Is it right to raise the age of marriage for women to 21?

Do you welcome the move to make the age of marriage for women equal to the age of marriage for men to 21 years?

Mary E. John: The minimum age of marriage can be the same as the age of majority, which is 18 years. If the question of equality is so important, then the age of marriage for boys should also be 18. But what we really need to focus on is what should be the minimum age, not the exact age. When I look at the announcements of the government, it is about the right age for marriage. There has almost never been a reference to the minimum age. The law should set a minimum age and I think 18 years is as good as any age. This should remain a legal notion, and hence, there is no reason to extend it to 21 years.

Noorjahan Safia Niaz: The main concern of this law is not so much about equality, but to increase the age of marriage for women to 21 years. Law guides society, doesn’t it? When [the] 18 years [rule] Even when he came inside, there was some resentment on him. Whenever a law comes a little ahead of its time, there will be some people who will not like it. But the function of law is also to show where we are going as a society. If you look at the urban metros, where girls are getting educated, a section of the society has moved forward. And that section of the society also needs some protection by law. But the issue here is the effective implementation of the law. Unless this improves, we will continue to have the problem of girls getting married at 18 years or 21 years.

Some Muslim lawmakers in Parliament have called the bill an attack on personal laws as it proposes that it would abolish the personal laws of Muslims, Parsis, Hindus and Christians. It also states that some personal laws will be amended, though Muslim personal law is not one of them. Don’t you see this as an attempt to transcend religious laws?

Noorjahan Safia Niaz: If you really have to use the word ‘encroachment’ for personal laws, I would say it has been happening for the Muslim community long before independence as well. The British government brought the Shariat Application Act back in 1937, and two years later, we had the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, which codified divorce law and gave Muslim women the right to divorce. Then came the 1986 Act [Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act]Since we don’t have fully codified laws, we have piecemeal legislation. In the 1986 Act, which came after the Shah Bano case, Parliament intervened on the demand of these same religious groups, who no longer wanted parliamentary intervention. The groups asked Parliament to set aside the Supreme Court’s decision, which was in favor of Shah Bano. And then we have the triple talaq law where Muslim women again sought intervention by the state to put an end to the practice. Look at the Hindu Marriage Act, which was codified in 1955. This includes Sikhs and Buddhists, who are religious minorities. Therefore, the state recognizes that each community is to be governed by their individual laws and steps in if there is a problem with the individual laws. The state should be there to hear the complaints. The state has to play its part whether you are a majority or a minority. So, I don’t think it’s encroachment. And if there is a progressive law in the country, why should I be denied it just because I am a Muslim woman? There are laws for the Hindu community, which includes Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains who are otherwise religious minorities. All aspects of personal law such as marriage, divorce and custody are already codified, i.e. passed by the Parliament. Christians are governed by their own personal law, and so are Zoroastrians. But the issue of family law reform always held back because of the kind of politics played out at the time of Partition, and the communalism and violence faced by Muslims as a minority. The process of codification of laws started in 1937. [for Muslims]and if partition had not happened, I am sure that a codified law of Muslims would probably have preceded that of the Hindu community. But after India gained independence, there was no movement towards codifying the Muslim Family Law, until Shah Bano went to court to demand alimony. Nevertheless, the law went against the Supreme Court’s decision. Therefore, Muslim women were again deprived of the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, later, with the Daniel Latifi decision, the damage caused by that statute was reversed. But the fact that this law [1986 Act] There was an attempt to exclude Muslim women from the purview of all legislative protections and constitutional safeguards. And to this day, we have no codified family law.

We are in 75th year of independence and Muslims [constitute] 15% of the population of this country. But Muslims are deprived of the legal protection that everyone else has. Our tragedy is that even 18 years of marriage of girls in the Muslim community is not fully implemented. There have been conflicting High Court rulings: while some have held that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act applies to the Muslim community, others have held that it does not. Sharia law, which has not been re-codified, states that the age of marriage is puberty, or 15 years. So, where is the security even for 18 years of marriage that everyone else has got for so many years? And that’s why we are emphasizing that a special mention should be made in this current bill that the Muslim community will also come under its purview. Even if it is not applicable for 21 years tomorrow and the law is as it is today, it should be applied to Muslims. To that extent, an amendment is necessary.

Read also | Amendment in age of marriage contradicts other laws

Mary E. John: Nur Jahan has raised very important points regarding the sharp differences in the post-partition women’s movement which have been the subject of much debate. So, let us assume that this is not the same kind of question [for Muslim women]But I just want to point out that if you look at the statistics of marriage at a young age, there is no difference between Hindu and Muslim. The National Family Health Survey-4 (2015-2016) data shows the same proportion as 26.6%. In any case, the Muslims have a slightly better picture than the Hindus. Therefore, the popular belief that Muslims are always backward in comparison to Hindus is not true here. As for our young marriage statistics, the pattern is largely the same.

Noorjahan Safia Niaz: The Muslim community may be better on some parameters that we are discussing, but here the question is of legal equality. Why are Muslims not equal to other citizens? If the age of marriage is 18 years across the country, why should Muslim women be left behind? If polygamy is not allowed and if Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code regulates Christians and Parsis, why should it not apply to Muslims as well? How long will Muslim women continue to suffer because we have been told time and again that our minority status is in danger. We have the provision to codify our personal law to bring it at par with the society in which we are living, and to bring the best of the provisions of the Qur’an. But if we don’t reform, the state will step in. part of the community [that resists reform] State will be allowed to enter.

The bill says it aims to reduce maternal mortality, improve nutrition indicators, and ensure access to education and jobs for women. Will any legislation help achieve these goals?

Mary E. John: It is being claimed that the nutritional status of mother and child and maternal mortality will improve with increase in the age of marriage, that is not enough. If you look at older age at marriage, you will see a better data set because older age at marriage corresponds with better people with better health indicators. Those who are rich get married at a later age. However, if you take control of all these factors, and focus only on the age factor, you will find that age plays the least important role in any of these indicators. Anemia is not affected by age of marriage and is the cause of our terrible maternal mortality. Similarly, a poorly nourished woman does not get better nutrition as she is getting married after three years. And the sex ratio is particularly off as the states with the worst sex ratios like Punjab and Haryana have a higher than average age of marriage. So, there is a lot of confusion here and the so called scientific basis being laid by the government does not last.

Noorjahan Safia Niaz: Law is necessary, but it is not enough. If the commercialization of education continues, how will the poor, especially women and girls, have access to education? If there are no health facilities in our districts, villages and small towns, how will women access various schemes and programmes? Hence, these need to be addressed together.

Many people have concerns over the way the Child Marriage Prohibition Act, 2006 is implemented and is mostly used to criminalize young adults who run away to marry against the wishes of their parents, and the difference – Have religious or inter-caste marriages.

Noorjahan Safia Niaz: I understand there are issues. There are going to be problems. Any law when it comes into existence does not apply equally to different sections of the society. We are a huge country. We have different economic strata, different religions and caste compositions. And that’s probably where the courts come in and the judges decide.

editorial | Age and Marriage: On raising the age of marriage for women

Mary E. John: Existing studies show that the Child Marriage Prohibition Act is not being used to prevent communities from marrying at an early age. It is being used by the parents of the girl who is in the so called escape or love marriage which they are opposing. So, please imagine what will happen tomorrow if the age is raised to 21. These women are not children. According to the laws of the country, they are young adults who will find themselves at cross purposes with this new law, allowing other adults to make their relationships null and void and leaving them in complete legal bondage if not in criminal status. . In Nepal, where the age of marriage was recently raised to 20 years for both men and women, there are a large number of young girls in shelter homes simply because they are in this legal limbo. Is this the kind of future we want the law to make for us?

Safia Niaz is a co-founder of the Indian Muslim Women’s Movement; Mary E. John is a former professor and acting director of the Center for Women’s Development Studies