State does not trust women to take informed decisions

Parental consent for love marriages at its crux is a patriarchal, and regressive idea. Why is it that the State does not have faith in its young adults, especially women?

If Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel’s efforts to find a constitutional way to have parental consent mandatory for love marriages fructify, hereon every love story in the state that ends in nuptial bliss will resemble a Sooraj Barjatya film. The couple in love would require the consent of the parents, and that by extension would mean the consent of other elders in the extended family.

Social media was quick to react to the news and Patel was the focus of their disbelief and anger. The fact is that Patel was reflecting on a demand made by both Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs in March for the need to amend the law to bring in parental consent.

If the law is amended to this effect, this will be yet another example of the disconnect between lawmakers and the younger generation. The GST Council’s July 11 decision to club online gaming along with horse racing and gambling to squeeze out 28 per cent tax reflects a similar disconnect. Why is it that the State does not have faith in its young adults?

The issue here is the lack of agency for women. In March when this topic was debated in the Gujarat Assembly, BJP MLA Fatehsinh Chauhan was of the view that “….the current practice of registering court marriages in districts other than the couple’s own often leads to the concealment of documents, resulting in unfortunate situations where the girl suffers, or the parents are driven to extreme measures such as suicide. Additionally, parents occupied with their professions may struggle to care for their daughters, making them vulnerable to exploitation by anti-social elements who lure them into elopement.” During the same debate, Congress’s Geniben Thakor said that the intention was to “….ensure that girls are not lured into relationships by boys with criminal backgrounds or desperation, leading to harassment and suffering for the girls involved… witnesses [for the marriage] should be from her own village to ensure her safety and well-being.”

The germane argument here is that the State believes that a woman needs to be protected, and cannot be trusted with taking a decision — and because of this, it is the responsibility of the State and the society to ensure that she is ‘protected’, even if it means going against her will. The questions the lawmakers do not ask and conveniently ignore, and thereby do not address, are: from whom should women be safe, and why is a woman not trusted to take an informed decision? If a woman (or any citizen) cannot be protected, it is the failure of the State; more laws will not help cover up this basic failure.

This is a patriarchal, and regressive approach to a societal problem that needs to be addressed at a cultural and economic level. Rather than initiating awareness-creation programmes or discussions towards it, our lawmakers prove to be a disappointment. Such discussions and legislation will further solidify unevolved societal stereotypes expected of women. This effort is also communal and casteist in that parents and the ‘village’ will prevent a woman from choosing a partner outside her religion/caste.

In 2014, Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav infamously said that ‘boys will be boys’ and they will commit mistakes. Detestable as Yadav’s statement is, Gujarat Assembly’s efforts are equally condemnable. It is an admission by the State that ‘boys will be boys and since we cannot do anything about it, let’s put further restrictions on women’.

At a macro level this patriarchal bias is reflected in naming schemes such as ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’. It is the failure of the law-and-order machinery and the State (and we as a nation) that has brought us to a situation where we must ‘save our daughters’! The intention of the scheme, to educate the girl child and discourage selective sex-determination, is laudable, but it’s the tenor that is jarring.

Political considerations might have influenced Bhupendra Patel’s statement on July 30. Here is an economic argument, which hopefully our politicians — especially the ruling BJP — will heed: women form about 49 per cent of India’s population, yet contribute 18 per cent of GDP. With an abysmal female labour force participation India will find it hard to achieve its projected economic development.

Laws must empower women, not restrict them and their choices.

Twitter: @VijuCherian

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