjoy all privileges." Hard-hitting and a blow to feminism, but true.

At one time, India was the land of swayamvars where Draupadi had the gumption to state her objections publicly and refuse to consider soot-putra Karan as her suitor. Indeed, our folklore is replete with instances where women not only exercised marital choice but also had an upper hand in matrimonial alliances. In modern India, however, it is the urban, educated and professional men who call the shots. An eligible bachelor flit through dozens of proposals, screens innumerable alliances and takes his own sweet time before he is ready to ‘yes.’

Sure enough, girls are not treated like cattle anymore. They, too, have the right to exercise discretion. Andre Beiteille, an eminent sociologist, observes; "Indians of all social classes have a markedly conservative attitude towards both marriage and parenthood. This is in sharp contrast to the relatively more experimental attitude of the West. The conservative attitude towards marriage and parenthood has been able to survive the changes from the extended to the nuclear type of family."

Interestingly, the system or arranged matrimony has withstood the onslaught of modernisation. For a majority of people the chances of having a love marriage are still low. But for a few co-educational institutions, there are hardly any public places or contact points where a healthy interaction between members of opposite sexes could culminate into matrimony.

"Even otherwise", Patricia Uberoi, who edited Family, Kinship and Marriage in India, says, "Nobody really expects that adolescent crushes and affairs of the heart will lead through courtship to marriage despite the celebration of romance in popular media. In fact, romance has only dubious legitimacy and marriage quite clearly some other function." One obvious function is procreation. Though not marrying is considered a greater disgrace for a woman than a man, marriage is a vital institution for both the sexes. However, the playing field becomes uneven because of the undue emphasis that is placed on a woman’s biological age. Though youth commands a premium worldwide, few nations, except perhaps Oriental ones, can match the Indian obsession with a woman’s age. Since today most women go in for higher studies, their marriageable age is limited to a short span of 25-30 years. Although the age at which girls tie the nuptial knot nowadays has been pushed up by several notches, thirties and even late twenties spell a danger mark. The result is that the number of single women in urban areas is on the rise.

The dice is further loaded against the fairer sex for, while arranged marriages are still a norm, the process of finding matches has changed. Parents no longer confine their search for suitable partners for their children to their own community or clan. Instead, advertisements in newspapers that list the credentials of a boy or girl commodify the entire proceedings. The fact that the negotiating families are often complete strangers trivialises the whole issue. A wider choice is erroneously deemed the best choice. Idiosyncrasies take precedence over substance.

Undeniably, finding a match is more difficult since nowadays the alliance is determined by a host of factors. Apart from the conventional reasons which gave weightage to physical beauty and talents of a woman and a man’s qualifications and caring capacity, the youngsters are now laying more stress on mental compatibility. With husband-wife relationship undergoing a paradigm shift, there is need to vibe mentally. However, what is perplexing is that while a man’s plus points are glorified manifold, a woman’s slightest failing translates into her Achilles’ heel.

Another reason why the groom’s family has an upper hand is that convention calls for a girl to be married into a family of a higher status. Sociologist Manini Das remarks, "Given the tendency in India for women to be married to status equals or superiors, few brides are likely to have parents who are more powerful or influential than the parents- in-law".

Dr Anuradha Bhandari, a psychologist, professes: "The primeval instinct of Indian woman to look upon man as a breadwinner is still intact. Though Horner discovered the ‘fear of success’ doctrine way back in sixties, it still holds true". Women seem to possess a strangely ambivalent attitude towards achievement and fear that achievement goes against their feminine grain. By marrying a man of a superior status she is somehow reassured of her feminine worth. In societal terms she wants to be known as an achiever but in a man-woman equation she is willing to be placed on a lower pedestal. Since she herself undermines her authority, she automatically puts herself at a disadvantage.

The system of dowry further reinforces male superiority. Paradoxically, dowry has grown with the rise in women’s economic and emotional emancipation. Though some, like psychologist Dr Promila Vasudeva, argue that an increase in the amount of dowry given merely reflects the rise in standard of living, others like Ursula Sharma claim that dowry has come to represent the league in which one plays.

Das echoes a similar opinion: "With erosion of caste restrictions and lowering of conventional barriers on marriage, dowry is increasingly becoming the criterion by which one respectable girl is deemed more desirable than the other". Sharma writes, "Dowry favours and is favoured by a cultural ethos in which brides can be viewed as objects to be passed from one social group to another both as means of procreation and vehicle for aspiration to social prestige. Marital destinies are now open to manipulation by others. Brides are more controlled by rather than controllers of property". In modern times dowry certainly isn’t the only variable. But as Lionel Chaplin in his essay Bridgroom price in India pens: "A woman’s occupation as well as her potential earning capacity are also taken into account. Parents recognise this bargaining power which such brides possess but at the same time suggest that even the most highly qualified woman will marginally affect the other side’s expectations. A woman’s physical beauty and educational qualifications might reduce the dowry but often the reduction is minimal".

Ironically, the educated urban woman seems to have no qualms about dowry and bridewealth is considered the equivalent of the right over property. Bhandari quips: "Often sticking to tradition is the easiest way out. Where is the need to stick one’s neck out and rebel?" So with both tradition and modernity favouring the Indian male, his position in the matrimonial market becomes one of unassailable superiority. His ‘exalted’ position is supplemented with rewards, both in cash and kind.