On the 74th Independence Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi promulgate that the government has thought about increasing the minimum age of marriage from 18 to 21 years. The proposal's objective is to lower the maternal mortality rate (MMR), reduce child marriage, and increase the female workforce. Previously, it was increased from 15 to 18 in 1978, as an amendment to the Sharda Act of 1929. Moreover, since then, the minimum legal age for marriage has been 18 for females and 21 for males.
To many folks, the idea appears to be a confident one, for the amelioration of the country, but many others believe that it will not solve the problems it aims to solve. Child marriage rates will also increase if the marital age is increased as the bracket will increase. Parents who marry their girls because of economic problems might cause retaliation as the tensions might arise in the family. Even if the marriage age is 18, many parents, under economic and societal exasperation, marry off their daughters even before they attain 18, causing myriad physical and mental health issues and an increase in maternal mortality rate.
According to a report, the maternal mortality rate has not seen a notable difference in India over the years, from 130 per 1 lakh births in 2014-16 to 122 per 1 lakh births in 2015-17. India has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, and this idea can decrease that, but no assurance increasing marital age will clinch direct benefits.
If the marriage age rises, parents are, in a way, obligated to educate their daughters. Improvement in literacy rates will further help in increasing the number of females who are financially independent. Expanding the workforce can even uplift the GDP of the nation exponentially.
Chanakya says in Niti Shastra: Narayanam vivaheshu, pratidhwani ayushi/Sarvangeshu pradhanam, sharirik, mansik cha sarventu itar dwidasham which means A girl must be mentally, physically, and emotionally become prime enough to go into an alliance called marriage, and that comes only when she crosses the age limit of 20 (dwidasham). Sage Malang Vatsyayan's Kamasutra - this is NOT a sex manual; this is a prolegomenon on human life, which says sex is just an essential but mane element; states in chapter 6: Vivah dharmasye upyuktam aayu iti striyanam parivrette, i.e., only after a mature age, should a woman marry, though he did not mention that age.
An 18-year-old girl is a teenager, and a teenager cannot shoulder the Augean marriage burden. She is physically incompetent to marry because her reproductive organs are not fully grown until 20, and the growth of reproductive organs is not sufficient to decide that a woman is ready and prepared enough for taking responsibilities of marriage. Marriage is not a drop in the bucket to tie the knot without knowing its far-reaching intricacies and implications.
Nevertheless, as every coin has two sides, this proposal further raises so many questions to millennials and women's associations, "Why should women's legal age at marriage be increased from 18 to 21, when 18 is considered the marriageable age in 180 countries? Stated differently, what are the compelling grounds for increasing women's age at marriage?
One averred reason is to bump off the gender gap in the legal age at marriage, and the associated social norm which hopes women to be younger than men at the time of marriage. Moreover, another reason might be to find ways to break the "intergenerational cycle of undernutrition." However, is this the best way to go about breaking such a cycle? By picking the factors that are playing the most decisive role in commemorating it? In this case, the government should address the mother's poverty, which could be done in various ways, beginning with the most direct method of nutritional programs for girls and women through a range of institutional mechanisms from Anganwadis to schools. However, the authors choose to concentrate on delaying the pregnancy's age, even though this is the weakest link of all. Age only begins to have some real significance when pregnancies are delayed to the ages of 25 and above, which is true of only a minuscule proportion of women in India.
Perhaps there is a more alienated reason in action. Increasing the age of marriage by amending the law is free of cost and can be easily achieved by legal decree. Why not claim that doing so will enhance women's and children's welfare since addressing the real causes of the poor health and nutrition of mothers and children is too difficult a task? The government will not incur any financial costs for raising girls' age of marriage from 18 to 21 years. However, the change will leave the vast majority of Indian women who marry before they are 21 without the legal protections that the institution of marriage otherwise provides, and make their families criminalize. Those who perfervidly count on the fact that that the minimum age of men and women should be the same for the sake of gender equality can suggest that India follows global norms of 18 years for both.
Delayed marriage without improving nutrition will most likely yield the same adverse outcomes and create new and severe problems. Thus, the proposed move to raise the marriageable age becomes a case of "punitive paternalism" — using punitive measures to achieve a progressive but difficult or elusive social goal.
If young women's well-being is to aim, there is a need to focus on agency, not age.
References-
Author-
Prerna Mishra
An average eighteen year old from Delhi pursuing economics honours with millennial choices and issues. Like dancing to misogynistic Ed sheeran songs. Makes doodles when not testing people’s attributes. Believes in “ if you change the way you look at things, the things you look at will change.”
Comments