Why do reluctant women in arranged marraiges end up perpetuating it?

[YogSothoth]

@Acsenray

Just in case you’re not joking, the partition of India in 1947, which resulted in the creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state.

I only knew that something like that created both states, that’s why Kashmir is a stickler issue between the two countries. I didn’t know it was referred to as The Partition

[bldysabba]

@Anaamika

I’m not offended, but they’re not exactly my ideas, just the stuff I have been exposed to. And yes, even sven is right. I think there is a gender divide. A vast one. When I talk to my male cousins, I get the same impression - that they’ve literally lived a different life than me. They didn’t have to fight the battles women did - they just saw the results.

My mother disowned me for being with a non-Indian. I think my entire family would have disowned me for being with a Muslim! But then again, my grandparents fled across the border when the Partition happened, so I think it’s still too recent.

Sorry about “Anaamika’s ideas”. Had I taken the care to think and word it right, it would have read… “some of the notions that Anaamika has posted about.”

And, I’m not ignorant about the gender divide, nor am I denying it exists, but my original post(nor Acsenray’s IMO) should not be read as “Meh, arranged marriage isn’t a big deal”. Of course women still live more difficult lives in India. They face more pressure, and earlier, than men do on the marriage issue. All my examples were about women I know and how they’ve improved outcomes in their lives. I have made no claims that these outcomes were easily achieved, nor would I, knowing that many of them(not all) required struggle and resistance on the part of the women.

@YogSosoth

I only knew that something like that created both states, that’s why Kashmir is a stickler issue between the two countries. I didn’t know it was referred to as The Partition

I expect it’s like Americans talking and referring to “Civil war”. And Kashmir, strictly speaking, is not a partition issue. It was not, technically, a part of British India to be divided among India and Pakistan. It was a separate ‘princely’ state, ruled by a Hindu king, with a majority Muslim population. The king was dithering about what to do with his state, Pakistan tried to force the issue using insurgents(although Pakistanis, and some historians, will say it was an indigenous revolt), and the king acceded to India.

[Acsenray]

@bldysabba

And Kashmir, strictly speaking, is not a partition issue. It was not, technically, a part of British India to be divided among India and Pakistan. It was a separate ‘princely’ state

About a third of the area we consider British India were nominally sovereign princely states. At Independence, they were required to choose between India and Pakistan. Only a couple of them resisted, including the two largest, Kashmir and Hyderabad. Kashmir acceded to India when Pakistanis invaded. India invaded Hyderabad and deposed the Nizam.

So on the one hand, it’s true that Kashmir wasn’t technically what was called “British India” at the time, it’s misleading to say that it had nothing to do with Partition. It was definitely part of the overall territory on the subcontinent being partitioned between India and Pakistan. It just failed to clearly choose one or the other.

[bldysabba]

@Acsenray

About a third of the area we consider British India were nominally sovereign princely states. At Independence, they were required to choose between India and Pakistan. Only a couple of them resisted, including the two largest, Kashmir and Hyderabad. Kashmir acceded to India when Pakistanis invaded. India invaded Hyderabad and deposed the Nizam.

So on the one hand, it’s true that Kashmir wasn’t technically what was called “British India” at the time, it’s misleading to say that it had nothing to do with Partition. It was definitely part of the overall territory on the subcontinent being partitioned between India and Pakistan. It just failed to clearly choose one or the other.

While most of the princely states were only nominally ruled by their heads, the largest had state governments. And I’m unsure about this “Required to accede to India or Pakistan” bit. From wikipedia

At the time of Indian independence, India was divided into two sets of territories, the first being the territories of “British India,” which were under the direct control of the India Office in London and the Governor-General of India, and the second being the “Princely states,” the territories over which the Crown had suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary rulers. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled by France and Portugal. The integration of these territories into Dominion of India, that had been created by the Indian Independence Act 1947 by the British parliament, was a declared objective of the Indian National Congress, which the Government of India pursued over the years 1947 to 1949. Through a combination of tactics, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menon in the months immediately preceding and following the independence convinced the rulers of almost all of the hundreds of princely states to accede to India. In a speech in January 1948, Vallabhbhai Patel said:
As you are all aware, on the lapse of Paramountcy every Indian State became a separate independent entity and our first task of consolidating about 550 States was on the basis of accession to the Indian Dominion on three subjects. Barring Hyderabad and Junagadh all the states which are contiguous to India acceded to Indian Dominion. Subsequently, Kashmir also came in… Some Rulers who were quick to read the writing on the wall, gave responsible government to their people; Cochin being the most illustrious example. In Travancore, there was a short struggle, but there, too, the Ruler soon recognised the aspiration of his people and agreed to introduce a constitution in which all powers would be transferred to the people and he would function as a constitutional Ruler.[27]
Although this process successfully integrated the vast majority of princely states into India, it was not as successful in relation to a few states, notably the former princely state of Kashmir, whose Maharaja delayed signing the instrument of accession into India until the very last possible moment, the state of Hyderabad, whose ruler wanted to remain independent and had to be militarily defeated, and the states of Tripura and Manipur, whose rulers took two years to agree to accession only in late 1949.
Having secured their accession, Sardar Patel and VP Menon then proceeded, in a step-by-step process, to secure and extend the central government’s authority over these states and transform their administrations until, by 1956, there was little difference between the territories that had formerly been part of British India and those that had been part of princely states.

ETA: Nor did I say it had nothing to do with partition. The qualifier “strictly speaking” was in there.