I disagree that 'Love At First Sight' and 'Love Marriages' are one and same thing i.e. infatuation and short term ecstatic sentiments. Both are very different constructs. Love marriage does not necessarily equate to 'Love At First Sight'.
In order to investigate further, let use define the love marriage first so that we all can discuss things from a common base albeit with differing views. I am going by the following definition, all other FM (forum members) are encouraged to challenge or debate this definition and we can evolve or modify accordingly at later stages:
Love marriage entails a matrimonial alliance between two consenting adults, with or without the permission of their guardians.
I further propose to expand, yet set constraints around the definition of the love marriage in the specific context of Jat samaj of hinterland India.
Definition of Indian Hinterland Jat Love Marriage:
"A matrimonial alliance, with or without the permission of their guardians and at times wider jat khap society in case of taboo gotra are involved, between two consenting hetrosexual adults of opposing gender of any caste, creed, gotra, race and religion where at least one party belongs to rural or urban Hindu Jat community hailing from historical jat dominated hinterland of contemporary political entity of Republic of India.
Exclusions from the definition: For the sake of simplicity, I have chosen to exclude same sex relationships (not that those do not exist, to be discussed SEPARATELY, for the record Im a pro-gay hetro male), relationships involving jats moved overseas e.g. to a western country. These cases have peculiarity of their own and I suggest to discuss them in separate threads, if anyone is so inclined and if stakeholders of the site (members and mods included) are mature enough and deem it suitable to discuss such taboo subjects.
A recent doctoral level thesis <ref not provided> that studied the survivability of marriages by studying them on a longitudinal basis over multi-year span e.g. at the time of marriage, same couple were surveyed again after 5, 10, 15 and 20, years. The study concluded that survivability of marriage is influenced by few key factors, namely similarities between partners in terms of goals/life-vision/hobbies/shared-values/background, financial stablity, mutual communication and conflict resolution skills, etc. Shared culture is part of shared background hence it contributes to the shared background. But having same culture does not automatically provide sharing shared values, vision of life, hobbies and they more important for the survivability of marriage.
I will differentiate between Caste and culture. Caste does not have impact but culture does, to some extent but not as much as shared goals/vision/hobbies/background.
For example, a jat married to punjabi both hailing form dusty town (say Hansi or Meham) share more in terms of culture as opposed to Hansi-born-and-broughtup jat will ever share with another jat raised in Canberra. "Canberra Jat + Hansi Jat" couple will have less shared background including culture when compared to "Hansi jat + Hansi Punjabi" couple. Thus lesser chances of survivability of marriage.
Caveat: Study was conducted in the context of western cultures.
Interesting. lets take a look at marriage like a 'product life cycle' i.e. each product has a life cycle from design to hay days to obsolete. Another study that comes to mind was about happiness level of couple in marriage. Study found that happiness level is high in first 2 to 3 years and then drops rapidly initially and then slowly, peaking between 7 to 12 years (bulk of divorces happen around this time), this happiness level then gradually starts to pick up and restoring the same level of satisfaction at the time of marriage around 17+years. Those in old age, still married were found to be very satisfied. It is interesting to note why such fluctuation is happiness and mutual satisfaction level of couple from eachother in the marriage.
They are happy initially due to newness of relationship, younger age, lot to explore, less/no responsibility (kids, mortgages, etc).
It drops rapid when newness wears off, added responsibility of kids and mortgages, pressure from career (most are also in process of building their career, trying to move into mid level management, etc), less time for each other, higher stress levels, etc. Couples fight lot more around this time, differences becomes more prominent and tolerance reduces greatly and majority divorces happen around this time.
Then it starts to pick up again, its mainly because most couples have learn to deal with (even after adjusting for other variables e.g. career, financial conditions, responsibilities) each others idiosyncrasies for 3 key reasons (a) diff no longer exist and have found happy middle ground, (b) stopped caring about the diff and accepted the status quo and are at peace with status quo, (c) have enhanced communication skills, still have diff but communicate more and resolve better on case by case basis.
Taking a wholistic view of marriage within not just the caste but cultural context coupled with financial, personal and shared background is the key to better survivability. This is easier to understand when we accept that all marriages go through fluctuation over the life time, some of which can be generalized i.e. those who do not divorce even unhappy eventually become happy in the marriage as they find equilibrium with time.
सो बात की इक बात, अच्छी बुरी साब के गैल हो से,
खुद का खांदे हो, पैरां पे खड़े हो, तोह आपनी मर्जी की करो,
अगर माँ बाप घर परिवार आर समाज (not necessarily jat samaj but where you will live e.g. a western country) ने राजी कर के कर सकते हो तोह और भी अच्छी,
What stood out was that a marriage has 'various stakeholders' as you have put it, and not just the 2 people who are getting married