I've been sitting on this post for months, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the problems facing the LDS church in India when it comes to marriage. I've decided I'm never going to have clear thoughts on the subject, so here goes ...
Many people spend an entire tour in India and don't get to be guests at an Indian wedding. We've been to five weddings now. Other Americans at the Consulate actually come to us and ask when we're going to the next one, because they'd like to tag along. We're just lucky, I guess.
Each of the weddings we've been to has had the cultural basics: dinner, a bride piled with jewelry, a dais on which the married couple stands so that everyone can admire them. But there have been significant differences, too.
Joseph and Queen Mary were married at an open-air, dirt-floored Catholic church on the outskirts of town. They both come from poor families, and their marriage was arranged by Joseph's grandfather and Queen Mary's parents.
Gabriel and Priya were the hot gossip for a while, because they actually had a love marriage AND Priya converted from Hinduism to Catholicism. The ceremony took place at San Thome Basilica and had a few elements of a traditional Hindu marriage thrown in. Then there was a lavish dinner and reception across the street. Priya's parents have come around to the idea of a love marriage, but there are many in the extended family who are very upset about it.
Sri Krishna and Deepa's (and here) wedding was the only one we've been to that was purely Hindu. It had all the old traditions (multiple priests, drumming, Deepa's name was changed) with a few new traditions thrown in (man swallowing razor blades, anyone?). The marriage was arranged by their parents, and Sri Krishna and Deepa were clearly still getting used to the idea of being together. They barely knew each other.
Suyash and Cheryl's wedding included the traditional Hindu ceremony, which is pretty strange, because they're both Mormons. We were asked to stand in for Cheryl's parents, too, which turned out to mean that we had a huge role in the ceremony. Suyash just recently got a visa to go to the U.S., so as soon as Cheryl's new Indian visa comes through (which will allow her to enter the country again after she leaves it ... long story) they'll be sealed in one of the LDS temples there. This one (obviously) is a love marriage. There are many in Suyash's family who are not happy about that (or about his conversion to Christianity, either).
This brings us to Isaac and Richela. Isaac and Richela were married in an LDS ceremony at our new church building, and the next week they flew to Hong Kong to be sealed in the temple there. Though they've known each other for a while (the LDS community here is very small), their marriage was arranged by their parents. Mind blowing, I tell you.
After they were pronounced "man and wife," Isaac put a gold chain around Richela's neck, which is the Indian equivalent of exchanging rings. I'll just mention here that all five Indian weddings we've attended (both arranged and "love" marriages) have skipped the "kiss the bride" part. I have never once seen an Indian couple kiss, not even at a wedding. I rarely see an Indian couple holding hands, though seeing friends of the same gender holding hands is extremely common.
Then Isaac and Richela signed the legal documents and, voila, they were married. Isn't Richela's bouquet pretty? I love yellow roses.
After the ceremony, Richela changed from her white gown to a traditional wedding sari for the reception, which was very similar to every other reception we've attended. The bride and groom stood on a decorated dais and had their picture taken with every single guest while everyone else ate a fantastic meal.
Here are the caterers with just one of several giant pots of biriyani ... mmmm ... biriyani.
And here's what John has dubbed "the wedding feeding trough." Everyone's lined up with their banana leaves, eating amazing food with their fingers. It's the only way to do it, people! Delicious.
Here's the reception line. Getting married in India requires some stamina on the part of the bride and groom. They have to stand around looking gorgeous for hours!
Despite my cultural squeamishness about the arranged part of Isaac and Richela's marriage, I'm really happy for them. I think they're well suited, and I've already seen them chipping away at taboos against showing affection. They sat in front of us in church a few weeks ago, and he had his arm around her shoulders, which doesn't sound like much but is actually pretty incredible.
Now to the topic why marriage is such a problem for the LDS church in India. In the West, marriage is generally a joining of individuals. In India, marriage is a joining of families and communities. It has very little to do with the bride and groom and everything in the world to do with the fortunes and futures of their families. The old caste system still strongly influences marriage, even among people who have technically left their caste by leaving Hinduism.
The bride and groom are considered too young and inexperienced to make a good decision when it comes to something so communally important as marriage, so they obey their parents and marry the person the older generation thinks is appropriate. The "appropriateness" is often based on Hindu astrology, caste, perceived temperament, and family fortune.
I was shocked at how ingrained this idea is when I attended a branch council meeting in which the problem of marriage was discussed. There are a ton of young, single adults in all three Chennai branches -- and no one's marrying each other. It's a problem of church growth as well as personal progress. Marriage is arranged by the parents, and their parents aren't members of the church and so arrange marriages within the traditional Hindu communities. The children can't fathom disobeying their parents when it comes to something so important, so they marry outside the church and go inactive.
In the meeting, we were talking about how to solve the problem through YSA activities. Well, what actually happened was the branch president hesitatingly brought up the idea and was then met with uncomfortable silence followed by arguments about whether YSA activities were appropriate.
"They already have an activity once a year!"
"But their parents won't come to meet the girls."
"But who's going to chaperone?"
"But they can't talk to each other."
Someone brought up Isaac and Richela, meaning to say that they knew each other through YSA and that probably helped bring about the marriage. This was instantly shot down by several members of the branch council, including Isaac's mother, who insisted over and over that it was an arranged marriage. The implication clearly was that if the marriage hadn't been arranged it would have been inappropriate in some way.
I mentioned that John and I met at a YSA activity, but for the most part I just sat there and watched them struggle with the totally foreign idea that young people might be able to meet and marry on their own.
I told the mission president's wife about this experience when we were talking the other day, and she told me about several similar stories. She thinks the biggest problem the church faces here now is that the young people aren't marrying each other. I agree, and I don't see the problem getting solved for some time ... a generation or two, at least.
What I can't figure out is this: Is the real problem that the marriages are being arranged outside the church or that they're being ARRANGED? Is it my Western culture that makes me balk at the idea of an arranged marriage, or is there something morally wrong with it? Does the sealing power make a difference in this argument? Do two people have to love each other before they're sealed, or can they be sealed and then learn to love?
Any ideas?
Many people spend an entire tour in India and don't get to be guests at an Indian wedding. We've been to five weddings now. Other Americans at the Consulate actually come to us and ask when we're going to the next one, because they'd like to tag along. We're just lucky, I guess.
Each of the weddings we've been to has had the cultural basics: dinner, a bride piled with jewelry, a dais on which the married couple stands so that everyone can admire them. But there have been significant differences, too.
Joseph and Queen Mary were married at an open-air, dirt-floored Catholic church on the outskirts of town. They both come from poor families, and their marriage was arranged by Joseph's grandfather and Queen Mary's parents.
Gabriel and Priya were the hot gossip for a while, because they actually had a love marriage AND Priya converted from Hinduism to Catholicism. The ceremony took place at San Thome Basilica and had a few elements of a traditional Hindu marriage thrown in. Then there was a lavish dinner and reception across the street. Priya's parents have come around to the idea of a love marriage, but there are many in the extended family who are very upset about it.
Sri Krishna and Deepa's (and here) wedding was the only one we've been to that was purely Hindu. It had all the old traditions (multiple priests, drumming, Deepa's name was changed) with a few new traditions thrown in (man swallowing razor blades, anyone?). The marriage was arranged by their parents, and Sri Krishna and Deepa were clearly still getting used to the idea of being together. They barely knew each other.
Suyash and Cheryl's wedding included the traditional Hindu ceremony, which is pretty strange, because they're both Mormons. We were asked to stand in for Cheryl's parents, too, which turned out to mean that we had a huge role in the ceremony. Suyash just recently got a visa to go to the U.S., so as soon as Cheryl's new Indian visa comes through (which will allow her to enter the country again after she leaves it ... long story) they'll be sealed in one of the LDS temples there. This one (obviously) is a love marriage. There are many in Suyash's family who are not happy about that (or about his conversion to Christianity, either).
This brings us to Isaac and Richela. Isaac and Richela were married in an LDS ceremony at our new church building, and the next week they flew to Hong Kong to be sealed in the temple there. Though they've known each other for a while (the LDS community here is very small), their marriage was arranged by their parents. Mind blowing, I tell you.
After they were pronounced "man and wife," Isaac put a gold chain around Richela's neck, which is the Indian equivalent of exchanging rings. I'll just mention here that all five Indian weddings we've attended (both arranged and "love" marriages) have skipped the "kiss the bride" part. I have never once seen an Indian couple kiss, not even at a wedding. I rarely see an Indian couple holding hands, though seeing friends of the same gender holding hands is extremely common.
Then Isaac and Richela signed the legal documents and, voila, they were married. Isn't Richela's bouquet pretty? I love yellow roses.
After the ceremony, Richela changed from her white gown to a traditional wedding sari for the reception, which was very similar to every other reception we've attended. The bride and groom stood on a decorated dais and had their picture taken with every single guest while everyone else ate a fantastic meal.
Here are the caterers with just one of several giant pots of biriyani ... mmmm ... biriyani.
And here's what John has dubbed "the wedding feeding trough." Everyone's lined up with their banana leaves, eating amazing food with their fingers. It's the only way to do it, people! Delicious.
Here's the reception line. Getting married in India requires some stamina on the part of the bride and groom. They have to stand around looking gorgeous for hours!
Despite my cultural squeamishness about the arranged part of Isaac and Richela's marriage, I'm really happy for them. I think they're well suited, and I've already seen them chipping away at taboos against showing affection. They sat in front of us in church a few weeks ago, and he had his arm around her shoulders, which doesn't sound like much but is actually pretty incredible.
Now to the topic why marriage is such a problem for the LDS church in India. In the West, marriage is generally a joining of individuals. In India, marriage is a joining of families and communities. It has very little to do with the bride and groom and everything in the world to do with the fortunes and futures of their families. The old caste system still strongly influences marriage, even among people who have technically left their caste by leaving Hinduism.
The bride and groom are considered too young and inexperienced to make a good decision when it comes to something so communally important as marriage, so they obey their parents and marry the person the older generation thinks is appropriate. The "appropriateness" is often based on Hindu astrology, caste, perceived temperament, and family fortune.
I was shocked at how ingrained this idea is when I attended a branch council meeting in which the problem of marriage was discussed. There are a ton of young, single adults in all three Chennai branches -- and no one's marrying each other. It's a problem of church growth as well as personal progress. Marriage is arranged by the parents, and their parents aren't members of the church and so arrange marriages within the traditional Hindu communities. The children can't fathom disobeying their parents when it comes to something so important, so they marry outside the church and go inactive.
In the meeting, we were talking about how to solve the problem through YSA activities. Well, what actually happened was the branch president hesitatingly brought up the idea and was then met with uncomfortable silence followed by arguments about whether YSA activities were appropriate.
"They already have an activity once a year!"
"But their parents won't come to meet the girls."
"But who's going to chaperone?"
"But they can't talk to each other."
Someone brought up Isaac and Richela, meaning to say that they knew each other through YSA and that probably helped bring about the marriage. This was instantly shot down by several members of the branch council, including Isaac's mother, who insisted over and over that it was an arranged marriage. The implication clearly was that if the marriage hadn't been arranged it would have been inappropriate in some way.
I mentioned that John and I met at a YSA activity, but for the most part I just sat there and watched them struggle with the totally foreign idea that young people might be able to meet and marry on their own.
I told the mission president's wife about this experience when we were talking the other day, and she told me about several similar stories. She thinks the biggest problem the church faces here now is that the young people aren't marrying each other. I agree, and I don't see the problem getting solved for some time ... a generation or two, at least.
What I can't figure out is this: Is the real problem that the marriages are being arranged outside the church or that they're being ARRANGED? Is it my Western culture that makes me balk at the idea of an arranged marriage, or is there something morally wrong with it? Does the sealing power make a difference in this argument? Do two people have to love each other before they're sealed, or can they be sealed and then learn to love?
Any ideas?
Weren't a lot of marriages and plural marriages back in the early days of the church basically arranged?
ReplyDeleteStill--what a conundrum for the growth of the church. Is there any way for the older generation of the church to influence who the parents pick?
Your last question is exactly what church leaders here are trying to figure out. They're fighting centuries of tradition, though, in which marriages were meant to strengthen families' positions within their castes. I think change will take a while.
DeleteI've been thinking about this some more, and it occurred to me how many people there are in my life that I love, but did not personally choose. My parents, my siblings, my children--and I'm sealed to all of them.
ReplyDeleteI've thought the same thing. I've also been thinking about how even "love marriages" require all kinds of compromise and adjustment. I suppose an arranged marriage simply requires a different kind.
DeleteInteresting to think about. In the West we marry for love (usually) but how many of us really actually know what we are getting into. Sure, you can get to know a person beforehand, but there will still be surprises. People will change and there will be changes in fortune (health, money, etc.), so even for us in the West, marriage takes a leap of faith. People in their 20s (or older for that matter) may not have a clue of what might make a marriage last, so I could see the advantage of having someone wiser and more experienced choosing for you, but there is something about making your own choice that makes one more vested in the decision...more committed to the outcome.
ReplyDeleteI would think that a religion would be a factor in considering an appropriate mate for a child. Interfaith marriages don't always work that well. I would think that parents would at least attempt to arrange marriages where the faiths of the two parties are compatible?
--Eliza
I think one of the problems is that the parents aren't happy that their children have left the Hindu (or sometimes Catholic) faith, so they see the arranged marriage as a way to pull them back into the fold. Unfortunately, it seems to work quite often.
DeleteMy friend Suyash said something interesting about the idea of being committed to an arranged marriage. He said Indians rank their obligation to family higher than their own well-being, and that feeling of obligation makes them committed to making the marriage work. Interesting.
In Mexico, the cultural tradition is for men to marry much younger women. This doesn't exactly match up with "LDS culture" either. For example, its kind of hard to tell your Laurel girls that its OK to date as long as its not serious if they are being asked out by men who are looking for a serious relationship.
ReplyDelete--Eliza