The custom of marrying off girls young probably began with invasions from the northwest, due to the rapacious lust of sex-starved invaders
4 In West Bengal 50 years ago, an income-drawing girl began abolishing the need for her parents to pay a dowry. This phenomenon must have spread to other areas, too. Only a comparatively delayed marriage can enable a girl to get adequately educated to draw a lucrative income. That is where the introduction of 21 as the minimum age for marriage is an enabler. Although the current emphasis is on women, that an early marriage retards a man’s studies is also a fact, perhaps more so because boys grow up somewhat later than girls.
The custom of marrying off girls young, in all probability, began with invasions from India’s northwest, due to the rapacious lust of sex-starved invaders. Societal view was that an early marriage of girls would possibly distance her from the avaricious attentions of invaders. In Vedic times, for example, the custom was, at least for the upper classes, marrying off boys and girls at about the age of 25, because studies and learning for them were all-important.
Incidentally, the Islamic tradition was that a girl who crosses the stage of puberty made her ready for matrimony. That is because of Prophet Mohammad’s injunction published in the Mishkat-ul-Masbih: “Marry women who will be very prolific, for I wish you to be more numerous than any other people.” Following this injunction may be appropriate for a community that does not encourage the employment of women. Such a practice excludes half the population from contributing to the national economy. There is another angle to this phenomenon, pointed out to me by one Anwar Ahmed, an artisan at Fatehpur Sikri, on our way to Agra. Ahmed’s explanation for the educational backwardness of his community was that mothers in the community were comparatively less educated. He said an uneducated person couldn’t know the value of education for her sons and daughters.
During my visit to Cairo in 1961, I came across a young lecturer at the Al Azhar University. I happened to compliment Europe’s civilisational progress. To which his response was: “Wait and see; the next century will be an Islamic century. You will see signs of this in your own lifetime. Lesser educated women do not prevent men from studying and thinking.”
Coming back to India, young marriages have caused more problems than solving any. The eras of invaders and conquerors are long over, but the adverse consequences they left behind remain unsolved. This is partly because India has been one of the few countries with a mixed population. The clergy — whether Deobandi or Barelvi — has been concerned that the youth of its community might be tempted to adopt secular ways and, in the bargain, overlook the ‘glory’ of Islam. Care should be taken to ensure that India does not fall into the trap of minority apprehensions retarding the progress of an entire nation.
Another advantage of relatively late marriage of a girl would ensure better health for her; most likely because of her having fewer children. The step of fixing the minimum marriageable age at 21 would also affect the onward march of population amongst the minorities. If the clergy or the menfolk object, they should be shown the example of France. Until 1905, Paris allowed the country total freedom as far as one liked, worship the way one wanted and generally conduct oneself as one chose to. The country’s National Assembly brought in a law in order to enforce secularism quite strictly. For example, no French citizen was thenceforth allowed to display any symbol of his/her religion outwardly, and certainly not in public places, offices or institutions of education. A Christian could not wear a cross, nor a Jew wear a yarmulke, Muslims citizens of France could not wear a burqa in public; it was strictly banned in France during the tenure of Nicholas Sarkozy.
Different segments responded to the message of the law in different ways. By now, the situation in France has gone to the extent that quite a number of mosques have had to be shut down by the authorities. Only a fortnight ago, a prominent mosque in Beauvais, just 100 km north of Paris, was shut down by France’s Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin. The imam has been accused of propagating religious hatred against Christians, Jews and homosexuals through his sermons, called khutba in Arabic. Do we want such measures to be resorted to in India? If not, we must beware well in time.
We in India have witnessed innumerable communal riots, including what BR Ambedkar had described as a “civil war”, ie, the clashes that took place between 1920 and 1940. Much worse was to happen thereafter in 1946-47 and in 1948. Thereafter, we have seen four wars with Pakistan, beginning in Kashmir in 1947. Today, India does not have a High Commissioner residing in Islamabad.
In 1971, the eastern wing of Pakistan seceded and became Bangladesh. This new country is more Bengali and less religious and follows the scriptures in a much lighter way. Bangladesh has controlled the excessive growth of its population, as well as perceptively improved its economy, to the extent that its currency, the taka, is twice as valuable as the Pakistani rupee.
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
