Indian Matchmaking is a missed opportunity to confront biases in the South Asian community

The Washington Post

The Netflix dating reality show, says Mili Mitra, "depicts people who unthinkingly normalize some of the most pernicious biases that plague South Asian communities. At no point does it make any effort to interrogate or dive deeper into these attitudes. Arranged marriage is one of the ways Indian families self-isolate within their own social classes and groups, entrenching age-old divisions. While there are laws prohibiting different forms of discrimination in India, matchmakers and matrimonial advertisements — which are still carried in newspapers across the country — continue to draw on biases. Numerous studies over the past decade have found evidence of caste discrimination among marriage-seekers in India. Other research has documented how women face pressure to be “fair,” while dark-skinned women experience significant colorism. Only an estimated 2 percent of marriages are between different religions, while wealth, class and language also play a role in arranged marriage. Many of these prejudices are brought up by clients and families in the show — caste and skin tone most frequently — but little is said to condemn or address these discriminatory criteria. What about people who don’t want to get married or have children but are pushed to find matches because of parental or societal expectations? It was clear that many of those featured weren’t actually ready to get married, including Pradhyuman from Mumbai, who apparently rejected 150 potential brides. And what about the millions of LGBT+ Indians, including those who may be in the closet, who are often pressured into heteronormative relationships in a country where bigotry and stigma are common? The show doesn’t feature anyone looking for a same-sex partner."

ALSO:

• Indian Matchmaking's colorism is especially troublesome: "It was a not-insignificant part of this show that also really bothered me, and it is certainly a toxic symptom of certain Indian communities and social structures," says Nitish Pahwa, adding: "I think transparency is not a bad thing in and of itself; what I take issue with is the show, and the people involved, taking that colorism for granted as part of Indian dating life. This also holds true for when (matchmaker) Sima (Taparia) and some of the families would ask about caste, region, class, occupation, and so on. I am not saying this is an infrequent problem in Indian communities both at home and in the diaspora. But to just throw those things out there without digging into or interrogating the structures that enable them feels to me irresponsible. There’s a reason certain families who set up arranged marriages and matchmaking for their kids tend to hold these prejudices. That is shown in a way, I guess, but never actually explained. It was all portrayed as a natural part of Indian dating. With the show generally ending on a note of positivity and optimism about this system and how it works—all of that left a horrible taste in my mouth. I’m not someone who needs big blinking signs saying 'BY THE WAY THIS THING IS BAD' in pop culture. I love a good show with an antihero. But when you’re engaging with certain aspects of Indian cultures and presenting them to—let’s be honest—white audiences, who already tend to exoticize and glamorize and hold noxious, incorrect views about the country and its people, I think you have a responsibility to go further. Especially if you’re a reality show that aspires to be a docuseries, with all the authority that entails."
• Indian Matchmaking participant Vyasar Ganesan has been "struggling" with what he thinks of the show: "I’m happy to see the show is so successful, but I fear that many Americans and non-Indian people will see this as a simulacrum of Indian society as a whole," he says. "Indian society is in the midst of a fairly massive upheaval, across the board. Women’s rights, LGBQT rights, caste laws ― all of these are in a massive moment of flux. And in the middle of all of this, Indian Matchmaking appears, to some, as a callous, lighthearted look at one of the worst offenders. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to have been a part of the production, and I’m happy to have met people whom otherwise I never would have. But it would be ignorant of me to suggest that the show comes wholly without stigma. To those who want to criticize the show, I encourage you to continue to do so. It’s how we move the conversation forward, and how real change is made. But remember, too, this show is also a celebration of many, many things. Think about the couples in the opening sequences, sharing their stories. There is value in celebrating and critiquing, in both hands. Be mindful of that."
• None of Indian Matchmaking's couples are still together -- filming wrapped in October 2019: Matchmaker Sima Taparia contacted all of her clients -- more than 500 people -- to see if they were willing to appear on camera. Twelve initially agreed to participate and eight made the final cut after more than six months of filming. Creator Smriti Mundhra hopes viewers fixate less on anyone’s particular relationship status and focus more on each participant’s personal growth. “The means are more important than the end,” Mundhra tells the Los Angeles Times. “There’s something fascinating about watching people go through this process, and seeing what it revealed to people about themselves, about their own expectations, and about the way the tradition of arranged marriage is changing.”
• Indian Matchmaking slammed on Twitter for being sexist, classist, casteist and misogynistic
• Presenting the 27 funniest tweets in reaction to Indian Matchmaking