Why elders (almost) always know better

Not bothering about the wishes of people whose future you've decided to plan doesn't have its roots in the Sykes-Picot Agreement or the Yalta Conference. Before the agreement between Britain and France in 1916 to divvy up territories of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, or the 1945 pow-wow in the Crimean seaside town that saw Stalin's Soviet Union and FDR's America - with Churchill playing London broker - erect the Cold War world, there was arranged marriage.

Two persons being chosen by people other than the two persons - with initial talks happening without the to-be-effective couple in the vicinity - has always been propounded as being 'for the good' of the two. Being moulded by a certain cultural disposition, the two in question usually unquestioningly accept the decision of others - collectively called the 'elders', who are much more well-versed in worldly matters like compatibility, beneficial effects on 'society', etc. Such exclusion keeps things healthily objective. In geopolitical terms, the thought of, say, India and Pakistan bringing Kashmiris into the room to determine their own future would only complicate matters. The same reasoning holds with marriage conducted at the sole behest of elders. So, those championing 'consent' right from the start, know this: others know better. Ask your naana-naani. Or, those wistful of the British Raj.