Child Marriage in India: An illegal practice with a devastating impact

Child Marriage in India:

An illegal practice with a devastating impact

Image source: The Hindu

Amy McArthur       

06/01/2016

Child marriage remains one of the ugliest flaws in the fabric of contemporary Indian society. To most, it would seem incredible that the practice continues in many parts of the country today; but in fact, according to figures published by Unicef, a third of the world's child marriages take place in India, even though it has been declared illegal since 2006. In addition to this, the country caused international outrage in October 2013 when it refused to sign a UN resolution on early and forced marriage.

The evidence is stacked against child marriage: not only does it deny girls their right to a childhood, education and freedom of choice, but it may also physically endanger them in many ways: girls who give birth during adolescence are much more prone to complications during pregnancy or childbirth, and the infant mortality rate in India for women under twenty is a huge 76%. Marrying young also puts girls more at risk from sexually transmitted diseases, anaemia and hypertension among a host of other potential issues.

 When considering these facts the question is, why is it still such a widespread phenomenon? The answer is not a simple one. To start with, India, in practice, is still very much governed by religion and tradition, making it difficult to enforce laws that many consider to be an attack on their religious and cultural rights or beliefs. The problem is not restricted to a specific cultural group or geographical area, however. The majority of child marriages take place in impoverished and/or rural communities, which suggests that poverty, isolation and a lack of education are major factors in the perpetuation of this practice. Daughters in these areas are often seen as a financial burden on the family, and are therefore married off as soon as they are deemed old enough (sometimes as young as 12 or 13). The custom of giving dowries (a financial gift from the bride's family to the groom's), although also illegal, is commonplace, and as the dowry tends to be larger the older the girl is, they are married off young to avoid the financial pressure. Another factor that keeps child marriage in play is fear that the daughter may create a scandal by having sex or simply falling in love with someone before marriage or outside of her own caste. It is therefore common thinking that if a girl is married off young the risk of shame being brought on the family is reduced.

 Some steps are being taken in the right direction: several child brides have turned to the courts for justice, setting precedents that will make it easier to implement the Child Marriage Prohibition Act (CMPA). In September 2015, a historic case took place in Gujarat High Court: Muslim Personal Law was overridden by the CMPA, resulting in the conviction of a man who married a 16-year old girl. This sets an important precedent, meaning the CMPA now 'override[s] the provisions of Muslim Personal Law, Hindu Marriage Act or any personal law' (2015: Express News Service). However, cases of child marriage actually making it to court are relatively rare, and the costs involved are often unthinkable to girls living in poverty. As well as this, in many villages overlooked by the state because of their remoteness and impoverished situation the law is, understandably, a far away concept that does not directly affect the way they live.

It seems obvious that until women and girls cease to be treated as incapable of making decisions for themselves, as property to be effectively bought and sold by their male counterparts, the gender inequality problems India faces will not be going away anytime soon. Child marriage is the symptom of a disease that affects all levels of a society in which women are routinely abused, humiliated and treated as inferior entities, often to the indifference of the general public. If a change is to be made, child marriage needs to stop being seen as 'normal', and communities need to become aware that having educated, independent daughters who are able to earn money for themselves could be a long-term solution to the cycle of poverty. It needs to come from the bottom, and begins with education, with teaching women and girls how to see themselves as independent and valuable members of society. This doesn't have to mean a total rejection of culture or tradition; the important thing here is establishing and maintaining womens' and girls' right to make informed decisions for themselves on how they wish to live their lives.

To do this, grassroots action that is respectful of cultural traditions and beliefs and that directly involves the communities affected by child marriage is essential. There is no sense in pointing a proverbial gun at people’s heads and demanding that the practice cease immediately: a considerate approach involving open discussion and the participation of the community as a whole is extremely important. This is the idea behind Behaviour Change Communication programmes, such as those implemented by Heeals. These initiatives aim to change people’s attitudes towards women in a positive manner, and to help them reach the right decision for themselves, rather than having it imposed on them by an unknown faceless entity. It is through small, local actions like these that we can begin to truly make a difference in the lives of women and girls across India, and empower them to become valued members of society. 

Sources:

                       

●         Unicef:       http://unicef.in/Whatwedo/30/Child-Marriage

●      The Guardian:               http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/may/27/india-child-marriage-annulment-brides-go-to-court                 

●      The Times of India:    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/On-world-stage-India-lets-down-its-child-brides/articleshow/24108817.cms                

●         The Indian Express:   http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/prohibition-of-child-marriage-act-to-prevail-over-personal-laws-hc/

Through successful WASH intervention

Through successful WASH intervention, communities access a new service that improves their quality of life, and also learn about equity and inclusion.

The abysmal state of access to safe water and sanitation facilities in the developing world is currently a major cause for alarm; 580,000 children die every year from preventable diarrheal diseases. This is due largely to the 2.5 billion people around the globe who do not have access to safe sanitation. Not only can an effective WASH intervention save lives, it can also engineer changes in the social fabric of communities that adopt these behavioural changes. This points to a key attribute of a successful WASH intervention – that through these programmes, communities not only access a new service that improves their quality of life, but they also learn from being part of a concrete intervention that emphasises equity and inclusion.

Let me explain how. Safe sanitation is essentially ‘total’. In a community, even one family practising open defecation puts the health of other families at risk. Also, unsafe sanitation practices pollute local potable and drinking water sources in the habitations. Together, this can undo any gains from partial coverage of WASH interventions. This much is now widely accepted by sanitation practitioners around the world. However, there remains a serious challenge when it comes to the implementation of this concept.

When a community is introduced to a WASH-focused behaviour change campaign, there are often variations in the levels of take-up in different families. This could be because of several barriers – financial ability, cultural beliefs, education levels, etc. In response, external agencies have many options. They can focus more on families in their behaviour change campaigns, offer them material and financial support or incentives, or exert peer pressure (which may in some cases become coercive, etc).

However, the best approach – whether facilitated by an external agent or not – is for a community to devise a collective response. The issue should be framed as a collective action problem that requires solving for the creation of a public good. In many instances, communities have come together to support the poorest families – social engineering at its finest. At its best, recognising the needs of every member of a community will lead to a recognition of the challenges that the typically marginalised groups face. It is this recognition that could prompt a rethink of social norms and relationships.

On the other hand, the power of peer pressure can be effective. Where families that are able, but unwilling, to construct a toilet and switch behaviour, the initial take-up from other families has a strong demonstration potential. In societies with caste and class differences, this can be deployed effectively to highlight choices that threaten the public good.

Encouraging the development of shared norms and collective action is also a key aspect of determining the role of subsidies in WASH programmes. As research evidence from Bangladesh shows, subsidies could be effective when targeted at communities, instead of at individuals. Where it is possible to measure progress at the community-level, subsidies can be designed and delivered accordingly. This will encourage communities to take up WASH as they would approach say, the building of a road or a school.

This is no longer just a theory. Increasingly now, various organisations have documented such successes. For example, in multiple NGO-led programmes in eastern India and Bangladesh, local community-based organisations formed initially to tackle sanitation went on to engage in collective livelihoods activities. However, as with any other, this theory too should be put to test – evaluated at different sites and for different approaches. Currently, we are not sufficiently focused on the positive social externalities a WASH intervention could generate, and as a result, are running the risk of restricting ourselves to narrow technocratic approaches. This needs to change.

This brings me to a key message I have for WASH interventions: do not hurry into scaling up. Given the urgency of the problem – about 2.5 billion people do not practice safe sanitation – this might seem completely counter-intuitive. However, there is the real risk that aiming for scale will lead to the perpetration of target-driven hardware interventions which will neither change behaviour, not create social cohesion. It is not unusual for organisations that rush to scale end up compromising on exactly those key design elements that made their pilots a success.

In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge that WASH interventions have the potential to go far beyond basic service delivery. In order to realise these gains, one must follow a very careful sequence of steps designed to promote community ownership and systematically change behaviour. The goal should be to nudge communities towards a public spirit and collective problem solving, so that WASH works as an entry point into communities, creating fertile ground for future interventions.

Picture Source :HEEALS 

source: WSSCC