What do you think of Greta Thunberg?

 What do you think of Greta Thunberg”, someone asked. The question was not directed at me, so I had time to think. What do I really think of Greta Thunberg?

When 15 year old Great Thunberg started sitting outside the Swedish Parliament with a sign saying “Skolstrejk för Klimatet/ School Strike for Climate”, she may not have expected to create a tsunami. Her simple message “since you grown-ups don’t give a shit about my future, I won’t either. I refuse school for the climate” resonated with young people across the globe. She inspired millions of young people to take to the streets demanding urgent Climate Action. She achieved what many others failed to do- she set in motion a movement that resulted in creating awareness about the Climate Crisis among a whole new set of constituents. While earlier, it was a relatively small set of people who were concerned about the need for urgent climate action, in less than a year, the terms Climate Change and Climate Action had become mainstreamed.

How did Greta Thunberg achieve what others far more experienced and influential than her failed to do?

It is hard to answer that question. Perhaps the image of a lone girl with long blond braids sitting forlornly yet defiantly struck a chord that well-articulated arguments couldn’t. Perhaps confused and frustrated young people who were looking for someone to show them how to articulate their anger and fears found a kindred soul in her. Perhaps the popular movement against Climate Change was looking for a person around whom to anchor their protests and she happened to be the right person at the right time. Maybe it was none of these reasons, or maybe it was a combination of all these reasons.

Whatever it was, Greta Thunberg became The Face of the Movement for many people who were earlier not too concerned with Climate Change. She influenced her generation to speak up against Climate Change, emphatically and effectively.

What do you think of when you think of Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future?

At an individual level, Greta Thunberg walks the talk by maintaining a sustainable lifestyle and forcing others around her to do so too. She turned vegan when she was around 10. She doesn’t travel by air and uses public transport as much as possible. She subscribes to the stop- shop philosophy which means you don’t buy new things or consume new things unless you absolutely have to.

Beyond the personal, however, Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future demand that world leaders do much more to stop and reverse the effects of climate change before it is too late. They do not claim to have the answers. What they do is to demand that world leaders do much more than just ‘business as usual’. Greta Thunberg’s widely quoted “How Dare You” speech encapsulates her anger and despair-

“People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”
“For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.”
“For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.”
“You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.”
“We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”

When Greta has achieved so much, why are people so critical of her?

When anybody achieves fame, people rush to discredit them. Greta Thunberg was no exception. Conspiracy theorists accused her of being a puppet put up by the militant Left. She was accused of being manipulated by her power hungry father, and of accepting money from energy giants. Even the then President, Donald Trump took to Twitter to accuse her of having anger management issues. None of these charges, except the last, stuck.

That was largely Greta’s own doing. When she said, “Build back better. Blah, blah, blah. Green economy. Blah blah blah. Net zero by 2050. Blah, blah, blah. This is all we hear from our so-called leaders”, she would have known that she would be permanently branded “Angry”. And she was.

Though we know that she cares deeply for the planet, the predominant emotion one associates with Greta is certainly anger. Righteous anger. Anger that instead of action, we get words. “Words that sound great but so far have not led to action. Our hopes and ambitions drown in their empty promises,”

It was this anger that galvanised millions to join protest marches and climate strikes called by Greta Thunberg and Fridays For Future. It was this anger that forced otherwise apathetic people to start speaking up for Climate Action. It was this anger that ensured that media attention focussed on issues pertaining to climate change.

However, maybe the anger has now outlived its purpose. There is greater awareness. There are greater demands. There is talk of greater investment. Now is the time to act- to invent clean technologies, to phase out polluting industries, to ensure that concrete action starts replacing good intent.

What, therefore, do I think of Greta?

I admire Greta Thunberg for her commitment and single-minded focus. I admire Greta Thunberg because she walked the talk and demanded concrete action. I admire Greta because she inspired millions to question world leaders over their unwillingness to invest in technologies and implement policies that would reduce carbon emissions.

If Greta had not managed to get millions out on the streets, it may have taken world leaders much longer to take climate action seriously. Where many before her failed, Greta managed to serve as a catalyst to galvanise public opinion. Her job is now done. As she approaches her 20th birthday, she can be proud of what she has achieved, and can let others take over.

Emergency Message Protocols protect the vulnerable

 [First published in Women’s Web]

A lot has been reported and debated on the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walker, but one small detail of the case is not receiving as much attention as it should. The investigation has revealed that the accused Aftab Ameen Poonawalla used her Instagram account for almost a month after her murder to give the impression of her still being alive.

Why an emergency message protocol is critical
Presumably he did that to avoid the possibility of a search being launched before he was able to dispose off all the body parts. It now turns out that he need not have worried- Shraddha’s isolation was so complete that it was not till many months after the crime that someone cared enough to go to the authorities. But assuming her friends, knowing about the abusive situation she was in, were keeping an active watch on her, by continuing to communicate with them, he may have succeeded in deluding them.

Given how a large chunk of our communication is through WhatsApp, Messenger or Direct Messages, where we neither see the person nor hear their voice, it is important for all of us to have emergency protocols in place especially if we feel we are in a vulnerable situation.

My scientist friend and I have an ongoing joke between us- “If you ever receive a message from me saying ‘vaccines don’t work’, you should realise that it is my way of telling you that I have been kidnapped.” The joke started because both of us were equally frustrated by anti-vaxxers, but it doesn’t hurt to have similar code messages with friends who you trust.

Shraddha’s friends were aware of the fact that she was in an abusive relationship. If they had set up a code like the one my friend and I joke about, the friends would have been alerted to something fishy long before they actually were.

How secret safety codes work and are widely used
Many bars and restaurants have a variation of the secret code pasted in the ladies washrooms. If a woman feels unsafe, all she has to do is to order a specific drink, and the staff will ensure her is extricated from an unpleasant position with minimal fuss. In an ideal world, there should be no need to put such elaborate systems in place, but given the perils of dating, particularly online dating, it is a level of protection that is much needed.

Secret codes are particularly useful as a way to protect children and adolescents. A mother of a teenager once shared how before dropping her daughter off at sleepovers, they finalised a secret code which the daughter would use if she felt uncomfortable and wanted to return home. It was always an innocent phrase, and on seeing it, the mother would hop into the car and drive straight to the place where her child was, with no questions asked. The obvious benefit of the secret code was that both the mother and daughter knew that if things were starting to get out of hand, the mother could swiftly and neatly extricate her daughter. The additional benefit was that there would be no proof of an SOS being sent on the daughter’s phone, so she wouldn’t have to lose face in front of her friends.

Younger children, especially those that lead semi-independent lives, are vulnerable to being tricked by strangers. It is not hard for strangers to approach a child who is waiting to be picked them up from school and trick them into accompanying them by saying that the parent got delayed and deputed them to pick the child up. Since there is a finite probability that there may be a genuine emergency where the child may have to be picked up by someone else, it is good to have a secret code. The child can be taught to go with a stranger only if they knew the code. My children and I had a code word, which we would repeat often so we did not forget. We never needed to use it, but it doesn’t hurt to be prepared.

In State of Terror, the geo-political thriller jointly written by Hillary Clinton and Louise Penny, the protagonists use a linguistic play on words (An oxymoron walked into a bar… and the silence was deafening) to identify themselves to each other. It may appear childish, but it never hurts to have back-up systems in place.

Though Shraddha Walker had been systematically isolated by her partner, some of her friends knew she was in an abusive relationship. If she had a fool proof way of communicating to her friends that she was in danger, things might have been different. “Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst”, they say. Setting up secret codes with people you trust is a simple way of protecting ourselves.

Focus should be making Workplaces more Accessible for Mothers

[First published in Women's Web]

When a District Collector, Dr. Divya S. Iyer, took her child along to a private function and addressed the gathering holding him in her arms, her detractors immediately took to social media to criticise her “improper” behaviour. According to them, it was unbecoming of a senior government official to take her child along for a public engagement, and that she should have left the child behind at home. Others were quick to point out that the function was a private one which she was attending on a holiday in her personal capacity and that she had already informed the organizers that she would bring her child along. 

As the debate over the propriety raged, her husband took to social media to remind people that such a discussion was good in one way, since it highlighted the challenges that working women need to overcome in order to fulfil ‘their multiple roles as wife, mother and so on, besides handling professional duties.’ “Working mothers do not need anyone’s sympathy”, he added. “But, the society should give them a positive space to work.”
There are two major issues here, both of which need to be addressed.
The first is of inclusive workplaces. While it is easy to pass judgement on parents who bring their children to work, the fundamental question that needs to be asked is why they need to do so. Given a choice, parents would certainly prefer to work without the distraction of a child- that they need to bring the child to work indicates that they do not have enough flexibility to stay at home on days when they are not able to arrange for childcare.
People who say that it is “unprofessional” of an employee to bring a child to the workplace should reflect on whether they will say the same thing if an organization expects an employee to respond to official phone calls and check the official e-mail after office hours. If no eyebrows are raised when work spills over to the home, why should people have an issue when in an emergency personal life spills over to the workplace.
In this particular case, specifically, the official engagement was on a holiday, and the employee was well within her rights to say that she will only attend provided the child could be brought too.

The second point which, unfortunately, is lost completely is on the role of the woman. Dr. Divya’s husband took to social media to talk about the many roles that a working woman is expected to play. On the surface, this would seem like an extremely encouraging statement, because the emotional load of a woman is almost always overlooked. However, the pertinent question to be asked is what the role of the father is in all this. If a marriage is an equitable relationship, why is the wife expected to fulfil the roles of a “wife, mother and so on”? If both partners take equal responsibility for housekeeping, caregiving and parenting there would be no need for a woman to take on as many responsibilities as she now does.

Instead of merely celebrating women for juggling multiple roles, shouldn’t society encourage both partners to share the responsibilities, so they can both reach their full potential at home and at work? For this to happen, things need to change at various levels.
Men are celebrated for doing even the basic minimum, while women are expected to do it all without appreciation or acknowledgement. New mothers often complain that even when the fathers pitch in to burp the baby, to change diapers or to soothe colicky babies, the reaction of others embarrasses them to such an extent that they stop doing those chores at least in public. This needs to change if there is to be a more equitable relationship between both partners.
Workplaces should also encourage their employees to maintain a better work-life balance in order to facilitate more equitable relationships. If fathers of young babies are expected to work extremely long hours and/ or take official calls at home, it restricts the time they can spend with their children. The mother is, therefore, forced to take on the major share of caregiving, which in turn makes it extremely difficult for her to return to work when the maternity leave gets over. This leads to reduced labour force participation of women, and to women taking on increasing amounts of the invisible workload.

Many of us have grown up spending weekends and holidays at our parents’ workplace. Indira Nooyi once shared that her daughter had slept under her desk so often she regarded that desk as her own and didn’t want it given away. If they cannot find reliable childcare at home, employees often find it easier to concentrate on work if the child is with them at the workplace.
Ideally, all workplaces should provide child care facilities for their staff, both male and female. Most organizations do not want to invest in childcare facilities because the number of female employees is low and the number of female employees with young children even lower. What these organizations do not realise is that if they provide child care facilities, it will be much easier for them to recruit and retain women employees. Women who know that their babies will be well looked after in the office premises will be far more likely to return to work on completion of their maternity leave. If organizations set up child care facilities, even male employees might access it so their wives can go back to work- this will help retaining male employees, since the this would serve as an incentive to remain in the same employment.

Yes, by bringing her child to an official function, Dr. Divya, IAS did stir up a debate. However, instead of debating whether or not she should did something wrong by bringing her child to work, if we discussed the need for more inclusive policies at work it would better serve the cause of improving the labour force participation of women.