Communication

THE Backpage in the June issue (574) has much political and practical wisdom.

The ‘self-defeating politics of revenge’ was exemplified by the change of heart of one of India’s most astute politicians. Indira Gandhi had suffered humiliation after she was defeated at the polls in March 1977: she was expelled from Parliament and ridiculed by the Shah Commission. But after the 1980 elections, she came romping back into office as prime minister again. Surprisingly, despite the blemishes of the internal Emergency, she was in many ways a different woman: she had matured from politician to statesman! And thereby hangs a tale: a true story.

One day, shortly after February 1980, Frank Anthony (who had been a nominated member of the Lok Sabha representing the Anglo-Indian community during Mrs. Gandhi’s first stint as PM) came fuming into the Bar Library of the Supreme Court loudly saying to all and sundry:

‘Mrs. Gandhi doesn’t understand. The Prime Minister simply will not listen. I have all the evidence.’

I asked him why he was so distressed. And he told me.

He had been to visit Mrs. Gandhi, now ‘twice-born’ in High Office. He had taken with him documentary material about the ‘misdeeds’ of Kanti Desai (son of her immediate predecessor in office) and demanded a criminal prosecution or at least a Commission of Inquiry. Mrs. Gandhi heard him out patiently and then quietly said:

‘No, Mr. Anthony – no – there will be no more Commissions of Inquiry; no more criminal cases.’

Frank Anthony was left stunned. Political recrimination was out. Politicians (sometimes) do learn their lesson – even though the hard way!

I wish that men and women currently in positions of political power all around us harken to the example of Mrs. G.

 

Fali S. Nariman

Delhi

 

INDIA’S children are not doing well and there is a vast and growing literature on child rights violations that tells us so. Reflecting the mainstream conversation, the June issue, Children First, reiterates information and insights already available to planners and policy-makers.

Reading the dossier one realizes that it is primarily the experiences from within state-led programmes, followed by international donor priorities, their worldviews and perceptions, which define the frame of enquiry on children’s rights. Reflected is the abundant uniformity in problem identification which makes unremarkable the unanimity in vision and approach. Unanimity, of course, has the benefit of allowing for policies to be framed with few conceptual challenges. Consequently programmes move swiftly from drawing boards to budget line-items, thus underlining the urgency of the need to provide for children first.

Under the Constitution, the well-being of our children is the responsibility of the Indian state. It is the role and the privilege of the state to provide the environment, economic and social, in which parents and families are able to assure the well-being of their children. So possibly, examining rights and obligations from the standpoint of the state is logical. Only, sometimes, in following logical frameworks, the questions asked may be inadequate.

Basing policy prescriptions on a limited reading of the past, the issue has outlined priorities for the 11th Plan without examining the experience of planned childhoods in India. Children, first found space in plan documents as a specific group requiring attention within the 7th Plan. At least two generations of children have since experienced planned childhoods. And yet, there has been limited introspection within the community working for children on the experience of planned childhoods in India.

Plans and programmes have down the years seen children only as hyphenated with women. By placing children at the centre of the 11th Plan, and possibly even de-hyphenating them from women, is it likely that the frame of enquiry will be broadened? For even then there are a range of plan priorities and upstream policies that impact the present and future of children – yet these remain unaddressed by child rights scholars and activists.

For instance, land consolidation for mega infrastructure projects displaces not just farmers, but also children from their history, their family and community’s past. Policy changes that dilute adult worker benefits force children to work as also attend school, thus at least partially depriving them of the right to a childhood. Introspection on the experience of such planned childhood should have at least suggested a need for an expansion in focus. For not only do policies and laws that are designed for children need to be reviewed to understand impact on the lives of children but also those that adversely impact the adults in their lives.

Reviewing the experience of planned childhoods would have brought to surface conflicts and insights embedded within family, caste, community, school, workplaces and playgrounds. Adding such contributions on the lived experience of planned childhoods might have deepened the discourse on child-oriented planning, surely the objective of the issue.

Vijayalakshmi Balakrishnan

CRY – Child Rights and You