By Sue-Ann Wayow
NOT because child marriages still exist means that it is entirely supported by the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS).
This is according to who said some government members wanted citizens to believe that Hindus are supportive of “child abuse” by allowing marriages under the legal adult age of 18.
Rambally in his address at the SDMS’ Indian Arrival Day celebrations at the Penal Rock Hindu Primary School on Monday, admitted that it was an issue that “continues to irk the Hindu community.”
The issue of child marriages was one thing however, he said, “But now it is pure wickedness when they want you to believe that we somehow support child abuse.”
At a recent People’s National Movement (PNM) public meeting, Housing Minister Camille Robinson-Regis mentioned Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar who she said was portraying she cared about children.
She said, “Mother Kamla you swore in two pundits in the Senate to protest the abolition of child marriages! We women eh forget that! And you want us to believe that you care about children?”
In response to Rambally’s comments on Monday, Robinson-Regis maintained her personal belief that child marriage was also child abuse.
Rambally said, “I want you to understand that when we supported the marriage of persons under 18, it was with the following conditions; a child is defined as someone who is under 18. So in law, a 17-year-old is a child. A 16-year-old is a child.
“But now they making it sound like we were promoting marriage among ten, 11, 12 and 13-year-olds. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is further from the truth.”
The SDMS is of the opinion that once supported by their families, a person who is 16 or 17, should be allowed to get married depending on the circumstances.
Rambally said, “Let me ask you bluntly. Which do you prefer? Having a 17-year-old girl get pregnant and have a child out of wedlock? Or have her deliver a child within the sanctity of marriage? This was our view. We were not for one moment suggesting that the teenager be forced into marrying.”
If a child is born to a teenage married mother, that child would have the honour of the father’s surname and benefits from the extended family who have consented to the marriage, he added.
Rambally spoke about the issue of child abuse in state homes and defended his forefathers adding that child marriages could not be compared to the abuse of children in state homes.
He said, “When you have people deciding for you that the traditions practised by your forefathers in the last century, when marriage of young persons was the norm, and when they make you feel that this is the same as the child abuse that’s going-on in state-run children’s homes, it tells you that they are ignorant or that they are being deceptive on purpose – one or the other.
“Ladies and gentlemen, let it be crystal clear, that when a child of early teens was married in the decades and century past, such a child was not abused, beaten, molested, starved and humiliated like the child victims in state homes. Our forefathers were not paedophiles. They were not abusers and molesters of children that exist in the state-run children’s homes today.”
He asked that Government members not try to deflect blame and focus on dealing with the particular issue of state home abuse.
Rambally added that politics aside, the SDMS was willing to assist the government in bringing perpetrators to justice.
