By Shreya Ramachandran, student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Research Assistant at the Center for Asian American Christianity, and Co-Editor of Imagine Otherwise.
I grew up hearing stories about how my parents had a love marriage. It was clear that this went against the tradition of the generations before them, those who had an arranged marriage. In most parts of the world today, the qualifier “love” is not necessary to clarify how the marriage came to be, since the concept of love or romance is an assumed part of marriage in the Euro-American world. But in India, if you have anything other than an arranged marriage, fixed by the two families, you would need to clarify by saying it is a “love marriage.” This is not to say that people do not love their spouses, rather the condition of love develops over time amidst a tradition that upholds the good of the community.
There is debate as to whether arranged marriage in India is actually on the decline, or if the entertainment industry only portrays it that way. If one were to watch the Bollywood industry and base their notion of contemporary Indian culture on what is portrayed here, they would be gravely mistaken. The Bollywood industry portrays a more liberal society than what the statistics show. In a 2018 survey of more than 160,000 households, 93% of married Indians said that theirs was an arranged marriage. Another survey found that 44% of newly-wed couples said their marriages were arranged in 2023, as compared to 68% in 2020 claiming that the change was “primarily the result of the evolving attitude of Indian families” (as a note, the second survey was based mostly on urban data).
The trend is clear. If the study conducted in 2018 included those who are married and not just newly-weds, there has been a steady decline in arranged marriages in India in the last generation. It's also much more common for Indian Americans to have love, interracial, or interfaith marriages. Parents in the diaspora might have less social capital to lose by allowing their adult children to pursue love. Netflix’s Indian Matchmaking portrays the difference between Indians and Indian Americans as they pursue matrimony. The parents in India have more of a voice in the decisions of their children, whereas the Indian Americans have more freedom to date and make decisions based on their own qualifications in a life-partner.
So the question is, how do the attitudes of Indian families evolve over time? This is a highly complex sociological and ethnographic question. What we are really asking is a question about tradition, more specifically, how a tradition can adapt and change over time. According to Alasdair MacIntyre, a tradition is a “historically extended, socially embodied argument, and an argument precisely in part about the goods which constitute that tradition.”1 Talal Asad takes this further, calling it a “discursive tradition.” For Asad, discursive tradition is historically established practices based on shared “kinds of reasoning.”2 To simplify this, think of tradition as a metaphorical passing of the baton, like in a relay race. It is a practice which connects cultures and generations throughout time and space. But the way in which that baton is passed, let’s call this the strategy or technique, may change based on the shared understanding of the racers. In a race, this might look like the first runner getting a head start, or changing which hand they use to pass the baton. Nevertheless, the tradition of passing the baton still remains intact. So different generations will incorporate new practices or alter already existing practices into their discursive tradition.
To flesh this out, let me turn to an Indian film released within the last 20 years: Santhosh Subramaniam (2008). As a Tamil-language film, its main protagonist, Santhosh, is a young-adult male who recently graduated from college. His father, Subramaniam, has a few adult children who are married and live in their large, luxurious home. Subramaniam is also a rich business man and has trained his sons to gradually become incorporated into the family business. Throughout the narrative, Subramaniam is a strict father who micromanages the life of his youngest son, Santhosh. Santhosh does not get to make any decisions on his own, even small decisions like purchasing a shirt. Whenever Santhosh vocalizes his opinion, Subramaniam always speaks over him, silencing his opinions. This causes Santhosh to secretly resent his father.
Initially, in the movie, Santhosh only secretly defies his father. He drinks with his friends even though his father disapproves. He is in the process of applying for a loan so he can start his own business. All of this is behind his father’s back—until he meets a girl. For Santhosh, this is one decision he wishes to make on his own, the decision of love.
Once his father finds out about the girl, his father tries to resolve the conflict with a logical and civil solution. He allows Santhosh to bring the girl to live with their family for 10 days, and if his dad decides that she is right for Santhosh, they can be together. As the days progress, Haasini, Santhosh’s girlfriend, accidentally reveals all of Santhosh’s secrets to the family and conflict erupts. As this conflict ensues, there is pertinent dialogue that, when analyzed, reveals how tradition adapts and forms.
First, we recognize what Asad referred to as “shared kinds of reasoning” in the family of Santhosh Subramaniam and perhaps Indian societies at large. Subramaniam initially has an arranged marriage planned for Santhosh because this is the tradition that he himself inherited, proving that it worked for his marriage. Subramaniam is depicted as a very rational, logical character. He does not do things without reason. The movie makes it clear that even Subramaniam’s choice of bride for Santhosh is determined by reason. His ultimate reason is love for his son. For Subramaniam, the tradition is that parents love their children by choosing things for them. It shows care and attention.
In the dialogue that follows their fight, Subramaniam humbly lets down his walls and admits that this has been his motivation all along, although it may have mistakenly caused harm. For Santhosh, he never told his father that he did not like these decisions because he understood his place within the tradition—that of the son who shows respect. In this tradition, respect looks like silent obedience. Yet for Santhosh, love became a tool to change the practices that had been established thus far in the tradition, but he did not do this outside of the tradition’s bounds. Since love and respect are at the heart of the tradition, the practices can change over time. Subramaniam gave Santhosh more of a choice instead of choosing for him, ultimately prioritizing his happiness as an act of love. Santhosh respected his father and went according to his will, but he also was honest with him because ultimately he trusts that his father wants what’s best for him. Santhosh never doubted that his father loved him.
Mutual recognition here is key to incorporating new or altered practices into the tradition. As long as there is mutual recognition, it follows the same lineage. Subramaniam, by recognizing and validating the practices of the younger generation, deems these practices legitimate. Santhosh, as a representative of the younger generation, also has the power to preserve old practices, thus legitimizing them whilst incorporating new ones. Both the older and younger generations are equal in their ability to show mutual recognition, thus establishing their role as practitioners of a shared lineage or tradition. Because Santhosh and his father were able to change their tradition together, Santhosh was able to be with Haasini in the end. Their open communication led to a mutual recognition of shared values.
What Santhosh Subramaniam does that other movies do not do is show the humanity behind the unapproving father. As the generation of parents watch more and more movies that portray love and tradition in this way, it has an impact. We see that the practices within a tradition can change over time with mutual recognition and shared reasoning. There is a power dynamic to take into account. But it is important to note that in many traditions there is a willingness to adapt and change, and we can see from observation because cultures are constantly changing.
Love marriage and arranged marriage sit at a hinge point in the discursive traditions in India. Neither one of them is morally right or wrong, but families are choosing what is right for them based on the context of their situation. The next generation is having the chance to change their tradition within the bounds of the rules that have already been established. According to CNN, in the last 30 years, the average age of young women getting married has increased, as well as those pursuing college degrees. This naturally means that women are more independent and less likely to be arranged to marry immediately after high school, depending on the urban or rural demographic in the survey.
What does this mean for the Indian American Christian? As we understand the theory of discursive tradition, we can see it working in our churches and ministries. Generations are levying power. Gender roles are being reshaped and questioned. It has become more socially acceptable to talk about mental health and racism. The task of inheriting a tradition and maintaining it is not easy. It requires for the younger generations to have patience and commitment. The task of the older generations to be adaptable and humble is not easy either. But as Christians, we are called to all these things to maintain the unity of our fellowship. What we can learn from Santhosh Subramaniam is that there is common ground, and often this common ground is love.
Shreya Ramachandran was born in India and moved to the United States when she was 2 years old. She is currently a student at Princeton Theological Seminary in the Masters in Theological Studies program. As a Research Assistant at the Center for Asian American Christianity, and Co-Editor of Imagine Otherwise, she enjoys learning about the Asian American church today and implementing her research into ministry.
Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Third, Book, Whole (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), 222.
Talal Asad, “The Idea of an Anthropology of Islam,” Qui Parle 17, no. 2 (2009): 20–23, https://doi.org/10.5250/quiparle.17.2.1.
Shreya does a great analysis of Love Marriage which is still a taboo in India. The great B. R. Ambedkar said that the ways to break the Caste system in Indian society are through inter-marriage and inter-dining. The movie Santosh Subramaniam addresses this directly and Shreya makes us dream of the possibility of that reality!
Love this article. I loved the inclusion of an Indian movie to provide more depth of context to Shreya’s thesis, and how at the end, she tied it all together to Indian-Americans and its praxis.