On Independence Day, the prime minister suggested that the government may review the legal age of marriage for women to raise it from 18 to 21, on par with that of men. Data regarding age of motherhood, maternal and infant mortality rates and so on are being collected by a task force, and the review will depend on its report. The prime minister and his government feel that by 21, women would have a better education than at 18, be more mature physiologically and psychologically, and empowered enough to make marital and reproductive choices. Besides, the effects of poor nutrition and anaemia may be somewhat ameliorated by 21. It would also slow population growth, one of the prime minister’s larger goals, since studies show that many women have their first pregnancies between the ages of 18 and 21.

These are undeniable benefits, although not new discoveries. Fixing an age for marriage must tread a fine line between the ideal and complex social realities. Early marriage is often forced upon daughters of poor parents for then dowry — illegal but flourishing — is lower and the girl is made, nominally at least, sexually secure. There is no gainsaying the importance of education: determined schoolgirls keep rebelling against their parents’ decision to marry them off. Empowerment is a priority, even if it takes years to achieve. But certain incongruities need to be ironed out. Would marriage at 21 mean the age of sexual consent would be raised from 18 too, when there are calls for this to be lowered to 16 because teenage society is changing? Would child marriage, which is illegal but voided only when a spouse complains, be made void by default? In reviewing the age of marriage — no bad thing — the government would also have to consider how the law is to be implemented in a society riddled with economic inequality. The change should not be pointless.