Child bride wins divorce at 14 and goes back to school

From Catherine Philp in Delhi

AN INDIAN child, married off against her will at the age of 12, has won a battle to have her two-year marriage annulled so that she can return to school.

Chenigall Suseela, from a tiny village in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, is one of the few child brides to have fought and won a battle against the ancient practice of underage marriage in the state.

Village elders, the keepers of village law, granted her wish only after she went to police, threatened to commit suicide and finally enlisted the help of a child-protection organisation that usually rescues child labourers to return them to school.

Suseela, who was born into an impoverished low-caste Untouchable family, was married two years ago to a 15-year-old boy in a neighbouring village in Rangareddy district. The match had been made years earlier by their parents.

She left her family and moved in with his, but six months ago she went to the police to seek help against her husband, whom she accused of abusing her. However, elders on both sides opposed her demand for separation, saying that local Hindu customs forbade it.

Marriage is illegal under the ages of 18 for girls and 21 for boys, but the practice is still common in rural parts of India, particularly in the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. Few marriages in India are formally registered and religious ceremonies are regarded as socially if not legally binding, even when the spouses are under age. Unable to get a legal separation, Suseela’s only recourse was to seek the elders’ help.

When they refused, she returned to her village anyway and threatened to commit suicide if they forced her to go back to her husband’s home. She demanded the right to return to education and sought the help of the MV Foundation for child labourers.

Her parents eventually admitted that they were wrong to have married her off without her consent. Last week the elders of the two villages met the young couple and their families and pronounced them divorced. A document was signed by both parties and witnessed by foundation activists and a police officer, annulling the marriage and requiring the groom to return the valuables, including gold and cash, that were given as dowry at their marriage.

More than 200,000 minors are believed to be married off in rural India every year, many of them in mass ceremonies on two astrologically auspicious days. Brides can even be toddlers and are usually returned to their families after the ceremony, but those approaching or having reached puberty are usually sent straight to the grooms’ homes.

Police rarely stop the marriages, and efforts to raise awareness or intervene in ceremonies are usually left to social activists, often at great personal risk to themselves.

In 1992 an activist in Rajasthan was gang-raped when she tried to stop a child marriage. Earlier this year another had her hands cut off with a sword by the irate father of two young girls who was trying to marry them off.

from the www.timesonline.co.uk

Nice folk these people, so much for a civilised world ?:loopy:

Originally posted by brooksy
Nice folk these people, so much for a civilised world ?:loopy: low caste? untouchable? child brides? sounds like the middle ages,how can these people be expected to be part of the 21st century when their leaders allow such things, shouldnt the west have made a point of demanding this medieval practice be stopped as part of the deal when we wiped out the foreign debts etc.
why our governments allow things like this to happen when they know about it and seemingly condone it is beyond me,some where along the line it suits some ones purpose to keep the people locked in the past

Originally posted by depoix
low caste? untouchable? child brides? sounds like the middle ages,how can these people be expected to be part of the 21st century when their leaders allow such things, shouldnt the west have made a point of demanding this medieval practice be stopped as part of the deal when we wiped out the foreign debts etc.
why our governments allow things like this to happen when they know about it and seemingly condone it is beyond me,some where along the line it suits some ones purpose to keep the people locked in the past


But it's their way of life, and just because it doesn't quite match up to ours, it isn't for us to change it.

Infact, one could argue that there's a lot we could learn from Indian family relations and way of life. Families certainly tend to stick together longer and although I don't have the figure to hand, I would predict that their divorce rates aren't a patch on ours.

It isn't for us to meddle with other countries' affairs (although Blair thinks otherwise with an odd exception of Zimbabwe, but that's a totally different argument).

Originally posted by Ousetunes
But it's their way of life, and just because it doesn't quite match up to ours, it isn't for us to change it.

Infact, one could argue that there's a lot we could learn from Indian family relations and way of life. Families certainly tend to stick together longer and although I don't have the figure to hand, I would predict that their divorce rates aren't a patch on ours.

It isn't for us to meddle with other countries' affairs (although Blair thinks otherwise with an odd exception of Zimbabwe, but that's a totally different argument). sorry but i dissagree, marrying so young can only increase the birth rate by the fact that a child having sex at a young age must mean more children are conceived,adding to the poverty of the country

Originally posted by depoix
sorry but i dissagree, marrying so young can only increase the birth rate by the fact that a child having sex at a young age must mean more children are conceived,adding to the poverty of the country

and how does that make it our right to interfere?

Have you seen "Team America"?

i deteste to people marrying at such a young age!

i mean, theres no need for it at all,

i had an asian friend who was married on her sixteenth birthday be her parents in a forced marriage!

she addmitted to me that she didn't want to be with him, now she is 19 and they are still together but with 2 kids!

Originally posted by Cyclone
and how does that make it our right to interfere?

Have you seen "Team America"? no havent seen it, but i think if we,re paying the bills we have a right to a say about how the house is run,if you see what i mean

in any civilised country what her parents did would constitute neglect and being an accessory to child abuse.....if that had happened over here there would have been an outcry.

If the law in India is for no girls to marry before they are 18 then they should make more efforts to enforce it....her parents ought to feel ashamed of themselves leaving a 12 year old child to work her own way out of that one!

Originally posted by depoix
no havent seen it, but i think if we,re paying the bills we have a right to a say about how the house is run,if you see what i mean

what bills do you think we are paying, india isn't a 3rd world country.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
in any civilised country what her parents did would constitute neglect and being an accessory to child abuse.....if that had happened over here there would have been an outcry.

If the law in India is for no girls to marry before they are 18 then they should make more efforts to enforce it....her parents ought to feel ashamed of themselves leaving a 12 year old child to work her own way out of that one!

it must be nice to know that we can declare our way of life as the only civilised way. Does it make our conscience feel better when we then impose that way of life on another culture?

Originally posted by Cyclone
it must be nice to know that we can declare our way of life as the only civilised way. Does it make our conscience feel better when we then impose that way of life on another culture? when it comes to what i and i would suggest some others,would term, child marriage as child abuse,then i surely would wish to impose our way of life on others,do you agree with young girls bieng circumsised? i would,nt think you do,or foot binding? no? then i believe child brides fall into this catagory.

sorry to dissagree but i feel strongly that a young person should be protected until they reach their late teens, i suppose its because i am a father,and we do worry about our daughters

Originally posted by depoix
when it comes to what i and i would suggest some others,would term, child marriage as child abuse,then i surely would wish to impose our way of life on others,do you agree with young girls bieng circumsised? i would,nt think you do,or foot binding? no? then i believe child brides fall into this catagory.

sorry to dissagree but i feel strongly that a young person should be protected until they reach their late teens, i suppose its because i am a father,and we do worry about our daughters

you're right, I don't agree with those things.

But it's not so long ago that in our own culture it was common for girls to be married at the age of 14 and not unheard of for younger girls to marry.

My point is that we have no moral authority to determine what is right and wrong and impose our views on the rest of the world. No more than they have the right to impose theres on us.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you're right, I don't agree with those things.

But it's not so long ago that in our own culture it was common for girls to be married at the age of 14 and not unheard of for younger girls to marry.

My point is that we have no moral authority to determine what is right and wrong and impose our views on the rest of the world. No more than they have the right to impose theres on us. i realise what you are saying,and that it did happen in our own culture,but that was centuries ago,we have progressed now.

the british have always imposed their view on other nations,mostly for the better,especially in india,asia and africa,without the technical and engineering advances we provided them with they would probably not have survived into the 21st century,they have made tremendous advances now, so why do they still adhere to the old ways

Originally posted by depoix
i realise what you are saying,and that it did happen in our own culture,but that was centuries ago,we have progressed now.

the british have always imposed their view on other nations,mostly for the better,especially in india,asia and africa,without the technical and engineering advances we provided them with they would probably not have survived into the 21st century,they have made tremendous advances now, so why do they still adhere to the old ways

Because that's their way of life, and we have no right to say our way is right, and their way is wrong so they should change.

It's just plain and simple, we have no right to interfere in other cultures and other customs. We may have a different culture and different beliefs, but we have no right to say what other countries practise and do are 'wrong' and we are 'right'.

We just have no right to do that. Disagree with it if you want, but you have no right to demand or even expect change.

Originally posted by depoix
i realise what you are saying,and that it did happen in our own culture,but that was centuries ago,we have progressed now.

the british have always imposed their view on other nations,mostly for the better,especially in india,asia and africa,without the technical and engineering advances we provided them with they would probably not have survived into the 21st century,they have made tremendous advances now, so why do they still adhere to the old ways

yeah, I can see how colonialism was mostly for the better.

Progressed... arguable, we've changed, we obviously believe that what we do now is right, so we call it progress. In a hundred years time it will have changed again, and what we think of as wrong now may well be acceptable, but that will be progress.

What do you think would have happened if we hadn't (western countries) invaded most of the rest of the world and interfered heavily in the development, cultures and progress of those countries. I'm not sure what you think would have happened that would have meant that they wouldn't have "survived" into the 21st century.

Maybe you'd like us to invade Holland, do you know that they are all paedophiles, allowing 14 year old girls to have sex! And they have no morals, they start teaching their children about sex at the age of 5, corrupting inoccent minds, in this country it would be child abuse. And look at their incredibly low rate of teenage pregnancy, they are probably putting drugs in the water, they'll definitely be better off if we force them to adhere to our standards and values.

I think we're talking parental responsibilty here, surely there are some generally accepted expectations of responsible parents.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it must be nice to know that we can declare our way of life as the only civilised way. Does it make our conscience feel better when we then impose that way of life on another culture?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
I think we're talking parental responsibilty here, surely there are some generally accepted expectations of responsible parents.

I'm sure there are. Within any specific culture.

Originally posted by Cyclone
yeah, I can see how colonialism was mostly for the better.

Progressed... arguable, we've changed, we obviously believe that what we do now is right, so we call it progress. In a hundred years time it will have changed again, and what we think of as wrong now may well be acceptable, but that will be progress.

What do you think would have happened if we hadn't (western countries) invaded most of the rest of the world and interfered heavily in the development, cultures and progress of those countries. I'm not sure what you think would have happened that would have meant that they wouldn't have "survived" into the 21st century.

Maybe you'd like us to invade Holland, do you know that they are all paedophiles, allowing 14 year old girls to have sex! And they have no morals, they start teaching their children about sex at the age of 5, corrupting inoccent minds, in this country it would be child abuse. And look at their incredibly low rate of teenage pregnancy, they are probably putting drugs in the water, they'll definitely be better off if we force them to adhere to our standards and values. as you say,in this country it would be child abuse......i live here,hence my opinion, i can see that you are in agreement with those abroad that continue such abuse and may i leave you with a little advice? look at your signiture, i tried.........

you nearly get the point. In this country we would call it abuse, somewhere else and they don't.
Since they aren't in our country, we shouldn't apply our values too it, so we shouldn't call it abuse.
All these limits, 16, 18, 21 they are just numbers that we picked out of the air. There is no underlying law of nature that means being sexually active at 15 and 355 days is wrong. There is no physical constant that defines 18 as the delimiter between child and adult.

What is it that you tried? You tried (or would like totry too) impose your moral views on everyone in the world. I'd have to look at my signature and try to stop you.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you nearly get the point. In this country we would call it abuse, somewhere else and they don't.
Since they aren't in our country, we shouldn't apply our values too it, so we shouldn't call it abuse.
All these limits, 16, 18, 21 they are just numbers that we picked out of the air. There is no underlying law of nature that means being sexually active at 15 and 355 days is wrong. There is no physical constant that defines 18 as the delimiter between child and adult.

What is it that you tried? You tried (or would like totry too) impose your moral views on everyone in the world. I'd have to look at my signature and try to stop you. i tried as in i tried to point out that in my opinion it is wrong for parents to marry off a 12 years old girl,as it says in the original post it is illegal in india for girls under 18 to have sex,i tried to point out that it is not moraly right for them to do it, i tried to point out that a 12 year old girl needs protection, now im sick of trying as this is drifting away from the original thread and ending up with two people who have different values

some things are just wrong regardless of which culture they occur in and this is such a case. It is TOTALLY WRONG as a parent to sell a 12 year old daughter down the river into a marriage she does not consent to....


Originally posted by Cyclone
you nearly get the point. In this country we would call it abuse, somewhere else and they don't.
Since they aren't in our country, we shouldn't apply our values too it, so we shouldn't call it abuse.
All these limits, 16, 18, 21 they are just numbers that we picked out of the air. There is no underlying law of nature that means being sexually active at 15 and 355 days is wrong. There is no physical constant that defines 18 as the delimiter between child and adult.

What is it that you tried? You tried (or would like totry too) impose your moral views on everyone in the world. I'd have to look at my signature and try to stop you.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
some things are just wrong regardless of which culture they occur in and this is such a case. It is TOTALLY WRONG as a parent to sell a 12 year old daughter down the river into a marriage she does not consent to....

our society would consider any arranged marriage to be wrong.
But this is clearly not the case in India, wrong is a moral judgement, there is no overarching definition of what is and what is not wrong, it's what we decide.
Since no-one made us the world police, or gave us the power or the right to interfere with other states and cultures, they have as much right as we do to form their own values.
Would you be happy if they were imposing their own opinion of right and wrong on us. They might (as an example, which probably isn't true) consider it wrong for women to work. Would you like to see them do something about it and try to force us to conform to their views? Or would you rather that they let us get on with our own lives?

Ah, I think that's the crux of the issue. I agree that imposing your morals on other cultures is not the way to go about things (it assumes that 'We' are right and 'They' are wrong).

However, the young lass at the centre of this story *did not* want to be married and that she was married off anyway (at the age of 12) if a breach of *her* rights as a child (as she quite rightly pointed out). I don't think there is anything wrong then in stating that her parents were wrong to do what they did.

Oh and I don't think anyone in our culture would consider all arranged marriages to be wrong... really?

I agree about not imposing one cultures views on another. However there MUST be forum for debate because some people within every culture are vulnerable (as they are in our own) and IMHO vulnerable people (esp children) need others who are not so vulnerable to fight their corner sometimes. And this does mean that discussion should happen. Not in order to force others to agree with you but in order that ALL views are heard by those in power.

as I said some things are very clearly right and wrong and this is such a case. The 12 year old girl didn't want to be sold to another family for their son to get his grubby little mits all over her.

Her parents should have respected her dignity and wishes and provided parental protection - which they didn't. It has less to do with culture and more to do with ascribing values to a human being and respecting them.

Your perspective appears to be one of abdicating moral values not only held by the majority in this country but by childrens charities around the world, washing hands of moral responsibility and general appeasement...and we all know where that got us!


Originally posted by Cyclone
our society would consider any arranged marriage to be wrong.
But this is clearly not the case in India, wrong is a moral judgement, there is no overarching definition of what is and what is not wrong, it's what we decide.
Since no-one made us the world police, or gave us the power or the right to interfere with other states and cultures, they have as much right as we do to form their own values.
Would you be happy if they were imposing their own opinion of right and wrong on us. They might (as an example, which probably isn't true) consider it wrong for women to work. Would you like to see them do something about it and try to force us to conform to their views? Or would you rather that they let us get on with our own lives?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
as I said some things are very clearly right and wrong and this is such a case. The 12 year old girl didn't want to be sold to another family for their son to get his grubby little mits all over her.

Her parents should have respected her dignity and wishes and provided parental protection - which they didn't. It has less to do with culture and more to do with ascribing values to a human being and respecting them.

Your perspective appears to be one of abdicating moral values not only held by the majority in this country but by childrens charities around the world, washing hands of moral responsibility and general appeasement...and we all know where that got us!

not at all, my position is not to apply moral judgements outside the framework within which that morality exists.

If you were from the (ancient) roman empire, your moral position on slavery would be that it is not wrong. Today, slavery is universaly condemned. Is it that they were wrong and we are right, or is it just that we have different views?
Culturally (not legally) in India, arranged marriages for young girls are the norm, not the exception. Morally it is acceptable, ie. the majority of the adult population do not see it as wrong.
You disagree (as would I if it were my business), but you have made that judgement as if there is no ambiguity, as if whatever we judge to be right and wrong is that way because it's ordained by some higher authority.

Originally posted by Cyclone

You disagree (as would I if it were my business), but you have made that judgement as if there is no ambiguity, as if whatever we judge to be right and wrong is that way because it's ordained by some higher authority.

Some people DO believe that morality is ordained by some higher authority (goes by the name of God I believe...)

(Still agree with you though) :thumbsup:

you just want to bury your head in the sand and say "it doesn't affect me so I'm not getting involved", racism amongst other social evils would never have been challenged with your approach.... :loopy:

Originally posted by Cyclone
not at all, my position is not to apply moral judgements outside the framework within which that morality exists.

If you were from the (ancient) roman empire, your moral position on slavery would be that it is not wrong. Today, slavery is universaly condemned. Is it that they were wrong and we are right, or is it just that we have different views?
Culturally (not legally) in India, arranged marriages for young girls are the norm, not the exception. Morally it is acceptable, ie. the majority of the adult population do not see it as wrong.
You disagree (as would I if it were my business), but you have made that judgement as if there is no ambiguity, as if whatever we judge to be right and wrong is that way because it's ordained by some higher authority.

Originally posted by Cyclone
...Culturally (not legally) in India, arranged marriages for young girls are the norm, not the exception. Morally it is acceptable, ie. the majority of the adult population do not see it as wrong...
I think you're fighting the wrong corner on this one...

...legally, morally and culturally this practice is actually frowned upon across the majority of India...

...in some limited (although large in sq. miles, not as a percentage of the country) areas this practice continues (because of the cultural legacy) it is still illegal, because the democratic majority have deemed it so, morally, culturally, and hence legally.

This particular case is not about them and us, it's about outdated (and indefensible) cultural practices in a (relatively) small area of a sovereign democratic state.

Neither is it about westernisation, these differences between areas of India have existed for centuries (some parts have been matriarchies since long before the west got there, and still are, others have their own "systems"), we just happen to agree with the majority (again, in this case).

Just to finish off, I agree with you in broad general terms about respecting other cultures, and non-intervention, but on this one, sorry, but no.

I don't actually agree with the behaviour in this instance. I just hesitate to pronounce judgement on it as if I had some moral highground or ultimate authority as a citizen of a western democracy to do so.
Consider me to be playing devils advocate to the people who would condemn any behaviour that doesn't fit in with our own neo victorian value system.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't actually agree with the behaviour in this instance. I just hesitate to pronounce judgement on it as if I had some moral highground or ultimate authority as a citizen of a western democracy to do so.
Consider me to be playing devils advocate to the people who would condemn any behaviour that doesn't fit in with our own neo victorian value system.
OK, I'm with ya.

:thumbsup: