To what extent can the State decide what ‘Indian society’ is, and is not, ready for? This becomes a particularly important issue in the reform of laws that affect the everyday lives of men, women and children, like the decriminalization of homosexuality or the abolition of child marriage. In the case of the former, two successive political regimes have hedged the issue with vague noises of societal unreadiness. The National Democratic Alliance government took it upon itself to declare, presumably on behalf of the Indian ‘majority’, that the “floodgates” of vice would be opened if homosexuality were to be legalized. The Congress-led government has been less direct. With the reforming of the Child Marriage (Restraint) Act, 1929, there seems to be a divide between the Centre’s opinion and the views of the NGOs consulted by the government on the matter. The more ‘traditional’ elements in the government do not want the law to have the power to make child marriages void. That would be perceived by society as divorce and further stigmatize the girl, hindering her marriage when she comes of age. But the social workers want full abolition, rendering under-age unions automatically invalid.

If the Centre’s conservative opinion prevails, then what would it mean to ‘strengthen’ the law against child marriage? The existing law also goes in for “restraint” rather than prevention, and this is what the new law would continue to uphold, more or less. Like child labour, child marriage is a phenomenon that legal reform alone cannot abolish. Without changes in social attitudes and infrastructure, no law can be effectively implemented to stop children from working or getting married. Children and their families should be given viable alternatives that would be perceived as being not just in the child’s best interests but also the family’s. Universal primary education is the most important thing, giving the child (and its family) the opportunity to look for other sources of long-term security.