Sat blasts AG on marriage age

“It is of grave concern to us, and indeed to many, that the Attorney General would force a simple majority through subterfuge: removing the preamble so that the Bill could be passed in the Senate. This is high-handed and makes a mockery of the democratic process. A guardian of constitutional rights must demonstrate a considered sensitivity to the needs of diverse religious groups that make up this multi-religious society,” he said.

He contended that the movement to change the marriageable age to 18 comes with a damning subtext — “that the Hindu community has been in the perverse habit of paedophilia, which has only now come to light of day.” “We reject any such insinuations.

There was a time when the very law that is now being flounced about, could not rescue us from the colonial masters who insisted that Hindu marriages were not legal, and our children were illegitimate.

Back then we relied on our religion for upholding the sanctity of our marriages. It was what helped us stay whole as a people in the face of legal non-recognition,” Maharaj said, adding: “Today, the Attorney General, guardian of constitutional rights, seems to be telling us that marriage is not a religious issue, but merely a legal one. Indeed, tables have turned, but the Hindu community is prepared to counter any suggestions of who we ought to be from persons outside the community.” He said the Maha Sabha takes umbrage at the idea that the religious (marital) rights of a Hindu which are constitutionally guaranteed “are being so flippantly reduced to a social evil that must be exterminated.” He also said they are not convinced that the statistics (produced by the AG) have been rolled out in a consistent or precise manner.

“Conflating issues of abortion, pregnancies and early marriage muddles the picture. As such it has become difficult to reliably present trending social norms within the various communities,” he explained. He also stated that the Maha Sabha “has never promoted child marriage.” Maharaj said “the AG and others have disingenuously used the emotive term ‘child marriage’ to evoke images of paedophilia and prepubescent sexual activity.” He also expressed concern about consultation on the issue. “Finally, the conduct of this consultation exercise by the AG worries us deeply.

We consider that for many reasons the Government’s legal agenda was a foregone conclusion, and consultation amongst the interested groups was merely a farce. Many of the concerns raised were, in the end, not properly considered,” he said.

Maharaj stressed that the Maha Sabha does not promote marriage of people at a young age. “In fact, it is a well documented that our flagship cause is promoting education up to and beyond secondary level.

As such, it would indeed be contradictory for us to promote marriage during the teenage years,” he said.

In explaining the reasons that the Maha Sabha is opposed to discarding the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, he pointed out that one of the Romeo Clauses of the Sexual Offences Act accepts that a consenting male person of 17 and a consenting female of 14 may not be guilty of a sexual offence. “In other words, the law sees this kind of sexual behaviour as a plausible and normal situation, and not deserving of punishment. It naturally follows that girls as young as 14 may become pregnant. What happens next,” he asked rhetorically.