Rethinking the Legal Marriage Age Debate: A Critical Analysis of the Indian Express Op-Ed
Original Article -
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/legal-age-of-marriage-women-in-india-6576596/
The move by the Government of India to raise the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 has sparked extensive public and policy discussion. In an opinion piece titled “Move to raise women’s age of marriage reflects punitive paternalism”, the author challenges the rationale behind this change, arguing that it is an example of punitive paternalism likely to produce counterproductive and suboptimal outcomes—especially for India’s poor and marginalised. His key contentions may be summarised as follows:
Early marriage, he argues, is a social problem rooted in poverty, illiteracy, and economic inequality—not one that can be solved by top-down policy measures. Simply raising the age of marriage, however well-intentioned, will not address these deeper structural drivers.
Proponents cite raising the marriage age as a means to improve education and nutrition for adolescent girls. However, the author contends that merely increasing the legal age will not guarantee such benefits—and questions whether delayed marriage is more effective than direct intervention in health and education.
The legal change, he claims, reflects punitive paternalism—using penalties to attain a challenging social goal. He argues for autonomy-enhancing paternalism instead, which encourages self-empowerment and seeks to enhance well-being by improving decision-making processes..
Lastly, the author suggests building on existing schemes and incentives—such as distributing bicycles in Bihar, laptops in Tamil Nadu, or programs like Janani Suraksha Yojana—rather than introducing new legal restrictions.
While the article is reflective and its critique grounded in genuine concern, there are notable gaps and oversights in the author's reasoning, each of which warrants closer analysis.
First, the suggestion that social problems cannot be tackled through policy reform misrepresents the transformative role policy has historically played in India. Legislative action has frequently catalysed social change—be it the outlawing of sati, the criminalisation of untouchability, or the prohibition of dowry. Legal intervention has often preceded attitudinal shifts. Raising the legal age of marriage, in this context, should not be seen as an isolated moral prescription, but rather as a step toward reimagining social norms through law.
The author further argues that early marriages are outcomes of structural disadvantages—poverty, low literacy, and unemployment—rather than rather than solely patriarchal influences. He suggests that regions in India where early marriages happen, often exhibit these underlying issues, implying a causal relationship. However, this logic risks mistaking correlation for causation. It may well be that early marriage contributes to these very outcomes—by truncating education, limiting economic mobility, and perpetuating intergenerational poverty. Even if one were to accept the author's structural diagnosis, it overlooks the existing policy efforts—such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, PM Garib Kalyan Yojana, and the Skill India Mission—that are already tackling root-level socioeconomic barriers. The legal change is not meant to replace these initiatives but to complement them, by directly targeting a key symptom: premature marriage.
The claim that “simply” raising the age of marriage will not solve the problem is a straw man fallacy. Advocates of the policy do not present it as a panacea. Rather, it is positioned as one among multiple interventions—symbolic and structural—that can nudge social behaviour in a more progressive direction. The author’s framing distorts the broader intent by falsely implying that the policy claims to solve all challenges in one sweep.
Second, the author creates a false binary by framing investment in nutrition & education, and delayed marriage as competing solutions. In reality, the two are mutually reinforcing. Delaying marriage can provide adolescent girls more time to access education, healthcare, and nutrition programs like POSHAN Abhiyaan. Conversely, better health outcomes improve young women's capacity to make informed life choices. Suggesting that one must choose between the two misrepresents the synergistic potential of combining legal and social policy.
Third, the author's framing of this measure as punitive paternalism overlooks the fundamental protective intent behind it. Age-based legal restrictions—such as those governing alcohol consumption, driving, or employment—exist not to curtail individual freedom, but to shield vulnerable groups from potential harm. These are examples of protective paternalism, where the law intervenes to reduce risk and promote long-term welfare. In this case, delaying marriage helps protect girls from early pregnancies, educational disruption, and socio-economic dependency.
Moreover, protective and autonomy-enhancing approaches are not mutually exclusive. Laws can establish minimum thresholds that create safe environments in which empowerment programs can flourish. While autonomy-based policies promote agency, they often presume a baseline level of access, awareness, and negotiation power that many adolescent girls still lack. Legal backing, in this sense, can help level the playing field and signal a clear normative stance from the state.
Finally, the suggestion that existing policies and incentives are sufficient underestimates the fragmented nature of these schemes. While bicycles, scholarships, and healthcare programs each play a role, they often lack a unifying policy anchor. Raising the legal marriage age can serve as that anchor—creating legal, moral, and administrative alignment across initiatives. It can help ensure that different schemes converge on a shared goal: postponing marriage and expanding opportunities for girls.
In conclusion, while the original article presents an intellectually sincere perspective, some of its conclusions rest on assumptions that merit deeper scrutiny. Raising the legal age of marriage for women should not be viewed as punitive or coercive, but as a protective, enabling reform—especially when paired with well-implemented welfare schemes. It signals a commitment to gender equity, sets a clear policy direction, and creates space for broader transformation. As with most complex social issues, no single measure can do it all. But this is a step—if not the final one, then certainly a necessary one—toward a more empowered and equitable future for India’s young women.
