There are mainly 2 points of objection. The first objection was raised by Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi. She shared this clip of a newspaper on Twitter Showing the names daughters are given in some places in India. ‘Dhapu,’ meaning Fed Up. ‘Ramghani’ as in ‘O Lord, that’s enough.’ ‘Antima’ as in Hopefully this will be the last girl child. ‘Faltu’ or useless. Obviously, this reflects that in some areas of the country, how society perceives girls and women.
Priyanka Chaturvedi says, that there is a need for a societal change and legislative interference wouldn’t make any difference. She said that 79% of the ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao‘ budget is spent on ads. And the government isn’t doing anything on the ground. This objection is a Logical Fallacy. False Binary Logical Fallacy. Here, two unrelated things are being compared. But what does it have to do with this decision? It isn’t that had the marriage age not been raised, then that could’ve brought about a change in society.
In fact, the task force on whose recommendation this Bill has been introduced, has put forth more recommendations for bringing about societal change. Like increasing the accessibility for women in schools and colleges. Easing the transportation for women to schools and colleges. And also focus on skill development and business training. The committee has even said that till the time the other things are implemented, this law wouldn’t be very effective.
