Gita Khanna
Thank you for your visit and comment. Glad that you find some relevance in the post.
I am not sure if I understand why you think the post is myopic. If what you mean is that it is an oversimplification or are pointing to a lack of depth, then I agree with you in some ways. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, my intention here was to explore one single idea, one single factor in what is definitely a complex issue and to do it in as concise a manner as possible.

Regards

WriteSpice
Yes, thats what I set out to say. What you have added at the end is very true. It is what gives marriages - conventional or otherwise - a fighting chance.
Thanks for your input.

Regards

kolipakkam Sir,
Thank you for your kind comment. It is gratifying to see someone interpret one's writing in almost exactly the same way as it was intended (which unfortunately is all too rare a happening!)

Regards

TimTima
Short because it was intended to be. An attempt at economy of words, to appeal to even those with a short attention span. But I have a feeling that even this was too long!

Let me try and condense my thoughts further -
Caste endogamy may have become a norm because it improved chances of marital compatibility. Why? Because caste used to be the single most determinant of lifestyle. IF this hypothesis is true, then the role of caste-matching in match-making may be expected to weaken in the urban Indian society since it is losing it's dominant role in detemining lifestyle.
I begin the third paragraph with "In urban India..." so it’s clear that I am limiting my observations to this group. I am not claiming that inter-caste marriages are completely accepted now, even in metros. I am just predicting, or hoping or indulging in wishful thinking that with the weakening hold of caste on one's day-to-day life, the reliance upon caste as a compatibility predictor will reduce.

Having said that, there are indications of increasing incidence of intercaste marriages and their acceptance, particularly in urban India. If the kind of anecdotal evidence that you quote is permissible, one could easily find enough of it that counters what you have observed in your family.

In one of the earliest studies on inter-caste marriages in India, the sociologist C T Kannan observed that inter-caste marriages were on the rise and that they were becoming more socially acceptable. He noted that  “Just twenty-five years ago the instances of inter-caste marriages were very few; and those individuals who dared to marry outside the caste had to undergo great hardships. Today the situation is altogether different.”  And this was in 1963 -  almost half a century ago! Surely, things have come a long way in that direction by now (Kannan, C T.  Intercaste and inter-community marriages in India.  Bombay : Allied Publishers, 1963). The increasing number of “caste no bar” adverts in matrimonial columns, and even online “intercaste marriage portals” may also be indicative of this trend.

I agree with you that to some, it is not convenient to marry and they probably should not. My point is that many of those who do marry do look for convenience in marriage. Caste may have been a predictor of such convenience, in the emerging scenario, it may no longer be.

As for this being a shortsighted view, I am not sure if I understand what you are suggesting. If you mean that this is a simplistic and / or a superficial view, I concede that. The effort was to pick one single idea, one single factor in what is undoubtedly a complex issue and explore it.

Thanks for your interest in the post.

maria_m
You are welcome.
"A matter of convenience for one - an inconvenience for the other". Very pertinent observation. Both parties try to maximum their convenience factor, but one would achieve an upper hand in most cases. What probably matters is how unbalnacing is the inequity?
Thanks for the comment.

Regards

An interesting view point. Relevant in its own strange myopic way. Leaves much room to be covered though.

regards,
Gita

Intelligent observation and exploration. I agree. It is a fact that marriage of people from very different backgrounds require a lot of adjustment, understanding and effort. Therefore, chances of failure are high. Today's intercaste marriages may not be be an example of drastically different backgrounds because people are becoming more cosmopolitan. Therefore, instead of looking at caste we can now look at other aspects of compatibility like education, breeding and intelligence. But at the same time, things like views and opinions may change after marriage because of the experiences and knowledge acquired with age.  

very well said and extremely tersely. You got the gist of the sociology of the institution of marriage, in the sense even in arranged marriages, you know the traits of your spouse before getting married and without much interactions. That is, there was a social proximity and community-compatibility dating instead of a one-on-one.  Thanks.

Raghuram Ekambaram

Interesting point of view. Will think about it and come back. A matter of convenience for one party could turn into an inconvenience for the other? No?

Kiran Det
Yes, "convenience" maybe in different things for different people at different times. What I was trying to say is that caste may have been a good suurogate "indicator" of convenience but need no longer be.
Thanks for he visit and comment.

Regards