From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 15:20:35 PDT

Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u15297
>From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Marrying in the Old Country
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 91 10:01:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: uicvm.91181.050121U15297
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 88

Contrary to replies critiquing my post and stoutly defending the stance
taken by Subbarao Kambhampati, I maintain that Surajit Mukherjee raised
a query eliciting a genuine response. This notion of mine was amply
confirmed by his subsequent post and response to Rao. For the sake of
clarity I reproduce, in entirety, his original post:

< I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of
< marrying a girl from India (arranged) and bringing her here.  Is
< there anyone who has done this?  The man should have either grown
< up in the States or lived over 10 years here.  I am concerned
< about adjustment, etc.

< Please e-mail responses.

< Thanks,
< Surajit Mukherjee

First, I know neither Surajit nor Subbarao.

Next, why I feel Surajit deserved better. I sincerely feel he asked a
straight question. I see nothing in the above poster to indicate otherwise.
Whether his airing a personal concern, with some unfortunate choice of
words, was judicious, is not at issue here. I shall refer to it later.

However, I see no 'attitude' here as suggested by some. It is certainly
not uncommon for Indians, both first and second generation, to desire
alliances with Indian women. One, demographics in the U.S. determine
that those seeking such alliances widen their scope to include India.
Second, finding a partner from 'the old country' has gone on since Indians
arrived here. This hardly departs from customary practices in India itself
where all kinds of negotiations take place from various points culminating
in relocation. That women usually relocate to accomodate the interests of
men certainly merits inquiry into structural constraints and
institutionalised gender differences. But that would be side-stepping the
concern here.

I really see no need for sanctimonious and ridiculing postures. Choice,
and such that of Surajit's, albeit personal, is something that affects
all our lives. The question posed seems to me not so much to require
how one arrived at such a choice nor the processes of cognitive reasoning
to include a 'spectrum' and the like (eminently desirable, I agree, though
I would add that that the 'spectrum' itself is constrained by excluding
other forms: cohabitation, choosing to stay single etc...), but rather one
of having made a choice, what next. The 'what next' arena is encumbered
with dilemmas, doubts and hazards. Not to be treated lightly when
speaking of humans, I agree, but Surajit's point was just that.

There are difficulties in relocation, adaptation and coping regardless of
gender. Whether women transferring residence from natal to marital
households are more subject to strain opens up a forum for lively
discussion. But I shall restrict my desire to indulge. Anyway, we have
before us a gentleman who seeks to be informed in an area that is
problematic. For a female spouse whose relocation will mean moving to an
alien country (unless she has visited here before) and living under a
new set of conditions that are markedly different than it would have
been had she relocated within the same country.

Furthermore, Surajit explicitly asked for private mail. Neither were
his wishes respected nor were there any checks in outpourings, sarcastic
or otherwise, in an open forum. The power and use of arbitrary inferences
leaves me astounded. One happy person merrily proffered advice on dating
to find a soulmate by recounting personal success on that front. Another
respondent questioned my maturity/sanity in my inability to comprehend
the nuances in the text supplied by Subbarao and further, in my being
passe. How could I have not inferred the same from the very first poster?
I admit I was remiss in that the sarcasm escaped me. Particularly in the
light of information substantiated by the Apna Ghars, Manavis and so on, I
felt the issue at hand deserved nothing short of a pragmatic, helping
response.

Subbarao's points on "Fatalism in Attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises
and Compatibility" are well taken. I was not, however, prepared for the
extent of his following. It seems to me we should have let Surajit stew
for having asked the question. I did wonder why he chose not to be more
circumspect and phrase a question that would have fetched fewer umwarranted
brick-bats. Why, Surajit, could you not have said something like 'you
you were interested in the difficulties women immigrants faced as spouses?'

In a more urgent macro-vision of desirable social change one can hardly
lose sight of the here-and-now by reducing it to a mockery. No boubt we
need the Cho Ramaswamy's and Laxman's but, really, is there THE WORD
that can be ftp'd on any subject? If change is dynamic, so is dialogue.
dialogue. Any other belief to the contrary can only foster a smugness and
distance. I fear I am not very sanguine about rebuttals that deny the
benefit of the doubt to any individual.

Shyamala Parameswaran