Some years ago a novel caught the public eye. "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" was not a very pleasant story, it fearlessly delved into our mating instincts, our neurotic impulses and our psychological insecurities.

Years or perhaps generations ago one never heard of such things. Certainly these matters were hardly ever discussed between parents and children. When children came of age, it was parental obligation to hunt and find the special someone for their offspring.

Even without the benefits of genetic counseling most primitive societies knew to not seek mates in close familial proximity. Intertwined bloodlines increase the chances of birth defects and retardation; hybridization is the key to vigor. Even now, except for Muslims and the remnants of European royalty, most cultures frown on marriages between first cousins. So people looked for a mate from another community, perhaps a few towns and villages over.

Parental responsibility was primarily driven by the need to match the educational and socioeconomic levels of the two families. The most erotic human organ remains the mind and it is impossible to discover, much less celebrate, physical compatibility where the minds are always at loggerheads. (Yes, those who are absolutely unlike each other attract, but unlike magnetic poles, often they do not stay attracted for very long.) The parents performed this crucial screening thus protecting the vulnerability of their daughters. Don't forget that men were the hunters, and men and women lived effectively segregated lives. Women needed protection also because they were the mothers and perpetuation of a people mostly depended upon women, even if they were treated as chattel.

Society developed elaborate rules and rituals for the mating process and sanctified it by religious imprimatur. Marriages, we decreed, were made in heaven and were holy, not merely legally binding socioeconomic contracts recognized and enforced by society between a man, woman and children, if any. What created this male-female bonding and a society thus was more than just a piece of parchment. A stable family was and remains the building block of society.

But these heavenly unions have an earthly existence. Necessarily, most people married within traveling distance of where they were born and raised and died. Apron strings of extended families propped up the institution of the family and kept it intact. It was in the interest of society to do so. Break up of families created a heavy burden of unclaimed and helpless children, dangerously bloody vendettas with their roots in familial property, and footloose single people in the throes of their raging hormones. Now computers attempt to perform this vitally critical function of winnowing wheat from chaff in the multitudes of eligible young people.

Perhaps the first human institution and the first religion was marriage and people have married for myriad reasons. Some marry to forge alliances - local to international - others marry to continue the family and dynasty, acquire children, land, property or power. Some even marry for love but that is a motive that has a late development in human history - a good guide to this is nineteenth century literature. I don't mean to provide a history of marriage; that is a task best left to social scientists, historians and cultural anthropologists.

Let's fast forward to times where reality has changed. Human societies are no longer as insular as they once were. Education is no longer a luxury limited only to an exclusive minority. Travel is not the exception, staying within a singular society throughout the entire lifespan is. The body can move, so can the brain, but not the heart quite so easily. So even when we move to the far ends of the earth, we remain attached by our heartstrings to the little corners of our cultural enclaves. Are these the ghettos of the mind that continue to define us and govern us? I leave this question for another time.

Now that our world has shrunk to a global village, distance and language may not be quite the problems that they once were. But even now, people tend to marry their own kind. And this is not entirely surprising, nor is it undesirable. Even in the best of circumstances marriage is a crapshoot. But raising children and rearing a family becomes somewhat easier when there is some commonality of language, culture, tradition and expectations. These factors are discounted only in marriages based strictly on notions of romantic love and passion. But passion is by definition spasmodic and episodic, not a continuous existence but temporary intensity (or insanity!). Romeo and Juliet, Heer-Ranjha, Sohni-Mahiwal make moving sagas that are soul wrenching, but they slink away from encountering the reality of the routine and grind of day-to-day living. Marriages may be made in heaven but they have to be lived here on earth.

For romantic love to flourish requires that young people are thrown together and discover what chemistry can develop between them. Unfortunately, this happens not when their intellects are yet fully functional or even somewhat in control of their young bodies, and the ways of flesh are all too predictable, almost incendiary. Sparks ignite between young people quickly and can consume them incredibly fast. Eastern cultures still try to curb this by early marriages with the emphasis on mergers of families (and properties) and selection of mates by parents. Western societies too controlled this by chaperoned exposure, group activities and by bundling.

When educational and career opportunities were limited and early marriages were the norm parents could select mates for their children. Also, joint and extended families lived together in intergenerational existence. But the world has changed. People used to marry in their teens, but now it is progressively later. Young people now need to explore the self, the world and their compatibility before they pledge their troth.

The game of dating also require that both players be at their most charming and magnetic best, as well as at their peak physical attractiveness. The results are pretty but not always lasting. Just look at the divorce rate in advanced societies, which approaches or even surpasses fifty percent. Sooner or later one discovers that the other is not so attractive early in the morning, doesn't always smell heavenly, and may be a bit of a hedgehog at times.

In traditional societies there was an unwritten code on the division of labor. Generally, wives tended to the house and children while men -hunters and gatherers - brought home the bacon. Now that both partners are equally educated with earning potentials that are almost evenly matched, how is labor at home and with children to be shared? Even living together before making it legally official is not much help. Yet the siren song of romantic love cannot be ignored. In traditional societies the divorce rate may be lower but not because the partners are any happier, just that options are not fully available within their cultural constraints.

One needs only a quick look at how traditional Indian society is trying to come to grips with the reality of a fast moving world to recognize some of the absurdities that we follow most faithfully. Look at the ethnic Indian press. There are myriad weeklies. Their biggest earner of advertising revenue remains the personal column - advertisements for marriage partners, rarely placed by the principals themselves, but most often by their parents or other relatives.

In their advertisements what kind of a person do they seek and what code words do they use to signal their needs or highlight their qualifications? Almost always, the blurb begins with family connections and values and continues with adjectives that communicate marriageability. The code words for a prospective bride here include: very fair, highly attractive, and even homely. I suspect the advertisers really mean homey or in tune with home values, not homely which means plain or not smashingly unattractive. I am sure the latter is not their intent from the number of times I have seen "homely" juxtaposed with "beautiful" in the ads. The next sentences usually talks of a well-settled family and its presumed status, and mention of close relatives who are settled abroad or are professionally educated. I suppose these code words indicate financial standing and ability to meet demands of dowry and quality of life. The young woman's academic qualifications may be mentioned but merely in passing. I wonder if it is a China doll that I am reading about.

For young men looking for brides, qualifications may be mentioned but more important seem to be a word or two on his affluence - and that he is running his own business or something along similar lines, and of course how respectable is the family.

Sikhs tend to add some additional twist to this madness. The first sentence often specifies whether the young man is keshadhari or not; the non-keshadhari person often identified as clean-shaven. I don't know how clean is the person, so the term clean-shaven seems odd to me. And sometimes the ad specifies a modern Sikh or clean-shaven GurSikh young man; that to me is an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms. It is like describing someone as a God-fearing atheist.

Better than fifty percent of the ads by Sikhs start by specifying the caste or at least whether the person is a Jat or not, and that really confuses me. (Some ads contain unusual acronyms like JSM or JSF for Jat Sikh male or female, which are like Greek to the uninitiated.) If I were to claim from a public pulpit that Sikhs believe in caste, I would be vilified and abused by most Sikhs, if not banished from the community. But if I say that Sikh teaching is against caste, while Sikh practice in marriage is rarely devoid of caste, it should make one wonder about our hypocrisy, schizoid outlook or sanity.

I also see many marriages between Sikhs and non-Sikhs. It is inevitable, of course. People will tend to be attracted to others in their work place and educational or social environment, and they will make their own choices. Yet such options are not without their problems. The movie "Bend it like Beckem" highlighted most effectively, even if pleasantly, some of our contradictory outlook in this matter.

Sikhism is relatively young and until recently a very small minority of Sikhs ventured outside of familial influence or the Punjabi cultural ambit. But other religions have had a larger and longer perspective on such matters. And they have reacted with a variety of regulations and directives that, I think, have primarily served to muddy the waters.

I once tried to get a handle on how we (Punjabi Sikhs) might view prospective mates via an informal survey, or you could call it a single question that offered multiple choices for an answer. How would you respond, I asked, if your daughter or son wanted to marry: A) a practicing keshadhari Sikh, B) a non-practicing keshadhari Sikh - one who looked like a Sikh but had no feeling for his religion or its lifestyle, C) a "clean-shaven" Sikh, D) a non-Sikh Punjabi Hindu, E) a non-Sikh Punjabi who is not a Hindu, but could be a Muslim or a Christian, F) An Indian Sikh but not a Punjabi, G) An non-Sikh Indian but who is not a Punjabi, but could be a Gujarati or Tamil etc, H) A White European or American of any of the persuasions mentioned above, including being a practicing Sikh, and finally I) A Black of any of the above choices, including being a Sikh' And don't forget to expand the questionnaire by adding to the cauldron choices of caste or being a Jat or non-Jat.

I would ask my readers to explore such questions honestly and in privacy. It might even lead to some self-discovery. You might notice that our choices are often visceral, not logical or rational. And then we use whatever intellect God has given us to justify the choices that we have made.

For some people the clean-shaven visage may outrank the keshadhari, though they would proudly flaunt their Sikh credentials and antecedents. Often the culturally acceptable choice might prevail over the religious. Think for a moment of choosing between a practicing Sikh who is Black and a Punjabi Hindu. I think at the bottom of the preference might be the Black, the non-Punjabi Muslim or someone from a low caste in the Indian system of reckoning. The White Christian, even though he may be nearer trash, might surprisingly outshine many others because history has associated him with the ruling elite. The Punjabi Hindu, even if a rabid antiSikh would likely outscore many others because of his cultural, historical ties to Punjabi culture and Sikhs. Also, in all this equation never underestimate the power of money and worldly success.

Although I have listed many possible combinations, we usually think of interfaith marriages as those between two people who are adherents of different religions. It is when this happens that we get most exercised and it is for such a possibility that most religions have evolved elaborate rules.

For example, in Reform Judaism the child of Jewish mother is by definition a Jew; fatherhood does not count. I suppose it is because motherhood is a matter of fact while fatherhood remains one of faith. But Orthodox and Conservative Jews are not quite so charitable and the question of a mixed marriage would not even be entertained. Nor would Islam allow any accommodation. Sometimes societal law might take a position that may or may not be based in religious teaching. Malaysia, which is a Muslim state, requires a non-Muslim to convert to Islam before marrying a local Muslim man or woman.

In Roman Catholic belief at one time it was required that the non-Catholic partner convert before marriage in a Church. Now all that is required is that he or she should agree to raise any children in the Catholic faith but a Roman Catholic priest would never participate in a ceremony that also includes rituals of the non-Catholic partner. Christianity, however, has over 250 sects and denominations. It is not difficult to find the gamut of extreme belief and practice - from some who are most intolerant of non-Christians and automatically consign them to hell, to those who would willingly participate in double nuptials of two very different religions and contradictory belief systems.

There is one thing that Roman Catholics do that I like and that Sikhs do not do. It is a minimally required conversation and explanation of Roman Catholic belief and position on parenting that occurs before marriage. Such counseling may seem superfluous in the modern world that we live in. But it is necessary for it serves to inform the couple of the requirements of the faith, so that they can see a little bit beyond the blinders of romantic love. In my experience Hindus and their priests seem to have the least objection to participating in two very different nuptials just minutes apart.

Parenthetically I add that I know of only one young granthi who requires that a couple spend some time in discussion of the meaning of a Sikh marriage. He is also deeply uneasy about performing interfaith marriages. Most granthis haven't even thought about the issues. I have discussed the magic, mystery and meaning of the Sikh wedding earlier in an essay and will not do so here.

Since Sikhs have very little of the codified requirements that most people are aware of, I have seen some pretty comical situations in mixed marriages. In my understanding the Sikh Code of Conduct recommends that Sikh parents marry their daughter to a Sikh. It was written for the rural Sikh society of Punjab. You cannot always hold the parents responsible for what their children would do. Also, this clause is silent about its equal applicability to boys of Sikhs. It says nothing about the need for educating a couple about the rudiments of Sikhism, nor does it speak of human values and the rearing of a family in a house of mixed faith. This text I believe needs reinterpretation.

The Sikh wedding ceremony (Anand Karaj) has historically evolved such that no explanation of it is ever rendered to the couple before or at the time of marriage. Often the couple understands no Punjabi and the hymns as well as the discourse by the officiant become unintelligible to the couple. It becomes a meaningless festival for the two families as well as the bride and groom, and great fun is had by all. Does it have any legal meaning? Only rarely. Because in the diaspora a great majority of granthis who perform Sikh weddings are not licensed to do so and a civil marriage also becomes necessary.

An extreme example of this occurred not so long ago when a starlet of the Indian screen married another well-known actor. Neither was a Sikh but they preferred a Sikh wedding because they thought it would be great fun. They were able to find a Sikh granthi who obliged and I am sure the fun was memorable. In this case clearly there was no spiritual meaning to the function for either partner because neither was a Sikh. But if a marriage is to be one in which "two bodies come together to create a union of souls" as Guru Granth recommends, then it has to be more than a spectacular bash.

If people opt for a religious ceremony, and keep in mind that the legal requirement can be satisfied at City Hall without any religious element, then it must be that religious sanctity and the power of prayer is not entirely meaningless to the main actors in it. It clearly follows then that in an interfaith wedding, when children arrive, considerable disagreement and tension would automatically surface.

How do you raise children and what values do you teach them? Just imagine the piquancy of the situation where one parent believes in shaving the head and the other believes in unshorn hair; where one practices obeisance to idols while the other absolutely rejects the practice; where one believes in the divine ordination of caste and the other is ideologically against it. What are the poor children to learn and how?

One could claim that all that we wish to teach our children is virtue and good citizenship - human values. But even these values are not taught without institutions and rituals, so which ones do you teach, and how do you convey them, particularly if they are in conflict and so are the methods by which they are taught.

In an interfaith marriage the question of family identity is unavoidable as well as how to transmit values and traditions to your children. Instead of a misguided attempt to repeat vows two or three different ways in different houses of worship, would it not be better to require that a couple make one single choice. Such a choice does not imply a value judgment on the two traditions. The process of deciding brings to the fore any strong feelings that might have been suppressed in the gush of romance. It will put the couple on a better footing for the future. And if they opt to go with a Sikh ceremony, do require that they both spend some time in counseling and exploration of Sikh teaching and tradition so that are comfortable with their choice. If, on the other hand, they choose a non-Sikh ceremony, be not angry with them but celebrate that reality.

If people marry when they are professionally and personally secure, they are likely to have definite ideas about whom they wish to spend their lives with and what kind of life do they envision. They will probably not be easily swayed by the opinions of their parents. On the other hand, if they marry as soon as they are reproductively mature, they are not equipped to make their way in life, nor do they have any idea of what life is about. They often have unrealistic notions of getting hitched and disappearing into the setting sun to live happily ever after, as in B grade movies from Hollywood and Bollywood. They might think life is just one grand party but hope dies early to be replaced by disappointment and a hardness of the heart.

And that's the way it is.

January 24, 2004