The issue raised in the assembly by Dada Gautam, alias Haryana MLA Ramkumar Gautam, is not just about consent for marriage, but is an indication of the direction of society and the preservation of culture. The institution of marriage remains strong with the consent of parents, while the freedom of youth makes society progressive. The challenge is to maintain a balance between the two. The culture of dialogue and consultation is more important than law. Mutual respect of family and children is the basis that can maintain the dignity of the institution of marriage and the morality of society.
In a country like India with cultural and family values, marriage is not just a personal decision of two individuals, but it is a social institution involving the participation of family, relatives, and the wider society. In such a situation, when Dada Gautam raised the issue in the Haryana Assembly that the consent of parents should be mandatory in the marriage of young children, a debate naturally started on it. This debate is not limited to just one legal provision, but at its center are morality, tradition, culture, personal freedom, and social prestige.
In Indian culture, marriage is not just a social contract or a legal system, but a sacrament. Marriage is considered to be the union of families, not just two individuals. This is why most marriages in India are still decided with the consent of the family and society. Parents are not only the decision makers but also guides in the marriage of their children. Their experience, social identity, and understanding of relationships help keep the institution of marriage stable. This form of tradition is deeply connected to the honor and dignity of the family, social prestige, and continuity of relationships.
This issue raised in the assembly is important because in modern times, the rapidly changing lifestyle and increasing freedom of the youth have started changing the definition of the institution of marriage. Many youths are giving preference to love marriages. There is an increase in the number of cases of marriages without the family’s consent. Many times these marriages emerge as a form of resistance against social inequality, caste discrimination and family pressure. However, amidst all this, the question also arises: if every marriage becomes merely a personal decision, with the consent of parents being ignored, then a deep crisis in morality, culture, and dignity of relationships in society can arise.
The biggest argument in favour of parental consent is that it maintains the honour and social prestige of the family. The experience of parents is a guide for children. No one can understand the difficulties of life, the nuances of relationships and social responsibilities better than they. Marriage is not just a union of two individuals, but of families and cultures, so with parental consent, there is a greater possibility of stability and long-term success in the marriage. When the family stands behind, the emotional balance of the marriage also remains strong.
On the other hand, the argument in opposition is equally strong that the Indian Constitution gives every adult citizen the right to choose a life partner of his or her choice. Making the consent of the guardian compulsory in any way would be a violation of individual freedom and rights. Many times, guardians overrule the choice of children by giving priority to caste, religion, class, or economic status. In such a situation, if their consent is made compulsory, it would be against the principles of equality and freedom. The danger of unwanted marriages also arises from this, where children are pressured to marry against their choice. This not only leads to the failure of marriages but also increases discontent and tension in society.
For the freedom of the youth and progress of the society, it is necessary that they get the opportunity to make decisions of their choice. Society can become progressive only when caste and traditional bonds are broken and equality and modernity are adopted. It is also true that not every parent is necessarily sensible and progressive. Many times their thinking is bound by traditions and stereotypes, which can come in the way of children’s freedom and happiness.
There are strong arguments on both sides. Parental consent cannot be completely ignored, because it is necessary for the family and society. At the same time, the freedom of the youth cannot be underestimated, because it is their constitutional right. Therefore, the solution is not in this conflict, but in balance and dialogue. Parents should understand the feelings, choices, and freedom of children. Youth should give importance to the prestige and experience of the family in their decision. The role of the government and society should be to promote dialogue and consultation, and not to bind one party by just making laws.
If the government wants to take action on this issue, then instead of making laws directly, some corrective steps can be taken. Counseling centers can be set up to establish a dialogue between the family and the youth in disputed cases of marriage. Psychological and social counseling can be arranged to balance hasty and emotional decisions. Sensitization campaigns can be run to make parents understand that denying children’s choice is not the solution. At the same time, awareness programs are necessary for the youth so that they understand marriage as a social responsibility and not just an emotional decision.
The concern raised by Dada Gautam is an important warning for society. If the role of family and parents is completely removed from the institution of marriage, then morality and values will weaken in society. On the other hand, if the consent of the parents is made legally binding, then the freedom of the youth will be affected. Therefore, the only solution is to make the institution of marriage based on dialogue, consent, and understanding. Mutual respect between parents and children is the bridge that can establish a balance between tradition and modernity, rights and responsibilities, freedom and values. If we are able to maintain this balance, then only the institution of marriage will be able to maintain its true dignity and sanctity and the coming generations will be able to create a strong, cultured, and independent society.
