FOR a society that revels in the antics of a Bal Krishna, our treatment of the young is less than desirable. Even a quick look at our child survival rates (as many as 63 of every 1000 children die before they reach their first birthday), the extent of malnutrition marking the child (47% below the age of three are undernourished), or the coverage of our immunization programmes (58% children in the 12-23 month age group are not fully immunized) tells a tale of apathy and social neglect. 2.42 million children under the age of five die annually and over 60 million of the under-fives are underweight.

The stories of the tsunami orphans may have elicited unprecedented response, with many lining up to adopt those whose parents perished in the disaster. Yet, our adoption laws continue to be archaic, governed by a bureaucratic rigidity imposing such numbing constraints that easy passage into a foster family is well nigh impossible. We have still to formulate an Indian Adoption Act permitting adoption across religious communities, as if the young child has to carry the burden of his/her community obsessions.

None of this accounts for those, particularly the girl child, whose lives are often snuffed out before they are even born. The sex ratio, particularly in the more developed regions of the North-West and West, and in the better off communities, has dipped dangerously, what with modern sex-determination technologies adding to older prejudices against the girl child.

Surely this is not only because we are still (forget the brouhaha about India as a fast-growing nation) a poor country. Or that the struggle for survival imposes a triage-like thinking with the weaker and defenceless weeded out. Other countries, lower than us on the per capita income index, do better and invest a larger proportion of their scarce resources in improving the environment for the child.

Possibly we do not care enough. It, after all, is difficult to deny that children do not occupy an important space in our political imagination. As the child rights groups, HAQ, has shown in its imaginative budget analysis of central and state government allocations for child-centred programmes, not only are these schemes under-funded but, despite the country signing many international covenants related to the child, are experiencing a secular decline.

Take, for instance, the fate of the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Between the ICDS and the now mandatory mid-day meal programme in schools, all children under the age of 12 should have access to at least one hot and nutritious meal per day. But forget the entire country. Even the national capital, Delhi, has so far failed to successfully implement the mid-day meal scheme in its 1200 odd municipal corporation schools. Tami Nadu may have shown for over a decade and half both the social and electoral benefits of this programme. As have the other southern states. Nevertheless, despite nutrition and the right to food forming an important component of the Common Minimum Programme, we are still to even introduce necessary legislation on the subject in Parliament.

Without adding to such depressing statistics, the fact remains that we are facing a creeping crisis of endemic proportions. What the child receives in the early years ? nutritious food, immunization from communicable disease, love, care, security and stimulation ? more or less determines its future. It is thus extremely shortsighted on our part to continue to devalue the programmes centred on the child.

It is not as if we do not have adequate knowledge of nutrition or lack a repertoire of stories in our myriad traditions to extend love and care to our children. Nor is making our balwadis and ICDS centres cheerful and welcoming places such a complex task. There is also no shortage of voluntary groups and professionals running innovative and fun-filled institutions. Yet, their outreach is limited, so far catering only to the better off in urban sites. Fortunately, the initiatives of groups like Pratham, Bodh, and the MV Foundation (all featured in this issue) provide valuable clues of how to design and implement large-scale programmes which can incorporate children across the social and economic divides. Nor do these programmes have to be expensive, dependant upon outside experts and resources. If only we have the imagination and the willingness to creatively use what is available in the family and community, with love and care, we will have made a major breakthrough. Equally crucial is how not to fall prey, as so many of our nursery and pre-primary schools have done, and overload a child with the sole objective of ensuring entry into a prestigious school.

Childhood should be, and is, a time of fun, of being able to grow without pressure, at one's own pace. Only if we can ensure a safe, healthy and nurturing environment for our children can we, as a society and a nation, have a future. This issue of Seminar explores some facets about early childhood care and education. Hopefully, our decision-makers will do the right thing by the child.