Should the legal age of marriage be raised to 21?

 [On the face of it, Yes. But there are nuances that need to be considered. Published in Women's Web]

The Union Cabinet has cleared a proposal to raise the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21, and will be introducing a Bill seeking the Amendment soon. On the face of it, it seems like a great move, but if you look at the ground reality, is it really such a good idea to raise the age of marriage for women from 18 to 21?

As per current statistics, upto 30% of women in India were married before the age of 18*, despite the fact that the legal age for marriage was set at 18 years in 1978. This conclusively proves that the law alone is not a deterrent against child marriage.

Many of us believe that child marriage is due to lack of awareness about the minimum legal age of marriage. However, the causes are actually much deeper. It is for convivence, out of concern for the safety of the child, or because of societal pressures.

In families/ communities where women are not encouraged to go out to work, there is little to be gained by educating a girl beyond a certain level. Such girls are married off as soon as a suitable groom is found. Typically in these families the search for a groom begins after the girl attains puberty, and she is often married soon after completing her class 10 board exams.

In households where both parents engage in labour, even if the girl is sent to high school, she is forced to stay alone at home for a few hours every day after school. Parents perceive this as a risk, so unless there are safe after school activities, they get the girl married off as soon as possible. Typically, such marriages take place after the girl graduates from the local school, and needs to travel to another village for further studies.

In many communities, traditional livelihoods require a woman to assist her husband in a part of the livelihood process (to give a few examples- toddy tappers need wives to make jaggery, weavers are assisted by their women in the preparatory process, sugarcane harvesting requires a couple to work in tandem). In such communities, girls are necessarily married off early since their economic value is unlocked only after marriage (in some communities which rely on entertainment as a source of income, even girls as young as 14 are married off).

Once a girl attains puberty, her “safety” becomes of prime concern to the family. If the family suspects she may be in a relationship, or that someone “unsuitable” is interested in her, she is typically married off to the first man the family can find. The legal age of marriage then works against her, because she needs to wait to attain that age for fear her parents will have the marriage annulled otherwise, but the family has no such fear.

Though we often think that child marriage is a product of poverty, it is not. Even in “well to do” and “well placed” families if a suitable match is found, the girl is engaged to be married, and the wedding solemnised as soon as she turns 18. If the match is extremely “good”, and if the groom’s family is unwilling to wait, the wedding takes place even before the bride turns 18.

All these factors ensure that the rate of “child marriage” in India is between 27% (UNICEF) to 47% (ICRW), despite the fact that the legal age of marriage was set at 18 more than 2 generations ago.

What, then will happen if the legal age is raised to 21? It will not necessarily delay marriages. All that will happen is that the percentage of women being married before legal age will shoot up, making the woman far more vulnerable than she now is.

Assuming a family allows the girl to study upto Class XII, she will graduate high school at the age of 17/ 18. What after that? Most families do not want their girls to travel long distances either to work or to go to college, so unless there is a college that is perceived as “safe” in the neighbourhood, she will be kept at home for 3 years.

OR, she will be married off. Regardless of what the law says.

If the law refuses to recognise a union conducted before legal age, then the “child-bride” will not have any legal rights in her marital home. She will be far more vulnerable to emotional, physical and sexual abuse than she is now where the law is on her side. In case of pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, she will be subject to unnecessary harassment, and this could even lead to unsafe abortions.

The law will also work against women who want to marry partners who are deemed “unsuitable” by their families. They will necessarily have to wait till she turns 21 for fear of the family using the law to pull them apart. But if the family suspects such a union, they will get her married before legal age since they do not have any such fear.

What then is the solution?

Education

Awareness

Empowerment

What is needed is to work at the community level to create awareness on why child marriage is not desirable both from the health perspective and from a social perspective.

What is needed is for the community to recognise that a woman is as capable as a man in creating economic value, she will no longer be seen as a burden which is to be set down at the earliest possible.

Once this happens, the age of marriage will go up organically.

I have personally witnessed this in two communities where we worked over a sustained period.

In one rural community, the average age of marriage for girls was 14, which coincided with the end of schooling in the local government school. Once the community realised the value of continuing the education, and began sending them to high school in the nearest town, the number of child marriages dwindled. After graduating from high school, many of the girls who would otherwise have been married at 14 enrolled in technical/ vocational courses, and the community was determined to not get them married till they were economically independent.

The experience in an urban slum community was equally dramatic. Girls were earliest married at the age of 15 or 16, but after a few years of intervention, the average age of marriage shot up to above 20. In that community it is common to see families where the first born girl(s) were child brides, but their younger siblings are in college, and where the mother proudly declare, “we will get our daughter married only when she wants it.”

History has shown that enacting a law alone has not been enough to deter child marriage. What is needed is sustained behaviour change communication at the community level to ensure that the community recognises the value of educating and empowering the girl child.

Lokmanya Tilak exemplifies this contradiction between the legal and the personal. At a time when girls were married before puberty and many died at childbirth when the marriage was consummated, he opposed raising the legal age of marriage to 14. It was his belief that the law should not “meddle” in the personal life of people, and that we should, instead, focus on changing behaviour. He followed up by ensured that his own daughters were not married before the age of 16.

One can challenge Tilak’s position on the grounds that a law was needed to save the lives of the child brides who’s bodies were ravaged by pregnancy and childbirth before they were ready for it. However, that is no longer the case today. While it is desirable for a woman to get married at 21 rather than at 18, the lower age of marriage is not a health risk. Hence, it is better to lead the change from the social perspective.

Before talking of raising the legal age of marriage for girls, let us first ensure that the existing law is implemented.

* this is an approximation. Studies from reputed agencies show the figure as anything between 27% to 47%.

Annihilation of Caste- a critical review

 [My impressions after reading Annihilation of Caste, by Dr. Ambedkar]

I first read Dr. Ambedkar’s essay a few years back when I had just started thinking about caste and how it is important to acknowledge caste exists and working to dismantle it, instead of sweeping it under the rug of poverty alleviation.

Why did I re-read Annihilation of Caste?

In the years between the first read to now, I have sharpened my own thinking. Had numerous discussions (often acrimonious ones) with Ambedkarites who speak glibly about “destruction of Hinduism” without getting into how they propose to do it, or what they will replace Hinduism with. I have witnessed Amebdkarites lock horns with Communists and as a keen but dispassionate observer seen how each calls the other casteist for approaching the issue of casteism from different directions (I also saw how at Gail Omvedt’s funeral, chants of “Jai Bheem” and “Lal Salam” were raised in tandem). Above all, I have seen how everyone who quotes AoC seems to have no clue about how to go about doing what they want to do.

I picked up the “Annihilation of Caste: with a reply to Mahatma Gandhi” with the full weight of expectations on it. I had already internalised the issues relating to caste privilege and of how relative economic affluence does not necessarily translate into lack of social oppression. I had no doubt that “….the real method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring about inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages but to destroy the religious notions on which Caste was founded”. I recognise that what is needed is “social reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu Society”. What I really expected from the book was the “how”. How does one bring about the destruction of a practice sanctioned by religion.

Unfortunately no solutions are offered

Alas, no solutions were offered. Dr Ambedkar says, and rightly that “To ask people to give up Caste is to ask them to go contrary to their fundamental religious notions.” Since caste system is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other, when people seek the annihilation of caste, they stand to lose as much as they gain. There is a great incentive for preserving the status quo, especially since to get out of that, you need to take on the entire nation.

Dr. Ambedkar calls for the “ancient rules of life be annulled” and that “its place … be taken by a Religion of Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion.” Drawing a distinction between principles and rules, he rightly points out that “the principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not be a correct act but must at least be a responsible act.”

However, he leaves it at that. He urges Hindus to take on the task of overthrowing the religion which has too many inflexible and inhuman rules, and replacing it with “a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” But he doesn’t tell us how to make that happen.

In the context of 1936, and given the fact that the address was to be made to a society which was working towards annihilation of caste, the fact that he doesn’t offer solutions doesn’t matter. What is disappointing is that today the work is selectively quoted, and his vague calls for action are offered as solutions. Which they are not. I felt let down because the book did not address what I sought.

Which should come first- political reforms or social?

There was a long analysis on the order in which political reforms, economic reforms and social reforms could take place. How a person addresses that question depends on where they stand. Someone from a privileged social position will prioritise political reforms since that affects them most deeply. But post-Independence history has shown that unless one continues demanding social reform after attaining political reform, it gets missed out. In the context of today, in my opinion, since the prevailing political ideology is pushing society towards greater casteism, political reforms will need to be dealt with on priority, though social reforms continue in parallel.

Read the book if you are looking to learn about caste system

If you are looking to learn about the caste system, and why it should be weeded out completely, this is the book for you. To illustrate how petty the upholders of the caste system could be, one example from the book would suffice.

In November 1935, some untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence.

Similarly, people from the lower caste were not permitted to consume ghee, wear gold bordered clothes, or gold/ silver jewelry (things have not changed much- even today they are not permitted to ride horses during wedding celebrations or style their moustaches in a way deemed inappropriate).

As Dr. Ambedkar puts it, caste system is not, as popularly thought ‘division of labour’. It is the division of labourers, in a tightly controlled and static manner.

However, if (like I did) you are seeking answers to questions you are already asking, you may be disappointed because he too is asking those same questions.

The distinction between rules and principles

Dr. Ambedkar made a distinction between rules and principles. Rules are practical, principles are intellectual.

“Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to pursue . Principles do not prescribe a specific course of action. A principle supplies a main head by reference to which he is to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes , it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind.”

He rightly points out that even when a rule is right, the act of obeying it is mechanical, and even if the principle is wrong, the act is conscious and responsible. Since a religious act should be a conscious act, “Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only . It cannot be a matter of rules.” Unfortunately, however, as Mahatma Gandhi points out in his response to the essay, by this rule, most religions will fail.

Why did I give the book 4 stars and not 5?

I would have still given the book five stars- that the author offers no solutions does not in any way take away from the phenomenal work done by him in explaining the intricacies of the caste system.

The reason I gave the book only 4 stars was because I did not find him a totally unbiased observer. For example, a lot of what Dr. Ambedkar said about Hinduism holds equally true for all religions. Almost all religions are dogmatic, almost all religions discourage reasoning, almost all religions are a collection of static rules. Yet, only Hinduism was singled out for criticism. Since it was about the caste system, I can understand why that might be so. However, in other sections of the book, Hinduism was compared to other religions and found wanting. Since they were brought up as a contrast, for the sake of neutrality, they should have been mentioned in other contexts too. Either keep it about one religion only or criticise all- selectiveness shows a marked bias.

The Value of Loyalty

 I was discussing the Mahabharata with another lady. “Draupadi and Karna are my favourite characters”, she said.

“Draupadi I can understand. But why Karna?”, I asked.

“I love his character so much. He was such a noble person.”

“Noble? Karna? He was the one who instigated the ‘vastraharan’ of Draupadi. How can you call him noble?”

“But he was a loyal friend. I place loyalty above anything else.”

 

This exchange left me shaken up. Yes, loyalty is an important quality. But does loyalty mean that you remain silent when your friend is doing something wrong? In fact, doesn’t loyalty require a person to prevent a friend from doing the wrong thing?

To make things worse, in this particular case, Karna was not even a mute spectator. He was an active participant in the sexual assault on Draupadi. It was Karna who had the idea of disrobing her. It was Karna who insulted her and questioned her chastity. It was Karna who silenced Vikarna when he tried to dissuade his brothers from humiliating Draupadi.

No matter how you look at it, Karna was a perpetrator in the sexual assault of Draupadi. Yet, women defend him because he was “a loyal friend”.

 

It is the same thought process that kicks in when a woman tries to complain of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Her complaint is weighed against the perceived virtues of the perpetrator, and she is found wanting. His crimes are forgiven because he is a top performer, because he comes from a well-respected family, because no complaint has ever been made against him. In the process of making excuses for him, she is disbelieved and her complaints are dismissed.

Karna was an accessory in the sexual assault of Draupadi. As long as we continue making excuses for him, how can we hope to end gender based violence?

Book Review: Second-Hand Time

One tends to use the word “brilliant” quite loosely, but if one book totally deserves being called that, it is this. The book is written as a series of reminiscences- the people are often not identified, and at times one set of memories merges into another, but there are so many perspectives that between them, a composite picture gradually starts to emerge.

One is left almost incredulous at how people, despite suffering in the hands of Communism continue to swear by it. One wonders why some people wanted a change, and others didn’t. One is amazed at how people willingly put up with poverty as long as they had their books. One wonders about the resilience of a nation that keeps springing back.

As someone who believed in Communism and hoped it would usher in a better world. As someone who watched the rise of Gorbachev and bought into his vision of perestroika and glasnost. As one who saw the death of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the CIS, the book was a fascinating look from within.

Svetlana Alexievich has been called the ‘memory and conscience of the twentieth century’. This book proves why she earned the title. Her’s is a unique literary genre, one that blends journalism with lyricism; or as the Nobel Prize committee described it, “a history of emotions . . . a history of the soul.”

But what stands tall over her literally style, is the portrait of the nation and her people. What remains with you after you finish the books is this one quote- “In five years, everything can change in Russia, but in two hundred — nothing.”

Book Review: On Balance, An Autobiography

We are what we are because of the many women who opened doors and left them ajar for us. Leila Seth is one such woman. I knew she had been a practicing lawyer, the first female judge to be appointed to the Delhi High Court judge and the first woman to be the Chief Justice of a High Court. I also knew her as a woman who stood up for LGBTQ rights, and who wrote a beautiful book for children introducing them to the Constitution. I picked up "On Balance, An Autobiography" because I was curious to know the lady behind those accomplishments. And I was delighted.

In a lot of ways, Leila Seth reminds me of so many women of her generation that I know. Women like my mother and grandmother who kept perfect homes. Women like my grandmother who ran households which straddled joint family sensibilities with nuclear family constraints. Women who took the hard decision to send their children to boarding school so their studies would not be interrupted.

What makes Leila Seth extra special was that she did all of that and also was extremely successful professionally. How she landed up studying and practicing law seems almost serendipitous, but once she qualified, it was clearly her grit and knowledge that got her to scale the professional peaks that she did. Like many other women of her (and subsequent) generations, she followed her husband around, till they (like many other couples) took the decision to settle in a city of their choice. She did it with grace, even though it meant virtually starting afresh each time.

Reading the book through the prism of today, you notice the emotional burden she carried throughout her life. Despite her qualifications and her success, she is the one who silently does the things she would have been expected to do if she had not been working. The only time she speaks of that is in the poignant passage on her time as Chief Justice in the Shimla High Court where she says that for the first time ever she was living for herself. That passage more than anything else, sends out a strong message that this emotional burden is something that should be acknowledged, because only after acknowledging it can we work towards changing it.

As someone who grew up in small towns in Eastern India, I loved the description of her life in Darjeeling and her pen portrait of the many gardens she knew. Her account of her years in Calcutta brought back many pleasant memories. If my mother writes her memoirs, she can pick large chunks out of the book.

Leila Seth is also, as we know, the mother of Vikram Seth, and the protagonist of 'A Suitable Boy' is loosely based on her. A lot of people thought that Latha of the book could have married "better"- that the man she chose was not at all 'a suitable boy'. After reading this autobiography you understand exactly why Premo Seth and only Premo Seth was the "Suitable Boy" for the amazing Leila Seth.

If you like reading a well written autobiographies written in a slightly self deprecating tone; if you are a woman who wants to know and understand the women who paved the way for us; if you love "A Suitable Boy", then this book is for you.

Book Review: Rumble in a Village

[Book review of ‘Rumble in a Village’ by Jean Drèze and Luc Leruth]

Jean Dreze is person I deeply admire, so when I saw his name on a work of fiction with an eye-catching cover, I had to pick it up. I am glad I did. Though the book is written by two academicians, and the themes are heavy, the book is an absolute delight to read.

Imagine a village in the middle of nowhere, with a railway tracks cutting past the landscape. A village demarcated along rigid caste lines. The people knowing their place, yet, striving to improve their lives with limited or no opportunities.

Into this village comes an NRI, accompanied with vague memories of a trip to the village when he was three, and the notes which his father intended to covert into a work of non-fiction, but didn't. With no knowledge of how caste works, he bumbles through, thinking he is making a difference, but actually being played along by virtually everyone.

The author(s) employ self deprecating humour to make a point about casteism, misogyny and corruption. The book is full of harsh truths, but put forward in a way that neither preaches nor accuses.

Palampur can be any village, anywhere. The cast of characters too.

The United Colours of Navratri

 The Navratri Colour Code united women in a tight Sisterhood. It is meant to be celebrated, not imposed.

Twelve years back when I had re-entered the formal workforce after a break, amidst lots of discussion and banter, the “colour code” for Navratri was written out and posted on the office noticeboard. Those were days when I was going through a monochromatic phase, so on the first day, I wore red earrings with my black shirt and indigo jeans. On the second day, feeling festive, I draped a blue stole over my white shirt and faded jeans. The next day when I had to go to office, the colour was ‘cyan’, and since I happened to have a dressy cyan and purple kurta, that’s what I wore. On the way to work, I noticed something strange- almost all the women in my railway carriage were in cyan. Thinking back, I realised that most of the women had been in red and blue the previous two days too, but since they were common festive colours I hadn’t noticed. But cyan? An entire city of women in cyan, when most people don’t even own a single piece of clothing in that colour. That was my first introduction to the famous “Navaratri colour code”.

When I asked, I was told that a different manifestation of the goddess was worshipped on each day, and the colour was dedicated to her. For the next couple of years, I worked out of a home office, so the Navratri colour code was something I was only vaguely aware of, but I did notice something strange. The order in which the Goddesses were worshipped remained the same, but the order of colours changed from year to year. Clearly, the colours were not associated with the Goddesses!

Then someone then told me that the colours were decided by the Nakshatrams, but even that didn’t explain why some colours remained constant year on year, but others changed. What was also not explained was why the order of colours was never the same. Finally, I realised that even people who have been participating in the Navratri Colour Code for years have no clue where the colours came from, so I took to google to seek answers.

The mystery was finally solved. There is no religious significance to the colours. The Maharashtra Times first introduced the Navratri colour code in order to engage with the female readers and boost their circulation figures. The Navratri colour code proved to be so popular, it spread across the state, and through saree pacts spread across the nation and even abroad. Navratri Check out the popularity of Instagram or Facebook and you see how people plan their wardrobe well in advance so they can be a part of the global “Navratri colours” hashtags.

But what are these colours? Do they have any significance?

They do. The days of the week are named after the Sun, the Moon and five planets, each of which is associated with a particular colour. These are the colours that form the base of the Navratri Colour Code.

Once you know this, cracking the colour code become easy. In fact, there are many women who follow the colour code even otherwise. My grandmother, for instance, always wore red on Tuesday and black or blue on Saturday. It was something she did as a matter of course.

But hang on, what about pink and purple. Cyan, peacock green and sky blue. Where did they come from?

Good question, simple answer.

Once the first seven colours are allocated, the other two slots are determined by the person who finalises the code every year. Maybe she has a purple saree she wants to drape?

Why then is it so popular?

The Navratri colour code is popular because it is fun. Participating in the trend is a way to assert your individuality while submerging in a collective. It symbolisers Sisterhood. Whether you are the CEO or the lady cleaning her room, you were in the same colour. I have had colleagues remove their black burqas in office to reveal Navratri colours- it was a social celebration, not a religious one.

But now, the colour code is being forcibly implemented. The Senior Management of a PSU bank not only made it mandatory that all employees and vendor partners conform to the Navratri colour code, they threatened punitive action against those that did not. The circular even specified that the colour of the day should be the base colour of the outfit to be considered. While any organization is within its rights to specify and implement a dress codes, they cannot impose a custom that is religious in nature. Thankfully, it was withdrawn after public outcry, but it is a sign of a country that is moving far away from it’s secular tradition.

What is more ironicay is that the colour code which is being implemented by threatening punitive action against who do not confirm is of questionable significance. India is a pluralistic country. We have a wide diversity of customs and traditions. To impose homogeneity is to go against the ethos of the country. And that is extremely disturbing.

As for me, I did dress according to the colour code this Navratri as I have for many previous Navratris. But I did it my way. Once the seven days were completed, I circled back with yellow and green which are the ‘official’ colours of the day. My grandmother would certainly approve.