Indian Matchmaking has been the talk of town ever since it dropped on Netflix this July. But after the YouTube reunion and statements issued on social media, people have actually come around on the concept of matchmaking.

Matchmaking and arranged marriages are two separate entities that have existed independently in several spheres and cultures. It is only in collectivistic societies that the two tend to overlap.

“Marriages in India are between two families” Sima Taparia, Mumbai’s top matchmaker and star of the Netflix show says several times throughout the course of the season. Looking through an empathetic and completely rational lens, the arranged marriage system has suppressed women’s rights for centuries and promoted the culture of shaming them into emotional labour or what Sima aunty calls “compromise.” 

But the fact remains, Sima, whose own marriage was arranged by her parents, continues to run a successful business without any restrictions. 

This proves that Taparia’s regressive ideologies are much more than her personal beliefs. It is an insight into a culture that generates demand and creates a need for arranged marriage experts to exist.

As one of Sima’s clients, and featured candidate on the show, Nadia pointed out during the YouTube reunion that “Sima’s criteria are not ideal but that’s because she has to do what the client wants.” 

As an entrepreneur, Sima’s job is to “provide a solution.” And if a certain family or person approaches her with bigoted ideas and asks her to find a partner who shares the same wavelength (come on let’s not kid ourselves, wavelength clearly means “class” here) or is fair and tall, then that’s what Sima will provide.

Her ability to brazenly criticise is what makes her good at her job. As long as class difference and bigotry exist in society and play a crucial role in marriages, a matchmaker cannot be labelled the sole reason standing in the way of modernisation.

As the age old adage goes - Without objective morality, everything is permissible. 

In that sense, the person in front of the camera should not be seen as the flag-bearer of patriarchy. At their best, they are reflecting society, and at worst, they are enabling it.