Between love and marriage, lies matchmaking

Parul Bhandari

The definition of a “suitable girl” has undergone a change as men prefer “working and modern women”. So much so that women who choose not to drink alcohol are immediately labelled as “traditional”, “backward” or “boring”. At the same time, they are supposed to know the limits to these new freedoms, like when and where to not drink or not drink “too” much. These debilitating discourses of modernity and women’s freedom obfuscate rather than enhance women’s identities

It is widely believed that the “neoliberal” urban middle class, that is those born in the late 1980s and early 1990s and who grew in an “open” Indian economy –– where access to Coca Cola was no longer a novelty, and shopping the only quotidian exercise, have different matchmaking experiences. This is because, to begin with, they are pushing the age of marriage to late 20s and early 30s, and also because they are increasingly being dictated by technology to experience romance. For example, the first encounters of romance and matchmaking are increasingly being experienced through swiping “right” or “left” and/or sending “interests” on matrimonial websites. The question, however, remains: Is the essence of matchmaking any different now? Broadly, I identify four primary changes in the experiences of matchmaking, and it seems that certain cardinal principles remain unchanged. [The writer is author of ‘Matchmaking in Middle Class India: Beyond Arranged and Love Marriage’]

The virtual world

The first meeting between two prospective spouses now inevitably takes place in the virtual world, as they initiate their first conversation either on the chat provisions of matrimonial websites, or on WhatsApp, Instagram DM, or Facebook Messenger. This means that two individuals are getting to know each other while occupying comfortable zones at home or office. Only if something “clicks” do they take the next step of meeting in person. Ben-Ze’ev’s Love Online: Emotions on the Internet (2004) delineated the advantages of faceless interaction facilitated by the internet, as he explained that individuals can overcome hesitations and shyness by first interacting online. This also means that prospective spouses have managed to avoid or defer the dreadfulness of that infamous “chai” meeting, where they meet each other for the first time under the watchful eyes of their families, imposing aunts and nervous mothers. This, if nothing else, has made the experience of matchmaking that much more pleasant.

Professional Matchmakers come in

The matchmaker “aunties” and bicholas are increasingly being replaced by matchmaking agencies who model themselves on a corporate ethos, with “agents” dressed in sharp suits, talking on Bluetooth devices. Working with an impersonal code of conduct, these agencies make their clients sign contracts and choose a “package”: a “basic” one includes simply suggesting matches and a more expensive one offers services such as background checks, arranging first meetings, participating in wedding negotiations… These agencies are becoming increasingly popular with the professional middle class that claims that the agencies are better equipped to address specific needs, such as desiring a spouse with whom they can “connect”, whereas the bicholas tend to only look at caste, community or status similarities of two individuals.

Normalisation of Romantic Past

The urban middle class is pushing the age of marriage, and scholars have called this phase “elongated singlehood”. Singlehood here only means non-marriage as there is a tacit expectation that someone who is marrying in the late 20s or early 30s must have had romantic relationships. At the same time, there is an expectation that these experiences had “limits”, such as no pre-marital sex (a rule more binding for women than men). To that extent, the question no longer is whether someone has had an “affair” before marriage, but the concern is whether the prospective spouse was the troublemaker that led to the break-up!

From the Hearth to the Gown

A popular question posed to prospective brides in matchmaking is whether they can cook. While this question might still be floated, it does not have as decisive a hold as before. Instead, prospective grooms and their families are looking for that “modern” girl, who can raise a glass of champagne and wine, can “carry off” western clothes, while also readily and happily live with the groom’s family and don that salwar-kameez when the occasion beckons. Prospective grooms specify on their matrimonial profiles that they are fine with a wife who drinks “socially” and who has “modern and traditional values”. One of the most gripping articulation of this expectation is the new trend of the bride wearing a gown and tiara at either her engagement or cocktail party. Indeed, the gown has become an important inclusion in the bride’s trousseau and a potent symbol of her and her family’s modernity. These might appear as significant transformations; however, a deeper analysis of the “marriage market” reveals how certain rules continue to hold ground.

Same-Community Marriages

Recently, shaadi.com UK got into trouble when it was found out that the option of “Scheduled Caste” was automatically left out when a high-caste person set-up a profile. This algorithm is deeply problematic and, at the same time, reflective of a reality where, as one begins spouse selection, they tend to specify their preference for the same caste/community marriage. As time passes, they slightly relax the criterion of caste, insofar as it is not “too low down” the hierarchy. They certainly are more hesitant to look for a spouse outside their regional and linguistic community. For example, a Punjabi Khatri prefers to marry a Punjabi Khatri, though they might eventually agree to marry a Punjabi Brahmin but would certainly not look for a Marwari.

Family Status

“Arranged” marriages are often criticised for suggesting matches on the basis of family background than individual preferences and personality traits. As a result, in championing their modern selves (modern love, and marriage), those from the “new” middle class claim that they base their choice (whether in love or arranged marriage) on the basis of connection and compatibility. Yet, in significant ways, these words also serve as indexices to one’s family status. This is to say that two individuals often claim connection and compatibility as they share the same choices in leisure activities, clothes, sports, value systems… Though these might seem individualistic traits, they are, in fact, reflective of one’s class and social situation, which in turn is determined by one’s family.

Biodata and Photos

Films, sitcoms and stand-up comedies routinely mock the circulation of one’s “biodata” and photograph. Yet, ironically, social media platforms seem to do the same. For example, an individual takes hours to decide which photograph to put on their social media (as well as which to give to matrimonial agents) to attract the “right” person’s interest. They also carefully choose to “like” sitcoms, personalities and other pages on Facebook and Instagram as these become indications of their personality. In this way, the essence of this supposed archaic and conservative practice of circulating biodata and photographs is captured and re-packaged by social media.

Expectations of women

Another grand claim of modern loves and marriages is that they espouse gender-egalitarian interpersonal relationships. Men claim to support women to take up employment and enjoy new cultures of leisure — malls, restaurants, hanging out with friends, drink alcohol, and party. So much so that women who choose not to drink alcohol are immediately labelled as “traditional”, “backward” or “boring”. At the same time, there are limits to these supposed new freedoms. Women are expected to know when and where (in the public or in front of elders) to not drink or not drink “too” much. The freedom of working outside home is also not without its blindspots as their status of working women does not free them from domestic duties. In fact, they are expected to manage the household better now as they have the luxury of hiring part-time and full-time helps.

One of the most regrettable backlashes of these supposed new freedoms is that being a housewife has assumed a demeaning connotation. Some women who choose to or are forced to stay at home are mistreated by her own family members. Her emotional and physical labour finds little appreciation as she is doomed to thankless drudgery of everyday work. Though the definition of a “suitable girl” has undergone change as men prefer “working and modern women”, new hierarchies have been established between the “modern” and “traditional”, “fun” and “boring”, “working, therefore smart” and “housewife, therefore unworthy”. These debilitating discourses of modernity and women’s freedom obfuscate rather than enhance women’s identities.

There is no doubt that the space of matchmaking is more appealing now with its endless promises of individual freedom and assertion of will. Yet, the qualitative meanings and essence remains the same; they are now just delivered in a different, prettier package.