Let Children Be!

[email protected] (CD Network)
July 28, 2012

yogi1

The Ministry of Women and Child Development, so the newspapers say, has recently come out with what it styles as the draft ‘National Policy for Children 2012’, which ostensibly seeks to give children the right ‘to express their opinion in all matters affecting them.’ The draft will be adopted after receiving opinions from numerous ‘stakeholders’.

I have not the faintest idea what provisions this draft policy contains and who the ‘stakeholders’, who are going to proffer their learned opinions to the concerned Ministry, are. Honestly, I don’t expect the policy to have much teeth or to lead to very radical changes in the lives of children. But the very concept of a child’s right to express himself or herself is radical enough for me. And that’s because I was robbed of that right myself, and I know how that hurts and what terrible damage it does to one, so much so that, in many cases, it plays complete havoc with one’s life till the very end.

Sometimes, I’m tempted to pour out my heart, to friends or through my writings, about all that I went through as a child because of the authoritarian manner I was brought up. There’s so much bottled up inside me because of this that I feel that if I don’t speak out I’ll burst or that the tension might lead to interminable depression. And there’s another reason why I sometimes can’t help going on about my childhood—because, who knows, hearing about what I went through because my voice was completely stifled by a set of authoritarian parents and unloving siblings might help would-be parents to not commit the same mistake and damage their own children.

Believe me, I could write a whole book about my traumatic childhood experiences—about an indifferent father, who sought to control me through fear, a mother who vacillated between extreme indulgence and hysterical wrath, about how screeching and the ever-present threat of punishment, rather than love, was the method they chose of seeking to enforce obedience, about older siblings who made my life simply miserable, about me being packed off to boarding school a thousand miles away from home at the age of nine, much against my will and just because my parents thought it was good for me to have a ‘fancy’ ‘public school’ education, and the terrible damage that did to me. And so on. Maybe I will write the book one day, and if I’m not brave enough to publish it while I’m still alive it could come out once I’m safely ensconced in my grave.

yogi2

Based on what I’ve been through as a child, I can safely say that many parents simply don’t even think that children have minds of their own which they can express. And so, for them the question of a child’s right to express himself or herself—which is what the ‘draft ‘National Policy for Children 2012’ is all about—doesn’t even exist. Things are so bad in families with such parents that one could speak, without any exaggeration, of their children living in real slavery—mental or psychological slavery at least. They are treated literally as possessions—just like one’s own car or house—and such parents simply can’t be made to understand that although they brought their children into the world, they definitely don’t own them.

‘Modern’ folks like us love to congratulate ourselves on our ‘achievements’ in finally ‘eradicating slavery’ and ‘achieving democracy’, but ask any child living in a family with sternly authoritarian parents who’d put any Hitler or Mao Tse Tung to shame what he feels about such claims. He’s bound to tell you, if he dares do so, that slavery is still alive and kicking as far as he is concerned. And as long as such parents continue in their ways the family will continue to remain the most anti-democratic social institution of all.

If their children dare to speak their minds and demonstrate their differences with them, many parents take it as a heinous personal affront, a major sign of defiance to their authority. They get all so worked up because they think that children have to think and behave as they insist simply because they produced them and now feed, clothe and educate them and spend much of their lives earning for them. They won’t spare any opportunity to complain that by not doing as they command their children are ‘ungrateful’ for all that they’ve done for them. Little do they realise that imprisoning the minds and voices of their children makes things only worse—for their children and for them, too, because such children often grow up detesting their parents and avoiding them as far as possible.

yogi3

There are many reasons why many parents simply refuse to let their children express or be themselves. Some want to mould their children in their own image because that’s a hidden narcissist urge they can’t help expressing or because they want their kids to grow up to fulfill their dreams or even the expectations they had for themselves which they failed to achieve. Others think that their children must blindly obey what they say and shouldn’t dare differ because only then can they make them unquestioningly follow their religion or the ways of their ancestors, which they think is best. Yet others have no one to boss over and kick around, sometimes being completely controlled by their superiors in their workplace, and so find their children an easy prey to vent their frustrations on, rule over and holler at, and this gives them some sort of perverse and malicious delight. It probably provides them no small satisfaction to know that they aren’t really complete ‘failures’ and that they, too, have someone with whom they can behave as dictators.

But there are also parents who think that stifling the voices of their children and controlling their every thought and action is actually for their own good, fearing that if they were allowed to think and behave as they like they may go ‘astray’. Such folks seem to mean well and are probably genuinely concerned about their children, and I suppose my parents were this way, too. But here, as elsewhere, such good intentions don’t suffice and can even prove gravely damaging.

Now, one isn’t at all advocating that parents should not exercise any control whatsoever on children or that children should be allowed to do whatsoever they like. Of course, parents do have a major role in guiding and nurturing their children, and this also entails some amount of guidance and authority. But, based on my own painful experiences as a child, I could safely say that yelling and beating and threatening to withdraw their love if their children dare differ with them, this sometimes being interrupted with brief moments of over-indulgence, is the surest way for parents to miserably fail in playing that role and in also permanently damaging their children. The most successful parents are those who bring up, guide and mould their children with abundant love and understanding and who listen patiently when their children want to think and act for themselves. That’s the surest way for children to genuinely trust and love their parents and listen to their wise counsel while, at the same time, learning to express themselves as autonomous beings, with minds of their own.

yogi4

Of course, abundant love and understanding can’t be imposed on parents, and certainly not by the ‘National Policy for Children’. Only loving people can make loving parents, people who’ll genuinely allow their children to express themselves in wholesome ways. Making, as some folks might envisage, the right to expression for children a legal right, for transgressing which erring parents can be hauled to court, makes little sense to me, frankly, because the threat of legal punishment won’t make hard-hearted folks more loving and understanding parents who are more accepting of their children thinking and behaving in ways other than theirs.

Honestly, I have no idea how parents can be made to be more open to the idea of children expressing themselves freely, but I would make just one practical suggestion here: a compulsory course in loving parenting for all would-be parents, wherein issues about the right of a child to express herself or himself are also stressed. That may not make a radical difference in the ways in which many parents actually bring up their children, although, who knows, it actually might!

DSC00664_1

Yoginder Sikand is a Bangalore-based freelance writer

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
August 9,2020

Contrary to present impression that Muslims are separatists due to whom the partition of India took place, the truth is that Muslims contributed to freedom movement and upheld India’s composite culture in equal measure. The partition process, mainly due to British policy of ‘divide and rule’ well assisted by Hindu and Muslim communalists is being hidden from the popular vision in India and Muslims in general are held responsible for the same. Not only that the communal historiography introduced by British to pursue their policies has become the bedrock of communal politics and worsening of the perceptions about Muslims is in progress in India.

Yet another example of this has been a series of tweets by the bureaucrat, who is close to retirement, K. Nageshwar Rao. Contrary to the service rules he has made statements, through his tweets which are appreciative of RSS-BJP and demonise the stalwarts Muslim leaders who not only contributed to the freedom movement but also later gave valuable service in laying the foundation of Independent India. As per Rao, his tweets he accuses Maulana Azad and the other Muslim Education ministers of “deracination of Hindus”. After naming “Maulana Abul Kalam Azad — 11 years (1947-58)”; “Humayun Kabir, M C Chagla & Fakruddin Ali Ahmed — 4 years (1963-67)”; and, “Nurul Hassan — 5 years (1972-77)”, he posts: “Remaining 10 years other Leftists like VKRV Rao.”

He points out that their policies were meant to “1. Deny Hindus their knowledge, 2. Vilify Hinduism as collection of superstitions, 3. Abrahamise Education, 4. Abrahamise Media & Entertainment, 5. Shame Hindus about their identity!  and 6. Bereft of the glue of Hinduism Hindu society dies.”

Then he goes on to praise RSS-BJP for bringing the glory back to Hindus. These statements of his on one hand promote the Hate and on the other tantamount to political statement, which civil servants should not by making. CPM politburo member Brinda Karat has written a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah to take suitable action against the erring bureaucrat.

Rao begins with Maulana Abul kalam Azad. Surely Azad was one of the major leaders of freedom movement, who was also the youngest President of INC, in 1923 and later between 1940 to 1945. He opposed the partition process tooth and nail till the very last. As the Congress President in 1923 he wrote a remarkable Para, symbolizing the urge for Hindu Muslim unity, “If an angel descends from heaven and offers me Swaraj in 24 hours on condition that I give up Hindu Muslim Unity, I will refuse. Swaraj we will get sooner or later; its delay will be a loss for India, but loss of Hindu Muslim unity will be a loss for human kind”. His biographer Syeda Hamid points out “He spoke without an iota of doubt about how debacle of Indian Muslims has been the result of the colossal mistakes committed by Muslim League’s misguided leadership. He exhorted Muslims to make common cause with their Hindu, Sikh, Christian fellow countrymen.” He was the one who promoted the translation of Hindu scriptures Ramayan and Mahabharat in to Persian.

Surely Mr. Rao, neither has read Azad or read about him nor knows his contributions to making of Modern India. While today, the ideological formation to which Mr. Rao seems to be pledging his commitment is critical of all that happened during Nehru era, it was during this period when as education minister Azad was shepherding the formations of IITs, Academies of Science, Lalit kala Academies. It was during this period that the efforts to promote Indian composite culture were undertaken through various steps.

The other stalwarts who are under the hammer have been outstanding scholars and giants in their own field of education. Humayun Kabir, Nurul Hasan, Dr.Zakir Husssain gave matchless ideas and practical contributions in different fields of education. One can say that contrary to the accusations, India could match up to the Computer era, software and associate things, due to creation of large manpower in these areas mainly due to these foundations which were laid down particularly in the field of education during this period.

The charge that these ‘Muslim’ education ministers white washed the bloody Islamic rule is a blind repetition of the offshoot of communal historiography introduced by British. While Kings were ruling for power and wealth, their courts had Hindus and Muslim both officers. The jaundiced vision sees this as a bloody Islamic rule but as a matter of fact the syncretic culture and traditions developed precisely this period. It was during this period that Bhakti Traidtion with Kabir, Tukaram, Namdeo, Tulsidas flourished. It was during this period that humane values of Sufi saints reached far and wide. It was during this period that poets like Rahim and Raskhan produced their classic literature n praise of Hindu Gods.

We also need to remind ourselves that large number of Muslims participated in the freedom Movement. Two scholars Shamsul Islam and Nasir Ahmad have come out with books on the myriad such freedom fighters, to recall just a few names. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Zakir Hussain, Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Kadri, Bakht Khan, Muzzafar Ahmad, Mohammad Abdir Rahman,, Abbas Ali, Asaf Ali, Yusuf Mehrali, Maulana Mazahrul Hague.

These are just a few of the names. The movement, led by Gandhi, definitely laid the foundations where composite Indian culture and respect for all religions, others’ religion was paramount and this is what created Indian fraternity, one of the values which finds its place in the preamble of Indian Constitution.

This blaming of Education ministers who were Muslims is an add-on to the process of Islamophobia in India. So for there have been many actions of Muslim kings which are selectively presented as being bloody, now the post Independent History, where glorious contributions have been made by Muslim leaders are being used to further deepen the divisive process. We need to pay respects to builders of modern India, irrespective of their religion.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
February 29,2020

Like most of the political phenomenon, even the practice of Nationalism is not a static one. It changes with the changing political equations of the political forces and assumes the expressions which are very diverse. As such the phenomenon of Nationalism has a long journey and various state policies in particular have used it for purposes which relate more to the power of the state ‘vis a vis’ its people, power of the state ‘vis a vis’ the neighboring countries among others.

In India there has been a certain change in the practices of the state which have transformed the meaning of Nationalism during last few years. Particularly with BJP, the Hindu Nationalist outfit gaining simple majority, it has unfolded the policies where one can discern the drastic change in the meaning and application of Nationalism in regard to its citizens, particularly those belonging to minority community, with regard to those who are liberal, and with those who stand with the concept of Human rights.

Our former Prime Minister of Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nationalism and the "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" slogan are being misused to construct a "militant and purely emotional" idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens. Former Prime Minister recently stated this in an apparent attack on the BJP.” The occasion was the release of a book, ‘Who is Bharat Mata’, edited by Purushottam Agarwal and Radhakrishna. This is a compilation of significant extracts from writings of Nehru, and important assessments of and contributions of Nehru by prominent personalities.

Dr. Singh went on to add "With an inimitable style…Nehru laid the foundation of the universities, academies and cultural institutions of Modern India. But for Nehru's leadership, independent India would not have become what it is today," This statement of Dr. Singh has great importance in contemporary times, as Nehru is being denigrated by Hindu nationalists for all the problems which India is facing today and attempts are on to undermine his role and glorifying Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. This is also significant as it gives us the glimpses of what Nationalism meant for Nehru.

As Singh’s statement captures the present nationalism being practiced by BJP and company, the Hindu nationalists, immediately shot back saying that Dr. Singh is supporting the anti India activities at JNU and Jamia and his party is supporting the anti India nationalists. They asked whether Singh likes the nationalism of the likes of Shashi Tharoor or Manishankar Ayer who are provoking the Shaheen Bagh protest rather than making the protestors quiet. Whether he likes the anti national protests which go on at JNU or Jamia? As per them there is no Nationalism in Congress. One more example being cited is the private visit of Shatrughan Sinha who talked to Pakistani President during his visit there recently!

Most of the arguments being used to oppose Dr. Singh are very superficial. What is being referred to; is not opposition to Indian nationalism and its central values which were the core of anti colonial struggles. While ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ may not be acceptable to a section of population, even the book he was releasing has the title ‘Who is Bharat Mata’. What is being stated by Singh is the twist which slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ has been used by Hindu nationalists to frighten the religious minorities.

Indian nation came into being on the values, which later were the foundation of Indian Constitution. Indian Constitution carefully picked up the terminology which was away from the concepts of Hindu or Muslim nationalism. That’s how the country came to be called as ‘India that is Bharat’. The freedom of expression which was the hallmark of freedom movement and it was given a pride of place in our Constitution. It respected the diversity and formulated rules where the nation was not based on particular culture, as Hindu nationalists will like us to believe, but cultural diversity was centrally recognized in the Constitution. In addition promoting good relations with neighbors and other countries of the World was also part of our principles.

JNU, Jamia and AMU are being demonized as most institutions so far regard the freedom of expression as a core part of Indian democracy. These institutions have been thriving on discussions and debates which have base in liberalism. Deliberately some slogans have been constructed to defame these institutions. While Constitution mandates good relations with neighbors, creation of ‘Anti Pakistan hysteria’ is the prime motive of many a channels and sections of other media, which are servile to the ideology of ruling Government. They also violate most of the norms of ethical journalism, where the criticism of the ruling party is an important factor to keep the ruling dispensation in toes.

A stifling atmosphere has been created during last six years. In this the Prime Minster can take a detour, land in Pakistan to have a cup of tea with Pakistan PM, but a Congress leader talking to Pakistani President is a sign of being anti National. Students taking out a march while reading the preamble of Indian Constitution are labeled as anti-national; and are stopped while those openly wielding guns near Jamia or Shaheen Bagh roam freely.

Nationalism should promote amity and love of the people; it should pave the way for growth and development. Currently the nationalism which is dominant and stalking the streets has weakened the very fraternity, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. Nehru did explain that Bharat Mata is not just our mountains, rivers and land but primarily the people who inhabit the land. Which nationalism to follow was settled during the freedom movement when Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism were rejected by the majority of people of India in favor of the Nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, where minorities are equal citizens, deserving affirmative action. In today’s scenario the Hindu nationalists cannot accept any criticism of their policies.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.