[ar813]

This was unfortunately the norm in his community at the turn of the century. A rather detailed study about the historical context of marriage among women in Ramanujam's community (Tamil Brahmins) is here: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46203/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY...

From what I understand, it was common across many communities throughout India (though in Tamil Nadu, primarily among the Brahmins) for girls to be married before the onset of puberty (with consummation of the marriage only permitted post-menarche.. at least in theory). I do recall seeing a paper once that argued that the age of marriage actually became younger for some complicated reasons under British rule in the early 19th century.. not sure if that's believable.

As you might guess, I'm from the same community, and my great-grandmother was married at the age of 9 or 10. While one could attempt to rationalize and contextualize it, I think that's pointless: it was wrong then, as it is now.

[laichzeit0]

Suppose we should destroy all edifices to Ramanujan like we’re doing to all the slave traders of 100 years ago now?

[apoorvkumar]

Not analogous. Sons are practically obligated by family (and indirectly by the immediate society) to marry even against their will for keeping the tradition. Also females were considered unfit to get married after a certain (very young) age creating a pressure on girl's family to find a groom as early as possible. People created pseudo scientific and religious basis for enforcing these.

It was a social evil has rightly been banned but slavery was both a social evil and individual maliciousness on part of people who partook in it - and there were a few black folk too in that group who were selling their own people. No society 'mandated' slaverer to sell people as a way of life. There were always other professions if it didn't fit well with their conscience. No one would make your life hell for not actively selling slaves by making you into a social outcast.