There is a flip side to arranged marriages that may not be documented. I was having an offline discussion on the sane subject with someone who wrote the following sentence
> I do see many arranged marriages that are just shells floating along. I will cross post my reply here and more. My own parents' (arranged, naturally) marriage held together till death did them part because it is (was?) "the Indian way" to stay married no matter what. Of course their own friction was at its worst when I was a boy - a time when they had been married for maybe 20-25 years. Much later - when they had been together for over 40 years the friction had reduced and both had simply worn out each others' rough edges. Their fights certainly affected me. Maybe because of that I do not fight with my wife. Fortunately she does not fight with me either. When I read about married life in an earlier era (pre-1950) I note that many men lost their wives in childbirth and married again. Or married again anyway I guess. The incidence of men keeping concubines was also high. I am sure these things have had an undocumented effect on arranged marriages and the long suffering Indian wife who must always emulate Sati Savitri (see http://itannu.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/savitri/) Below is a quote from a biography of one of India's most famous former Presidents, S. Radhakrishnan, written by his son, S.Gopal, detailing his father's extramarital liaisons covered up by a holier-than-thou façade http://dryfacts.blogspot.in/2008/05/radhakrishnan-as-philaderer-dr.html > Gopal has dwelt upon this aspect of his father’s personality in his > book ‘Radhakrishnan, A Biography’. According to him his father began > to show an interest in other women from the mid twenties when his > intellectual and public life widened and he started traveling > continuously far away from home. He says: “The affair with the > neighbor’s wife (in Mysore) was to set the pattern for the long series > of involvements of which this was the first. As time passed they > formed a fairly constant undercurrent to the decorum of his outward > life. But self-indulgence carried with it no emotional investment; he > showed his mistresses consideration and, while the relationship > lasted, was generous with time, support and money; but he never gave > them even the semblance of love. He looked, in these marginal and > temporary attachment of senses, for no intellectual partnership; all > the women whom he accepted in his life were of superficial mind, some > enjoyed dubious reputations and many were dominating and > hysterical…..One’s wonder at how Radhakrishnan could have endured such > women is tempered by the knowledge that, having embarked on these > affairs, he ended them at the first opportunity, though such an > opportunity was often long in coming. The company of women, of which > he was a compulsive seeker, was like gossip and light reading, an > agreeable way of passing the time in the intervals of concentrated > work and thought…These affairs diversified but did not disorganize his > life. They did not deflect him from his serious purposes…various women > helped to keep him youthful…” > > While doing serious academic work at Oxford he wrote to his friend > Shyama Prasad Mukherjee on April 17, 1930: “I am most unhappy here, > feeling absolutely homesick. A lonely love-starved life is not worth > much and one who is being mistaken for a religious man has to be more > cautious in his behavior. So I am looking homewards and living up to > my reputation here!” But his son maintains that even in England the > former President had two liaisons; one with an admiring girl training > to be a teacher in Manchester and another with the wife of an Indian > official in London. > > The philosopher’s extra-marital adventures naturally hurt his wife, > Sivakamu, a distant cousin, whom he married when she was ten. She was > deeply wounded, especially by her husband’s “mistress from the > forties, a hard, bitchy woman of jarring and aggressive gracelessness > who was determined to flaunt to the world her place in Radhakrishnan’s > life". Her marriage if not broken, was certainly fractured but like an > ideal Hindu wife she remained completely devoted to her husband. > > Radhakrishnan certainly did not practice what he preached. For > instance in Calcutta in December 1942, with his mistress seated in the > front row he waxed eloquent on the virtues of a faithful, monogamous > marriage. Although he laid down the highest standards of human conduct > he failed to reach them himself. shiv
