*sigh


all i said was that there is nothing wrong in arranged caste marriages, since this helps the society to continue to preserve the culture, inheritence, unique flavor of those perticular casts intact..
I ma not against the inter-cast...but one shudn't just get married to an inter-cast to prove a point..or wistfully think that cast shyshtum should be shunned. There is nothing wrong with teh cast system just like there is nothing wrong with religions ..it is the shystem that makes it wrong..and this shyshtum consits of we the people..
what's wrong in inheritance...it was better when it was teh inheritance..we could get better butchers,jewellers, craftsmen and so on and so forth, but now, the wealth of knowledge in thses trades is extinct like those poor animals who thrive in fake forests..
I said it is not laudable because a perticular caste was untouchable because they eat cow meat....but they did clean our toilets better...and I meant to say that we should honour every trade and caste...there is no question of not allowing to do a perticular trade ..it is teh question of hwo well the trade will be executed if teh person did not have an inheritance..now can we rule india like Indiara ghandi did...she had her inheritance and experience. she knew teh nuances of politics and had teh exposure and confidence because she was teh daughter of Negaru.
I don't mean to say that you and me cannot become leaders but we may be just raw hide...tsk..

Hi,

Enjoyed your article

The institution of marriage was a matter of convenience and will remain so. It is the factors that determine convenience that have changed. "WoW" great.

Regards,
M.A

Yes Jisa Joker, all social arrangements need to and probably will change with the times.  Thanks for  your visit and comment.

Regards

TimTima & denice_menace

The primary question I was trying to address was “What may have made caste emerge as such an important factor in determining marriages?” One possible answer I proposed was “Caste may have helped improve chances of compatibility because it had such a major influence on all other aspects of life and therefore on lifestyle”. IF this formulation has some truth to it, then one could expect to see a decreasing importance for caste in match-making (in urban India) because of its decreasing relevance in other spheres of life.

The post was NOT about merits / demerits of caste or of inter-caste marriages. If you think this has ruffled feathers, it probably has to do with reading the piece through the distorting lenses of one’s own opinions.

Yes, I do hold views on these issues as well. I believe the caste system did more harm than good. I believe that label of caste should not be an important factor in a marriage decision.

Marriage is a personal choice and ones personal views should dictate whether caste among other things is important in deciding about their marriage.

But yes I do object to placing restrictions on other's marital choices based on caste. In that sense I do hope that the preeminence of caste in marriages will reduce. I saw no need to elaborate upon these in the context of my post. But since you insist, let me attempt to.

I hope that the reliance upon caste as a factor in deciding marriages will reduce because

1.   It is no longer necessary to use caste to predict compatibility – because it is no longer the single major determinant of lifestyle

2.   Caste is an inherited characteristic. One has no choice about it. Restricting others marriage based on an arbitrary, inherited, immutable and an increasingly irrelevant label is not fair.

If one willingly seeks for an endogamous alliance, then I have nothing against it.

Now for d_m’s opinions which you seem to echo.

d_m feels that caste has relevance because “each and every cast has it's own rituals and thses will get thrown off and the authenticity of such gets lost”

I presume d_m means that intercaste marriages will lead to disappearance of caste specific rituals. Being a rationalist, I would welcome that. If i am told that we need restrict intercaste marriages to keep alive a “tradition” of irrational rituals, well I have no argument against it.

d_m further opines that caste is important in deciding marriages because “they help the diversity of cultures and yet they stand unique, but intercaste marriages muck up all thses essential  features that form teh concept of a society”

Caste endogamy attempts at status quo. It does not promote diversity. Diversity arises from deviations from the norm, not from restriction of interaction.

So that leaves us one reason, according to d_m -  just to preserve the caste system, as suggested – “I feel it is a fine institutio that should be preserved.,.i mean 'caste' system..but discriminating castes in terms of thier skills in not laudable..”

If the caste system indeed is essential and needs to be preserved then one could argue that occupation should again become a matter of inheritance, where you sit in a bus or a restaurant should be based on to whom you are born to and so on so forth. These aspects were integral features of the caste system, they were ritualistically practiced and “added to the diversity”. Why not?

Why is discriminating castes in terms of the occupations, skills that their members could pursue not laudable (in d_m’s words)? Because of the realization that the caste that is one is born into cannot and should not determine what one is allowed to do for a living? Exactly! If caste-matching is no longer essential for marital compatibility then why should it be the basis of a restriction that is imposed on others?

bhere...

Its seems more that way Synaptic muddle. As the awareness levels keeps growing. That some of the social arrangements are basically structres those are built and are followed as a matter of legacy. Not about right or wrong. Just an objective look of it. If you actually put few heads together, Marriage can be replaced with much better arrangements which are legally, socially and robust in every aspect. Preserving collective values and harmony without hurting individual space. Is marriage universally doing that. Debate by itself ....

Cheers...Joker

denice_menace
Thank you for your interest in the post.
This post is neither about the merits or demerits the caste system nor is it is about promoting inter-caste marriages. Just exploring why caste became so important a factor in match-making. An attempt at analysis, not a value judgement.
I do not wish to be drawn into a debate over the issues you have mentioned in your comment as it would be a digression from the idea of this post. Maybe some other place, some other time.

Regards

Thanks Mr.Fernandes. Yes, caste or no caste, survive it will, for quite some time to come.

Regards

cast  was not a convenience, it was amatter of pride and some other complex issues of status and skills and culture, I donot know why would you promote intercaste marraiges thouh the progency born out of thus seems to have better IQ the unique cultural aspects get distorted and lost in teh melee of confusions, each and every cast has it's own rituals and thses will get thrown off and the authenticity of such gets lost. I feel that there is nothing wrong in having in-caste marriages, they help the diversity of cultures and yet they stand unique, but intercaste marriages muck up all thses essential  features that form teh concept of a society..I think most NI's have now lost so much of their caste values..and sad that SI's are treading teh way..
I feel it is a fine institutio that should be preserved.,.i mean 'caste' system..but discriminating castes in terms of thier skills in not laudable..what says you/

Dear Synaptic,
A well written and analysed blog. You sure had some home truths to tell. 
My take is that the institution of marriage for whatever reason, holy or unholy , will survive.
Edwin Fernandes