I don't know, Satch.

On the surface, especially to those of us in the "West", the practice might sound barbaric. However:

Way back, when I was in college, I knew a "Pakistani Indian" guy (his identification; he was born in Pakistan, could speak fluent Urdu, and immigrated to the U.S. as a small child, but would still visit Pakistan occasionally). He was good-looking and could've probably found a girl easily through "romantic love."

But his parents were arranging a marriage for him, and he was looking forward to it. He told me, with a gleam in his eye, that his parents "knew what he liked." The implication being that he had a say in the matter.

I've read since then that for both men and women in arranged marriage cultures-- especially in well-to-do families (which I'm assuming Nagra's family was, or at least middle class?) --the persons going into the marriage have influence over the choice of a partner. I'm sure even in less well-off families it's probably not unheard of for the children of the parents doing the arranging to have some say in the decision.

And, of course, Satch, you are probably aware of the research suggesting arranged marriages are more stable and long-lasting than marriages where people just "find each other."

Even in the West, marriages based on romance are relatively new, historically speaking. Just a few hundred years ago-- perhaps even more recent than that --though we may not officially have had arranged marriage, families in your average peasant village would often "maneuver" their children into certain marriages-- and let's not forget the very arranged marriages of European royalty.

So, at least in my opinion, I've learned to view arranged marriage as not always necessarily bad.

Yes, I imagine that the input of the two people to be married is key.