Column : Legal age of marriage matters little, empowerment does

This appeared in the FPJ on the 20th of December 2021

My paternal grandmother was married when she was 11. She was a mother at 13. Her own mother, my great grandmother, was 28 when she became a grandmother. My grandmother bore 7 children, of whom 3 survived their first birthday.  

This is not an unfamiliar story. Most of our family histories are replete with our grandmothers or great grandmothers being child brides and children bearing children. It was just the way it was. The first organised response to this habit of marrying of daughters before they hit puberty, was the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, championed by Har Bilas Sarda, the Sarda Act (as it came to be known) increased the age of female marriage to 14, and the age of males to 18.

Oral history of the family is unclear whether my grandparents marriage took place just before the Sarda Act or just after.   News, in those days, took time to travel. Especially from far off places like Delhi to remote places like Chittoor (modern Andhra Pradesh). But, it is likely that the family would have followed the law, had they known about it – later marriages of girls took place after they turned 14.

In the early 1930’s when my grandparents got married, the average life expectancy across the world was low, about 40 years. In India, a combination of Imperial rule and centuries of social rigidity, contributed to an even lower life expectancy. In 1931, the average Indian life expectancy for men was 26.91, and that for women was 26.56. People died of illnesses that we don’t even notice today. Family oral history has it that one of my grandfather’s brothers died of a septic boil. Women routinely died at childbirth. Children died before their first birthday.  

And, then the era of science and enlightenment began the world over. Science combatted illness, and enlightenment combatted the chaining of the mind.  The most powerful of ideas, including freedom, equality, and independence began resonating, as people (including women) began demanding their place in the sun.   

In all this there were several external factors that helped. One was the advances in science that increased lifespan. Penicillin was discovered, quite by accident, in 1928. And post that its applications became many. It was seen as this magic want to fight all infections. And, then the independence movement allowed Indians a platform to make things better for other Indians, without looking at how will it impact the British treasury. Scientific ideas, ideas regarding nutrition, hygiene, participation, women’s education – all became more pervasive.

By the time India was declared a Republic in 1950, life expectancy was at 32.45 years for men, and 31.66 for women. This is despite the intervening years of the second world war, the loss during partition, and the British caused Bengal famine that killed millions.   And, since independence life expectancy has been on the rise. There are fewer women dying at childbirth.  

Two important parameters in all this are Literacy ad the age of marriage, and the correlation between the two. As per the 2011 census, 82.14% of men, and 65.46% of all women are literate. But this nationwide average hides some disparities. In well administered states like Kerala, almost 92% of all men and women are literate. And, in states with traditional institutionalised patriarchy – like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh – you have a wide gap in the literacy levels of men and women – at least 20 percentage points separate the two.

And, finally we look at the average age of marriage. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) “   The median age at first marriage is 18.6 years for women and 24.5 years for men”. And, it also states the more the educated the woman is, the higher the likelihood of her marrying later.

Source: Women’s Median Age at First Marriage by Schooling

Source : NFHS (2019-21)

The best way to ensure that women get married later, is by ensuring that she stays in education. Right now, the RTE guarantees her education till the 9th standard. There is nothing beyond that to keep her safe from family pressuring her to get married, or indeed forcing her to get married. Which is indeed why the cabinet move to raise the legal age of marriage for women to 21 is inexplicable. At one level you can understand them wanting to bring gender parity with men – who must wait till 21. But, the simpler thing would have been to revise the age at which men can get married.

While on the face of it, the law looking at the raising of the marriage age of women were based on concerns of maternal mortality rate, the solution here is not raising the marriageable age. The solution is adequate healthcare. The solution is adequate nutrition – from the time the girl child is in the anganwadi and going through school. The solution is access to education, and higher education; access to healthcare, and to contraception. The legal age of marriage will make no little difference, unless the rest of the infrastructure is put in place.

And there is the other side of the story, what if a woman at the age of eighteen, after having cast her vote to choose her government, decides to choose her partner? Is the law going to penalise her? What if she were pregnant – would the law deprive her child of being born in wedlock? Would they lock up the couple?

That women should be married later, and have the right to follow their own destiny, is a no-brainer. But the state should be looking at how they build systems that empower women. Allow her to stay in education. Ensure her safe haven from families that want to impose their old ways on her. All her the space to exercise her freedoms. Not bring in laws that take away what little agency there is.

Leave a Reply