Olde tinder

I've been watching Indian Matchmaking, a curious show about arranged marriages sold to a western audience that values choice above all else. Yet strangely, Sima's matchmaking services are just the olden-time equivalent of a Tinder matching algorithm. Plus, it's emphasised on the show that no one is forced to go through with a marriage. Sima matches people up by sending 'biodatas' which are basically dating profiles - the rest is up to the couple. If her client is having a particularly hard time finding a match, she might send in a relationship therapist, face-reader or astrologer.

A lot of people on the internet call out the show for not challenging dangerous stereotypes and assumptions. It doesn't address colorism, castes, female autonomy etc. The show's anti-heroine is an assertive Indian-American lawyer, Aparna, who Sima says needs to learn to compromise. She is a perfectionist, and if she doesn't come out of a date hating someone she calls it a success. The internet has decried the fact that she, and others like successful business-owner Ankita, are always told to compromise for the man. Yet Sima never tells her male clients to compromise.

I don't think this is true. First of all, all relationships are a compromise. You will always have to compromise on your individual identity in a relationship because you need to make room for the two of you to grow together, even as you continue maturing your own sense of self. Sima gets frustrated at Pradhyuman, a 30 year old jewellery designer in Mumbai, for rejecting hundreds of girls. She sends him to a relationship coach, who is the first to make him consider what a girl might want from him. He also gets a dressing down from his sister for being so picky and quick to judge. This is compromise. If he wants to be in a relationship he needs to learn to invest in the other person first.

Then there's Akshay, a 25 year old from a wealthy Indian family. He basically compromises everything about himself and heeds his mum's wishes for him to be married by the end of the year. Dominated by a stressed-out mum, he has compromised his own personal development in order to satisfy his mum's demands. His stunted growth will make him a hard match.

Oddly enough, the show does challenge stereotypes. By holding up a mirror to our own preferences we are forced to reckon with our unspoken, traditional attitudes and beliefs in the marriage market, even as we continue to celebrate the progression of women.

Nadia, an easy-going Guyanese-Indian-American wedding planner, says her man should earn just as much, if not more, than her. One of the reasons why Manisha breaks things off with Vyasar is because she has an issue with his earnings. If we are so progressive, can we not accept out-earning our partners?

Critics complain that Indian Matchmaking is overtly racist, but have dating preferences ever not been racist? (There is a fascinating insight episode about this). Yes, being fetishised can be awful. But between two people in an open, intimate relationship, there is no longer any room for a stereotype to play its role. Plus, we pass superficial judgments all the time to save search costs. Does it really matter that the person earns more than you? Or that they're taller than you? Is this any better or worse than having a racial preference?

Edit: Nevermind, I watched a more recent episode where a different match-maker straight out told one of the women that in a marriage, a woman has to give much more emotional investment than the man does. That's pretty disappointing.