Cast(e) by design
Shaadi.com digitises arranged marriage in India through an architecture that treats caste and sub‑caste as basic filters, entrenching endogamy into the infrastructure of marriage. By presenting endogamy as a matter of “compatibility”, the platform makes hierarchical boundaries feel like an individual’s personal preference, while punishing anyone who steps outside that script.
At the surface level, the app markets itself as a trusted platform for serious Indian dating, where users can select “any caste” or remove caste restrictions, but the design pushes back. Select “Patel” as your community and your recommendations will fill with Patels. Algorithms prioritise same‑caste profiles based on historical behaviour and registration data. Reaching out to profiles that have not specified “caste no bar” often leads to unreturned requests or explicit rejections on community grounds. In one investigation, a Brahmin profile discovered the system would not offer matches with Dalit users, exposing how the platform enforces caste boundaries even when individuals might be open to crossing them. And it’s not only about your own choices. The app also lets parents create and manage their children’s profiles, giving elders direct control over who can see, contact, and match with their kids. So even if a young person wants to explore beyond their caste, they can’t.
Beneath the surface lies a system built to sustain hierarchy. Freemium paywalls and premium concierge services reward users who can pay for privacy and handholding, while a profile schema treats caste, religion, income and family as core compatibility signals. Offering caste‑based algorithmic filtering normalises and institutionalises caste segregation digitally. Caste endogamy keeps graded inequality alive: by restricting marriage to within caste, it ensures that dominant castes retain social and economic advantages, while lower castes remain trapped in disadvantaged positions. India is not static: urbanisation, education, and economic mobility have slowly increased intercaste marriage, especially in cities where recent surveys suggest rates closer to 17% rather than the national 5–6%. When Shaadi.com launched in the 1990s, a platform built around a rigid caste filter may have aligned with a predominantly endogamous order. Today, however, it entrenches a shrinking norm: while younger, urban Indians increasingly cross caste lines to find a partner, the app’s architecture doubles down on caste as the primary axis of compatibility. In doing so, it does not reflect a changing society; it resists it.
Get Riddhima Shah’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This system rests on a specific worldview in India of what marriage should be. Marriage becomes a family–community negotiation, not an individual’s decision, and “seriousness” means accepting documentation, income disclosure, and caste boundaries as a rational choice.
At the deepest level, Shaadi.com frames marriage as a fortified boundary: its design treats staying within caste as duty and belonging, while casting those who cross that line as risky, non‑serious, or disloyal to their family. Caste prejudice is rooted in family mentality and the broader culture, but no platform should encode that into its architecture and pass it off as a normal way to find a partner.
“There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.”
On Shaadi.com, some loves are preferably unheard: inter‑caste, interfaith, queer, low‑income users, those unwilling to involve family or disclose financial data. Anyone outside that is pushed to the margins.
