Compromise, adjust, be flexible: These words have turned almost every urban Indian millennial against Sima “aunty” from the new reality show Indian Matchmaking. 

But should flexibility be an ugly word in modern marriages? Perhaps not. Over the last few years, some of the most influential thinkers of modern love have urged people to expect less in a relationship.

Indian Matchmaking, ranked #3 on Netflix India, is about a Mumbai-based matchmaker Sima Taparia who guides clients in India and the US in the arranged marriage process. While she has some problematic, old-fashioned views on beauty and relationships—her obsession with fair skin, for example—she is also someone who is trying to keep up with the new generation and their liberal values. In the first season, she often tries to convince her clients to meet people outside their communities, and not judge a person by his/her past. 

Her biggest problem with the younger generation is its inability to “compromise” and “be flexible” about what they want from a partner. This has left many viewers unhappy. For a lot of women, it is an unpleasant reminder of how South Asian society expects them to constantly repress their desires and ambitions. 

To be fair to Sima, she expects BOTH men and women to adjust and compromise in a marriage. She finds Aparna rigid, but she makes similar assessments about Pradhyuman and Akshay. 

Is the outrage against her still justified? 

Romantic love

For much of human history, marriage was an economic alliance. People married for land, families or survival, and stayed together despite abuse or infidelity.

It is only in the last 200 years or so that people in Western countries started marrying for eternal love. Slowly, this approach has become the new normal, including in India. We all want our partners to fulfil our every need —sexual, romantic, emotional. We want him or her to be great in bed and also help us grow in our careers. S/he should be a perfect travel companion, our best friend, share the same hobbies, pay the bills, and never show us the ugly side of being human.  For our grandparents, this type of support came from an entire village, but we want it all from our partner.

Some well-known writers on relationships today, from Alain de Botton to psychotherapist Esther Perel, have questioned our commitment to these modern ideas of love and marriage. 

This is what de Botton, who calls Romanticism "unhelpful" and "a harsh philosophy," wrote in the New York Times:

We need to swap the Romantic view for a tragic (and at points comedic) awareness that every human will frustrate, anger, annoy, madden and disappoint us — and we will (without any malice) do the same to them. There can be no end to our sense of emptiness and incompleteness. But none of this is unusual or grounds for divorce. Choosing whom to commit ourselves to is merely a case of identifying which particular variety of suffering we would most like to sacrifice ourselves for.

Belgian therapist Perel, who studies intimacy and sex, has also often talked about the need for flexibility and adaptability in relationships. “...We want to find a soulmate, a word that for most of history was reserved to God.,” she told NPR. These unrealistic expectations, she says, are putting an unbelievable amount of pressure on modern couples. (For those interested in her work on modern couples, I would highly recommend her podcast Where Should We Begin?)

When I first read about Perel's work, it was within the context of infidelity. She says:

....there are many ways that people let each other down, that people do not show up for each other, that people break their vows. In other words, betrayal comes in many forms. And sometimes just because one has not cheated or slept with somebody else doesn't inherently give that person moral superiority. 

I felt smarter after reading her take on long-term relationships and the need to expect less from our partners. The fact that she talked about monogamy specifically, at a time when many of my liberal friends are experimenting with polyamory, made her ideas more inspiring.

However, when Sima urged her clients to be flexible, my initial reaction was one of disdain. Perhaps because she was talking in the context of arranged marriages, a custom I have stayed away from all my life. But it still works for many Indians, both at home and abroad, and we can't dismiss Sima's understanding of the process.

Sima’s philosophy

Sima marriage was arranged at the age of 19 almost 35 years ago. Her relationship did not have a happy start. “My in-laws were from an orthodox family of Marwaris and so I never really had the chance to work on my dreams,” she said in a recent interview. Fortunately for her, she was able to build a successful business using her husband’s network. 

Majority of her clients in the show don’t want that type of stifling arranged marriage “Women are educated and empowered so why shouldn’t they have as much of a say in who they marry. So many of the women I have been trying to match up have rejected the matches I presented them with because they don’t want to settle either,” Sima told Conde Nast. 

Her problem is with people who want everything on their checklists. They want familiarity and adventure. They want some who can “fit” into their lives perfectly yet be ambitious. Be modern but not push boundaries too much. That is the kind of happily- ever- after Sima and her business cannot promise.