Q1.
India changed the minimum age for voting from 21 to 18 in 1988. Discuss whether this was a good move.
Answer
On balance it was a good move, and the strongest reason is consistency: an 18-year-old is already treated as an adult in almost every other way, so withholding the vote alone was hard to defend. Here is the case on both sides, so that you can argue it in your group rather than only assert it.
| Arguments for lowering it to 18 | Arguments that were raised against |
|---|---|
| At 18 a citizen can be held fully responsible in law and can take up work. If society trusts a person with those duties, it should trust them with a vote | Some felt an 18-year-old is still in school or college and may vote as parents or friends tell them to |
| India is a young country. Excluding 18–20-year-olds left out a very large group whose future is most affected by today’s decisions — on education, jobs and the environment | Some felt three more years of study and work experience would produce a more informed voter |
| Voting is itself a school for citizenship. The earlier a person starts, the more likely voting becomes a lifelong habit | Political parties might target the young with promises aimed at them alone |
| It fits the logic of universal franchise: the fewer the exclusions, the closer the electorate is to the whole adult people | A larger electorate makes an already gigantic election even harder to manage |
Why the ‘they are not ready’ argument is weak: it is the same argument that was made in 1947 about unlettered voters — that only literate people should vote. The Constitution makers rejected it then, because a right that is given only to those someone else judges ‘ready’ stops being a right. If we accept the maturity test at 18, we would have to accept it at 21, at 25, and for other groups too. India instead chose a single, clear, equal rule.
Tip for the discussion: notice that this change did not weaken any safeguard. An 18-year-old still has to be registered in a constituency, still votes by secret ballot, and still cannot vote on anyone else’s behalf. Widening the franchise and keeping the process strict are two separate things.