It'd be interesting to consider for a moment exactly why free choice in a marriage partner is so upsetting to the social order. We have the problem posed in Sunlight on a Broken Column, which is a sullying of social position and familial/royal blood. There is also the matter of thwarting the authority of elders, but consider for a moment the tremendous exchange of wealth that accompanies the marrying off of a woman and the subsequent idea that marriage resembles more closely an economic exchange than a union of two people. I think that it is only at this point that we can begin to understand how free choice in a marriage partner can be a feminist issue rather than just an issue of the freedom that the young have in their choices. Remember that Asghar in Twilight in Delhi faces the same issue as Laila does in Sunlight.... When a woman chooses her marriage partner based on love and not on social position or power, she ceases to be a bargaining chip or an object.
Another interesting thing to consider is how much this development in feminism is in response to the British occupation.
I have a friend who is from India, and still, the idea of a love marriage is a separate entity from one arranged by the parents. She's told me that it would be okay for her to make a love marriage, but that she would also expect her family to look for a husband for her, and that it is indeed an economic exchange. I think it's really interesting to see how the country's thoughts towards this particular societal facet have developed; maybe it has to do with the fact that the disparity of wealth in India is pretty wide, and daily living economics are still a chief concern among its people, rather than women's social liberation.
ReplyDelete