On the correct age to marry, let women decide
Years ago, the owners of Ajanta wall clocks decided to engage a largely allwoman workforce in their manufacturing units at Morbi, a town in Saurashtra, Gujarat. The manufacture of clocks required precision, and the nimble fingers of young women were ideally suited to the task. When the idea of engaging an all-women workforce was first mooted, it was met with resistance. Till then, young women from rural families were unaccustomed to stepping out to earn a living. Besides, who would guarantee their safety outside the home? Ajanta solved the problem by arranging transport for them. It was a unique model that enabled rural and small-town women to attain economic independence. Over time, the girls grew independent enough to finance their weddings. It is an inspiring model, worth replicating across India.
The proposal to increase the marriageable age of women from 18 to 21 under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, was greeted with surprising cynicism from some quarters. The proposed amendment is a step in the direction of equality and opportunity for women —guaranteed in the Constitution.
While the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution were not intended to confer enforceable rights on citizens, they were envisaged as a moral lodestar that articulated the aspirations of a young Republic. Three-quarters of a century ago, when few women could exercise the freedom to pursue a career, the authors of our Constitution made sure that the Directive Principles guided the State to ensure that “men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood”, that there is “equal pay for equal work for both men and women”, and that the health and strength of workers — both men and women — are protected (Article 39).
The Directive Principles also enjoin the State to make provision for securing “just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief”. The Constitution is a charter for a social revolution that sought to upset a state of things where roles for women were defined, and confined to child-bearing and domesticity. The Directive Principles demonstrate that the Founding Fathers (it’s high time we said: “Founding Parents”), wanted to see women in the workplace.
The proposed amendment, which seeks to postpone the minimum age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 — on par with men — enables young women to pursue an education beyond high school, to earn a degree or a vocational skill before they are saddled with the responsibilities of marriage and motherhood.
The law, as it stands, is discriminatory. Men must wait till 21 before they marry, but women may be married at 18, grounded in patriarchal notions that the man is the provider and, therefore, must be old enough to support a wife. It perpetuates the myth that girls need to be married “off” as soon as possible, unburdening her parents of her responsibility. I have often wondered whether the suffix “off”, which follows the word “married” — and is used only in the context of women being married — is an expression peculiar to the Indian subcontinent. It gives away a deeply ingrained mindset, suggesting that girls are parcels waiting to be dispatched.
The age of 18 vs 21 is an important threshold. Children usually finish school in their 18th year and become eligible to enrol for a college degree. A woman whose parents marry her “off” at 18 is barely out of school. Her hopes of higher education, obtaining a degree or skill are dashed. Picking up the threads of an unfinished education at a later stage is much harder. Men, on the other hand, can complete a degree, acquire a skill, and become financially independent.
One of the criticisms of the bill is that if citizens can vote at 18, are they not mature enough to marry? It is argued that they are no longer children at 18, so should the State interfere with the right of a consenting adult? The fact remains that all these years — since 1978 — the minimum marriageable age for men has been pegged at 21. So even though the law treats men as eligible to vote at 18, and acquire a driving licence, the law does not permit men to marry at 18. Should this threshold of 21 be struck down to permit men to marry at 18? That would address the equality argument and put women on par with men. However, such a measure might be regressive for it blights opportunities for men and women to aspire for higher education.
Comparing the right to vote and the right to drive with marriage and parenthood is flawed. So is the comparison between the right to engage in sex and the right to marriage. Marriage is a social institution with a long-term commitment and responsibilities. The right to vote, drive, or have sex cannot be compared.
That people might have felt pressured to get their underage daughters married during the pandemic may have been occasioned by factors such as the lack of access to educational institutions or even midday meals. The pandemic has been a difficult time. It should not dictate the norm. The law on prohibition of child marriage has indeed been difficult to implement on the ground, but that is no reason not to have a law. Increasing awareness, coupled with ensuring that girls remain in school, will lend in implementing this law.
If women are given an equal playing field as men, to earn a degree, or acquire a skill that can be put to use in the future, they will be significantly more empowered within and outside the household. The idea that the proposed amendment will only serve to prolong the burden of an unmarried daughter in the house is a regressive one. The example of the Ajanta wall clock factory is one worth emulating.
As one of two daughters, it rankled me how matter-of-factly people would ask my parents if they had “only” two daughters. How many more should they have, I wanted to ask. As a proud mother of “only” two daughters myself, I have been spared those taunts. But that, I am aware, may not be true in most Indian families. I’ve often asked myself why people obsess with the idea of a son. Sons carry on the family legacy, it is said, and support the family financially. So why not give our girls a chance? Give them an equal playing field. They will do it all, and more.