A gaping hole

I am 20 years old, and while I could have hypothetically gotten married a year ago, I will no longer be able to do so with the amendment to the Child Marriage Bill. This hypothetical issue notwithstanding, the accompanying discourse confounds me in its understanding of my generation, and the women that comprise it. Notions of marriage have evolved, but it remains predominantly a socially acceptable union of partners. An institution entrenched in strictures of patriarchy, identity and womanhood, marriage in India is venerated by cultural and religious traditions that do not necessarily seek law for approval (sadly, one-fifth of marriages are still child-marriages, despite getting outlawed in 2006).

While such a bill cannot be faulted for attempting to reduce rates of child marriage, it faces valid criticism for its simplistic optimism in bringing an impactful and meaningful change. The bill simply does not consider some critical factors for which young girls are married off. While poverty and economic hardship have been cited as primary reasons behind child marriages, the Planning Commission Report from 2014 noted that 'adherence to the traditional system' was the single most cited reason for child marriages. Having traditionally encapsulated a woman's entire identity — from her wealth and profession to her very name, marriage has been symbolised as a landmark event in most women's lives. Rooted within unquestionable religious and cultural traditions of patriarchy, it is necessary to question whether a mere legislative act is substantial enough to evoke a meaningful change in such a suffocating environment. Lazy cheering by echo chambers dissatisfies our generation, that seeks hard facts, insights and rigorous planning, especially when it concerns us.

Proponents of the bill cite the reason of 'women finally being able to decide who to marry' at 21. However, if women do not have a choice at 18, how would such a choice magically manifest at 21? It is also argued that women would be comparatively better off with respect to their right to marry with three additional years of education. If education is the single most transformational factor in uplifting women, why is the emphasis of parliamentarians only on raising the marriageable age, as compared to legislating on truly transforming factors like education, empowerment, health, and career support?

If it is the autonomy of women that is aimed at being safeguarded, a provision to 'enable' women to marry at the age of 21 would not necessarily translate to such a choice being readily available to them. Where is the legislative component and conversations on building compassionate systems within communities to provide women with the necessary ecosystem? Women's self-help groups are the only proven examples of uplifting women, both socially and financially, enabling them to make decisions and participate in societal discourse. Providing incentives and legislative cover to such vital frameworks would have enabled true reformation at grassroots levels, beyond the patronising tone defending the current bill.

While assessing public policy impact of the upcoming marriage bill, it is pertinent to weigh the probable success of such outcomes, with 'intent' (overt and covert) in such legislations. This bill seeks to override all personal laws governing marriage in different faiths. Union Minister for Women and Child Development said, "All women from all faiths, under Hindu Marriage Act or the Muslim Personal Law, should get equal rights to marry". Postured as a harbinger of gender equality between sexes, the bill's response to various critics was that it was 'revolutionary in ensuring that men and women would have the right to decide on their marriage'. There is, however, a lack of clarity as to how the bill would lead to a reduction in child marriages when the same was already made illegal with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act in 2006. What then, does such a naïve parity seek to achieve?

Gradual reduction in trends of child marriage from the '90s to now have been primarily attributed to fundamental changes addressing societal inequities and inequalities, rather than just legislative enactments to outlaw child marriages. Marriage itself is entrenched within unequal and patriarchal social structures, therefore acts need to recalibrate keeping the inequitable position of women within the larger patriarchal ambit, rather than adopting a monochromatic view of inequality between men and women. The tenor of political leadership needs to be focused on enabling the empowerment of women at the grassroots level, gradually challenging the stranglehold of tradition that sustains such practices.

To assume it to be a step towards gender parity, it needs to be supported by empirical facts and evidence of probable impact, which suffers for want of adequate data, justifying the claims associated with the bill. Public policy measures require extensive statistical and sociological assessment, debate and criticism by experts and stakeholders before enactment. Opposition leaders have criticised this legislative haste (yet again), cloaked under the condescending undertone of 'progressive', which is bound to result in avoidable missteps, given its lack of rigour and corroboration in basic public policy principles.

Enactments without connecting the vital dots on gender disparity, such as education, health, awareness, careers, and ambitions, are bound to be pointless if not viewed from the underlying circumstances and structures which enable such disparities. Inequities for women are manifested beyond the simplistic division of sexes that the bill acknowledges — it thrives in deep divisions of the financially weak and/or rural populations, various religious and cultural minorities, the under-nourished and illiterate, the discriminated and socially excluded. It exists within archaic traditions and mindsets that the younger generations are expected to conform to, without questioning.

As someone who falls within the concerned demographics of the bill, I find myself unheard and uninvolved in handling regressive traditions, societal norms, and sometimes even undebated legislations. These are clearly sacrosanct in the minds of those who either uphold regressive traditions or even legislate these, far beyond being open to healthy criticism and debate. 'Choice' therefore will never truly exist till mindsets change and societal restructuring is enabled, for that this bill is inadequate. My generation questions and we seek answers – this is a generational reality, that ironically sits well with the tenets of democracy, but perhaps the legislators would rather not have any questioning, even if it was for the overall societal betterment.

Views expressed are personal