A misdiagnosis of child marriage — lessons from Telangana

Child marriage is among the most deeply entrenched crimes that has thrived due to a complex web of socio-economic factors, and, therefore, one of the hardest to eliminate. From poverty and lack of awareness to the misplaced belief that it ensures safety and stability for vulnerable girls, families have long presented a range of justifications that allow the practice to persist.

The recently published Telangana Socio, Economic, Educational, Employment, Political and Caste (SEEEPC) Survey 2024 — one of the most detailed caste surveys undertaken by any Indian State, covering 3.55 crore people across 242 caste groups — points to a trend that disrupts this long-held understanding. It does not entirely discard what we know, but it complicates it in ways we can no longer ignore.

According to the survey, Telangana’s Iyengar community, often associated with higher levels of education, economic stability, and social awareness, shows a significantly higher prevalence of child marriage when compared to the State average. Telangana’s overall rate stands at ~5%, but the prevalence within this community is 21%. This despite the community recording high levels of schooling and among the lowest rates of female illiteracy.

So, what is it that drives a well-educated, well-resourced, and aware community to continue a practice that is both illegal and harmful? What compels families, who are otherwise equipped with knowledge and access, to push their children into marriages that inevitably place them at risk of abuse and exploitation?

Let’s be clear: child marriage is child rape, yet this truth remains obscured when arranging, solemnising, or even attending such marriages.

The question then is not whether child marriage persists, but why it continues even where its usual drivers — poverty, lack of access, and absence of awareness — do not exist. The explanation lies elsewhere, in deeply internalised social norms, in the desire to conform, and in the quiet but powerful legitimacy that communities continue to grant to the practice.

This is where the data forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth. For years, the response to child marriage has been designed around deprivation. Policies, programmes, and campaigns have focused on improving access to education, providing financial support, and raising awareness. These remain critical. But they are not enough in contexts where families are not constrained by circumstance, but guided by belief.

Experiences from the ground echo this shift. NGOs working with district administrations and law enforcement agencies are increasingly encountering cases where child marriages are not driven by economic distress, but by social acceptance and familial decision-making, even among educated households. This challenges long-held assumptions about where and why the practice persists, and forces a rethinking of strategies that rely solely on awareness and welfare measures.

In such contexts, the challenge is about confronting conviction and questioning traditions that have been normalised over generations, often by those who are otherwise seen as informed and progressive. The fact that a significant proportion of girls entering such marriages are educated and come from relatively stable households tells us that the issue is not ignorance. It is acceptance. It is the continued belief that marrying a child is not wrong, not criminal, and not a violation of her rights.

How do we respond to a crime that is not hidden in deprivation, but sustained in plain sight? It is by shifting from persuasion alone to accountability. The law must assert itself more visibly and more consistently. Not as a distant threat, but as a real and immediate consequence. Families, facilitators, and communities that enable child marriage must be seen and treated as participants in a criminal act, not as passive adherents of tradition. They must be punished. Because fear of law will bring in the change that has long been evading reality.

But this battle cannot be fought by laws alone. Because the practice continues not out of compulsion but conviction, the State needs to hit at the level of belief too. This will require sustained engagement with community leadership, faith leaders, and social networks that shape collective behaviour.

If child marriage continues even where girls are educated, families are secure, and laws are known, then the problem is not a lack of development. It is the persistence of deeply rooted social sanctions. A crime that is socially accepted will not end until that acceptance is acknowledged, challenged, confronted, punished, and ultimately withdrawn.

Siddalingappa Nagaraja is secretary, Association For Social Reformation Integration And Thought Of Health Awareness (ASRITHA).

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)