It takes a village to rear a child, but who is responsible for parenting?

[First published in Women’s Web, and based entirely on interactions on Twitter.]

I was on the metro, trying to read on my Kindle, when I felt someone tug at my hem. I looked down. It was a toddler. Normally, I don’t like people pulling at my clothes, but since his parents were aware of what was going on and making no attempt to stop him, I decided not to create a scene. A minute later, I felt my handbag jerk, and saw that the child had pulled out a bottle of sanitiser from an outside pocket and was brandishing it in triumph. This was just not acceptable, and I made eye contact with the parents, to implore them to do something about it. They glared back with such fury that I was made to feel guilty about wanting to take back MY sanitiser from their poor innocent child who was so happy with it.

My station arrived, and I got down, throwing one last incredulous look at the parents of the child. Was this New Age parenting, I wondered. And I quickly dashed off a tweet :

On the metro, a toddler kept pulling my dress. The parents were both around but didn’t even attempt to stop the child. Then he put his hand in my bag, took out my sanitiser and refused to give it back. Parents were still silent

Question for parents of toddlers. What would you do?

The responses were, well, interesting
The intention behind the question was not to “crib on Social Media”. I was genuinely astounded that the parents made no attempt to even apologise for their child taking something out of my bag, and I needed reassurance that I was not wrong in expecting the parents to intervene. The question was specifically directed to parents of toddlers, because it has been so long since my kids outgrew that phase that I needed to find out if parenting had changed so drastically in the intervening years. 

The various kinds of responses I got, told me a lot about people and their parenting styles.

A lack of boundary setting by parents?
Most of the responses reassured me that I was not wrong in expecting the parents to do something. These were parents who said that they would gently admonish the child and return the bottle of sanitiser with an apology. A majority of them even said that they would not have let it progress to that point, and that boundaries would have been established when the child started tugging at my dress itself. That was exactly how I remembered it with my children too- we had established boundaries when they were much younger, and would reinforce them when needed. Yes, both my children had a lot of pent-up energy, but neither would have touched strangers much less taken something out of their bag.

It is tempting for parents to get into the “bacche hain. Bade hoke seekh jayenge”/ “they are kids. they will learn when they grow up” mindset. However, what parents don’t realise is that once habits are set, it is hard to break them. By indulging their children, parents are inadvertently setting the scene for the creation of entitled people who struggle to understand consent or personal space.

I am not without empathy for parents of toddlers, but…
Some of people responding mentioned that I should not make an issue of it, because I had no idea what the parents were going through. I have been a parent of toddlers myself, and I know exactly how harrying the experience could be. There have been times, especially on long flights as solo parent, when I have literally given up trying to maintain order. While, in this case, both parents were present, it is possible they were too preoccupied to notice what the child was doing. However, is it fair to expect a total stranger to give the parents the benefit of doubt, when they don’t even want to acknowledge their child took something that belonged to someone else?

I considered the fact that the child may be neurodivergent, but…
A few others pointed out, and rightly, that the child may be neurodivergent and that snatching something away from them could trigger a reaction. That was the precise reason why I didn’t say anything to the child directly, and instead looked to the parents to do the right thing. 

Each child is different, and the last thing anyone wants is for a stranger to provoke an attack or even a tantrum. Many said that I should have diverted the attention of the child by giving him something else, and got the sanitiser back. My response to them would be that each child is different, and it is best left to the parent to parent them. Also, giving them something else in lieu of getting the sanitiser bottle back is tantamount to encouraging the child continue taking things from the bags of strangers.

There were others with similar stories as mine
Some people shared stories of how they were victims of intrusive behaviour which the parents made no attempt to curb. 

One mentioned that a child was peeping at her when she was in a changing room, and despite being aware of it, the mother made no attempt to stop the child. 

Many spoke of how children kicked the back of their seats for the entire duration of a flight without being reprimanded even once. As parents, we have all been in a position where our children kicked the seat on flights- what seemed to be missing in these examples was the slightest attempt to get the children to stop. 

There were many instances of children misbehaving in restaurants and parents ignoring them- this, in my opinion, is unacceptable- people go to restaurants for the experience of dining out and people should not foist their children on others in this situation. All these stories only underlined the fact that many parents seem to believe that they are entitled to expecting others to tolerate their kids.

What about the village needed to raise a child. Well…
A few people with golden hearts said that had they been in my place, they would have played finger games with the child, taught them a few rhymes, and generally entertained them. They believe that it doesn’t just take a village to raise a child, the entire city should participate in the process.

While on the face of it, it sounds wonderful, this scares me no end. It is estimated that anything between 30% to 50% of the population are/ were victims of child sexual abuse, and that in the majority of these cases, the perpetrator is someone known to the child’s family. It is important that we teach our children to protect themselves from potential perpetrators, and it is hard to drive the message in if we simultaneously encourage our children to make friends with random strangers. Interactions with adults should be under parental supervision, or at least with full parental consent, so while it is good on the part of strangers to entertain children, it is also potentially leaves the child vulnerable to a less scrupulous stranger.

And then there were the violent suggestions
The responses which shocked me the most were the ones that said that I should have slapped the child or thrown the kid out of the window. Quite aside from the fact that none of us has the right to hit someone else’s child, harming the child would have served no purpose and would have, instead, done a lot of harm. 

Violence is punitive, it is not the way to deliver justice. In this case, the child was not at fault, it was a case of inconsistent parenting, and punishing the child would not have achieved anything. A few even said that they would have pinched the child, because it is possible to pinch hard without anyone knowing about it. This shows a very sadistic child, because it is clear that the person knows they shouldn’t be harming the child, and do so all the same- if the incident was in public view, why should the punitive action be hidden? 

One even went as far as saying that I should have doused the child in sanitiser and set flame to it. That anyone could make a statement like this points to a deep seated malevolence that we are unaware of. Have we sunk so low as a society that our first response to any issue is to commit an act violence?

Taken together, these responses paint a fairly accurate picture of society
Most parents struggle with parenting, but are willing to take the responsibilities that go with it. They take accountability for the behaviour of their children and though they may appear to fail at times, they try. However, there are a few that feel they are entitled to expecting the entire world to parent their children. These parents are the ones who are likely to land up with entitled brats who do not respect boundaries and violate consent. Then there are the angels- the men and women who go that extra mile to help a frazzled parent- none of us would have survived the toddler ages without these wonderful people. It is these angels who make up for the ones who react adversely everytime a child misbehaves.

Yes, it takes a village to rear a child. But the primary responsibility of parenting remains with the parents.

Fare Free Bus Travel For Women Policy Great For Women’s Workforce & Social Participation

[First published in Women’s Web]

“Shakti”, the scheme which provides fare free bus travel for women, including students and transgender persons, within the state of Karnataka (on non-AC government buses), was launched on June 11, 2023. This made Karnataka the third state in the country, after Delhi and Tamil Nadu, to offer this service for women. The scheme was introduced in each of the three states because the government believed that it would be a powerful mechanism for the social and economic upliftment of women, and that the benefits would far outweigh the cost of the subsidy. The announcement was greeted with joy by vast sections of the female population, but it predictably also attracted the naysayers who thought that “their” tax money shouldn’t be “wasted” on such a scheme and that schemes like this were unconstitutional.

What are the benefits of fare free bus travel?
There is a lot of gender disparity in Indian society, and the mobility of women is restricted for a host of social and economic reasons. Fare free bus travel will, therefore, lead to economic, emotional, social and health benefits for women. 

Economic benefits:
In most Indian households which have a vehicle (car, two wheeler or even bicycle), it is primarily used by the male members, which restricts the mobility of women to a great extent. Women, especially women from lower socio-economic backgrounds, are often forced to take up jobs in locations which are close to their residence, which restricts the number of job opportunities available to them. Offering fare free bus travel enables women to look at taking up jobs with are a distance away from home, and will, hopefully, lead to improved labour force participation. Women who are currently spending a substantial chunk of their earnings on bus fares will be able to save the amount and can then use it on other basic expenditure like education or healthcare.

Fare free bus travel enables women to use public transport for running errands and for other purposes, therefore saving the time which might otherwise be spent on walking to their destination. Women who might have earlier walked to their place of work and back can now save time by taking the bus. Many mothers, for instance, wait outside the school compound after dropping the children off, since they cannot afford to spend on bus fare to return to their homes. Fare free bus travel will empower these women to spend their time more productively if they choose.

Emotional benefits:
Fare free bus travel will give women the freedom to move freely within the city, and will reduce their dependence on other family members for their mobility. School students who are forced to drop out of school after primary school because the secondary school is a distance away, can now avail of fare free bus travel to travel to school without imposing an additional financial burden. Women can visit family and friends, without having to depend on others to take them. Women, particularly from rural areas, can now access better medical facilities.

Being able to study and work without worrying about the cost of the commute is a big benefit for women. Equally important, fare free bus travel empowers women to use public transport for shopping and leisure which is good for their mental well-being.

Social benefits:
Fare free bus travel will lead to more female passengers in the bus. Since we always feel more comfortable when we are with more people like us, this will increase our perception of safety and security. After fare free bus travel was introduced in Delhi, women said that travelling by DTC buses had become safer than traveling by private buses. Women also reported that incidents of casual molestation had gone down with the increase in number of female passengers. This is a virtuous cycle, which will eventually lead to greater safety for women. Hopefully, this will lead to more women switching from private vehicles which they can ill afford to public transport.

Health benefits:
Women who go out of the house either for employment or for domestic chores are forced to walk much more than men. Further, for reasons of safety, wherever possible, women prefer walking on large thoroughfares and not on smaller, less crowded roads. This exposes women to exhaust fumes which in turn leads to respiratory ailments. Fare free bus travel will enable women to avoid breathing the exhaust fumes, leading to better health. Overall, too, if the usage of public transport goes up, it will reduce the number of vehicles with internal combustion engines plying on the road, which will bring down the overall level of air pollution.

It is clear that in a patriarchal society like ours, where women have limited mobility, fare free bus travel leads to greater empowerment of women.

Is providing fare free bus travel legal?
There have been people who claimed that fare free bus travel is un-Constitutional, arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory, and a case was even filed in the High Court opposing the introduction of free fare bus travel in Delhi. The Court, however struck the petition down.

While Article 15 of the Constitution of India specifies that there should be no discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any other reason, clause 3 of the same article clearly states that ‘the state can make any special provision for women and children’ and the same will override any other provision. The rationale for the clause was that women have traditionally been an oppressed group, and this would enable the government to introduce laws and schemes that would bring them on par with men. Free fare bus travel satisfies this condition and is therefore constitutionally valid.

What about people who don’t need fare free bus travel misusing this?
Some people who oppose the introduction of fare free bus travel for women claim that they do not want to subsidise the bus fare of women who can afford to pay for it. This was the same argument which was used earlier when the Delhi Government wanted to introduce fare free travel for women- “Why should a woman who drives a BMW be allowed to travel for free in the metro?”

What this line of argument overlooks is the fact that no woman will choose to expose herself to potential sexual harassment merely because she wants to exploit the system. Public transport is not the preferred mode of transport for anyone who can afford to take a private vehicle (except for people who choose public transport for reasons of sustainability), and an economically well off woman will certainly not choose it for the sole purpose of getting a freebie. Yes, in the initial days after the introduction of the scheme, women will avail of the benefit so they can post a selfie on social media, but the bulk of the people availing the scheme will be people who genuinely need it.

Contrary to what the naysayers say, not everybody will grab a freebie solely because it is offered.

Is fare free bus travel sufficient to ensure greater mobility of women?
While fare free bus travel goes a long way in ensuring greater mobility for women, it is certainly not sufficient. Unaffordable bus fare is not the only reason why people choose not to use public transport. The punctuality and frequency of bus services needs to be improved, and for this the government has to invest in a bigger and better fleet and more personnel. Overcrowing is another reason why women shy away from using public transport, especially since overcrowding often creates a condition that aids sexual harassment. Safety and security of women on the bus and at the bus stops is a concern which needs to be addressed immediately. Last mile connectivity is another major issue which may deter potential bus passengers, especially since this often leaves women vulnerable to sexual harassment.

In order to truly make a difference to women, governments have to invest in better fleets, improve frequency and punctuality, address the issue of last mile connectivity and prioritise safety and security. 

It is also important that similar schemes be extended beyond women and transgender persons to other vulnerable sections of society- persons with disability, economically backward people, senior citizens. 

Contrary to popular belief, free fare bus travel for women and transgender persons is not a political gimmick. It is the first step that leads to greater empowerment.

Why a cis-het ally must support #MarriageEquity

[As #PrideMonth comes to an end, I write on why I, a cis-het person, support legalising same sex marriage. First published in Women’s Web.] 

“What makes life meaningful is love. The right that makes us human is the right to love. To criminalize the expression of that right is profoundly cruel and inhumane. To acquiesce in such criminalization or, worse, to recriminalize it, is to display the very opposite of compassion. To show exaggerated deference to a majoritarian Parliament when the matter is one of fundamental rights is to display judicial pusillanimity, for there is no doubt, that in the constitutional scheme, it is the judiciary that is the ultimate interpreter”, wrote Justice Leila Seth in January 2014 after the Supreme Court overturned the judgement of the Delhi High Court and re-criminalised homosexuality.

Nine years after Justice Seth wrote those words in her famous article, we are one again reminded of them while we await the verdict on the Supreme Court on the pleas to legalise same sex marriage. Stripped to the basics, all that the petitioners are asking for is the fundamental right to live and love with dignity.

“Will legalising same sex marriage a.k.a. ‘marriage equity’ affect me as a cis het person?”
Legalising same sex marriages (or to use the broader term, ‘marriage equity’) does not impinge on the rights of anyone else. Heterosexual unions will in no way be affected by granting marriage equity, nor will the Personal Laws have to be amended. The only people who will be impacted by extending the Special Marriage Act to include non heterosexual couples are people who, today, do not have the opportunity to formalise their relationship legally. When they are not directly affected in any way, why then are so many people against marriage equity?

Many who oppose the petition to legalise same sex marriage do so on religious grounds. They cite various scriptures (or their interpretation of scriptures) to prove that their respective religions prohibit homosexuality. Without going into the details of the religious arguments, which I am certainly not competent to do, all I can say is that legalising same sex marriage is not the same as forcing people to marry someone of the same sex/ gender. If a person’s religion prohibits a relationship with partners of the same sex, it should be upto the person to decide whether they want to get into a relationship which is prohibited by their religion or not. All that the law will do is to enable a person to formalise a relationship if they choose to do so- it will not force people to get into or solemnise a “prohibited” relationship.

“I am worried my spouse will leave me for a same sex partner if marriage equity is legalised!”
Many people seem to worry that if same sex marriages are legalised, their legally wedded spouse may leave them for a homosexual partner. This argument has no merit. If the foundation of a marriage is so fragile that the only reason the person is staying in the marriage is because they are legally prohibited from getting married to someone of the same gender, then the marriage for all practical purposes is already non-existent. 

Not surprisingly, this argument is put forward by men who worry that their wives might leave them for a female partner- clearly the men understand that the existing heterosexual union is skewed against the woman, and therefore worry about anything that might disturb the unequal equilibrium.

“Youngsters will say they are queer just because they think it’s cool or to ‘experiment’!”
Some others use statistics to argue against legalising same sex marriage. According to a widely shared data point, “In the eight years since the US legalised homosexuality, 40% of Gen Zees and 30% of Young Christians have started identifying as LGBTQ.” Without getting into the veracity (or otherwise) of the data, this is actually the best argument in favour of legalising same sex marriage. 

Homosexuality is not a choice, but people may choose to hide their sexual orientation because of social stigma and/ or the legal environment. If, indeed, a significant percentage of people came out as LGBTQ after homosexuality was decriminalised, it only shows that a large number of people were earlier forced to hide their sexual orientation. Legalising same sex marriage will, therefore, create an enabling environment to ensure dignity and equity for every individual regardless of their sexual orientation.

“This will negatively affect children if they see same sex couples married!”
A few people use concern for their children as a reason to oppose marriage equity. According to them, if same sex marriage is legalised, they will not be able to protect their children from seeing gay or lesbian couples, and this might confuse the children. 

What these people choose to ignore is the fact that enabling children to interact with people who are different from themselves helps develop a feeling of empathy in the children. More importantly, in a heteronormative society like ours, it is important for children who may be confused about their own gender identity or sexual orientation to be aware that non traditional families are also possible, and that they are not different. 

One can also argue, as I often do, that a large percentage of children in India come from families where domestic violence is prevalent- if we are not worried about our children witnessing domestic abuse, why are we so concerned about them seeing homosexual couples?

“I’m worried what may ‘come out of this’ in the future!”
Who knows what may “come out of this”, is the reason why some people use to oppose marriage equity. While it is virtually impossible to counter a delightfully vague statement like this, it is clear that it is either one or a combination of more than one of the above reasons that is driving the statement. Each of the reasons can be countered individually, but how do you deal with fear? Because at the heart of the statement is a fear of the unknown and a belief that anyone who doesn’t conform to society’s prescribed norms doesn’t deserve to be happy.

“This is a newfangled urban, western fad and doesn’t concern the rest of Indians so why legalise it?!”
Some opponents of marriage equity have declared that it is an issue that only concerns the urban elite. That, by itself, doesn’t disqualify the judiciary from needing to pass a judgement on it if a petition has been made. 

Also, there is no basis for proclaiming that this is an issue of the urban elite only. People in rural areas and socio-economically backward people too can struggle with their gender identity and/ or sexual orientation. For them, issues of survival may be more important than the issue of marriage equity, but once the law is amended to legalise same sex marriage, they too can take advantage of it.

“Marriage is an outdated concept so why do ‘these people’ now need marriage?”
While all these come from people who oppose marriage equity as a concept, the more insidious arguments are made by people who pretend to be extremely liberal. “Marriage is an outdated concept”, they proclaim. “The institution of marriage itself should be abolished. Why should anyone be fighting for same sex marriage?” 

Statements like these come from a position of privilege. If you are from a demographic that has always enjoyed the right to get married, you really cannot be commenting on someone else demanding the same right. 

These people should realise that there is a difference between an individual choosing to reject the institution of marriage and another individual being denied the right to get married in the first place. The two are not equivalent, and it is in bad faith to attempt to equate the two. Clearly people are fighting for marriage equity, because they want to get married whatever the reason.

Why are people demanding marriage equity?
In a nation like ours where everyone is obsessed with marriage, should we even be asking why people want same sex marriages to be legalised? From a very young age, assorted uncles and aunties take pleasure in asking us when we intend getting married- wouldn’t a person want to introduce their non-heterosexual partner as their legally wedded partner? When every third reel on Instagram shows wedding shenanigans of some kind, can we blame a homosexual couple from dreaming of a Big Fat Indian Wedding?

There are also practical reasons for getting married. Though a few banks allow homosexual couples to open joint accounts, the vast majority of banks only permit legally wedded couples to open joint accounts. A legal marriage will allow couples to claim insurance for their spouse, and to mention them as nominees in legal documents. Even issues like leasing accommodation, booking hotels and availing of “couple discounts” will be much easier if a couple is married.

Most importantly, marriage equity empowers non-heterosexual couples to love and live with dignity and without guilt.

Like Justice Leila Seth, I am a mother. Unlike her, I do not yet know the gender identity and sexual orientation of my teenage children. But as a mother, I want my children and other children to have the right to live and love in dignity. And, stripped to the basics, that is all the petition for legalising same sex marriage is all about- the right to live in dignity.

“Tree Plantations Are Not The Solution To Climate Change”

 [Everyone loves planting trees, but do they really have the desired impact? I write in YouthKiAwaaz.]

June 5th was World Environment Day, and my social media feed was full of photographs of people planting trees to commemorate it. Planting trees is a great photo op, and it is undeniable that you get a dopamine high when you plant the sapling, shovel earth to cover the hole and sprinkle water on it. I have loved doing it myself too. 

However, how many of the people planting trees take adequate measures to ensure that the saplings survive? Merely planting trees is not enough. They have to be watered regularly for a few months till the roots go deep enough for the trees to be able to fend for themselves. Saplings planted after the onset of the monsoon might survive even without watering, but given how unpredictable the showers can be, back-up arrangements should be put in place.

The saplings need to be protected from goats, sheep, cows and other herbivorous animals which love the tender shoots of new plants. Even if the saplings survive long enough to establish themselves, they are often planted so close to each other, none of them attain their proper shape or girth. Though it has been estimated that only about 40% of saplings planted in mass tree plantation drives survive, we continue to focus on planting new trees.

From an environmental perspective, planting trees, especially on World Environment Day or as a part of a green challenge, is largely tokenism.

What Are The Environmental Challenges We Face Today?

The two greatest environmental challenges that we face today are climate change and loss of bio-diversity, and planting new trees does little to address either issue.

How do trees help reverse climate change?

Climate Change is the blanket term used to define long term shifts in temperature and weather conditions caused due to the increase in the concentration of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. This is caused primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, and it can be addressed through a two pronged strategy- reducing the use of fossil fuels and removing the carbon di oxide already present in the atmosphere. The rationale given for planting trees is that they absorb carbon di oxide from the atmosphere and sequester it in their trunks.

What we choose to ignore is the fact that when a lone tree is felled or dies due to natural causes, the trunk is exposed to the atmosphere and the sequestered carbon is soon returned to it. In forests, on the other hand, when a tree falls, it gets covered up by vegetation and foliage which traps the carbon di oxide under its layers and prevents it from being returned to the atmosphere. Therefore, planting individual trees does not help much because it is only in forests that the carbon that is sequestered in trees is permanently taken out of the atmosphere.

How do trees contribute to increased bio-diversity?

Most of the saplings used in tree plantation are of non-native trees, some of which are even invasive. A few years back, for instance, Conocarpus was extremely popular because it was fast growing and could be used to “green” an area in a very short time. However, the pollen from the tree causes respiratory ailments, its roots often invade water pipes, and it is not conducive to supporting any biodiversity.

It is now been recognized as a pest, and new plantations are discouraged. Similarly, the “wet bulb” effect which makes summers in the Deccan appear hotter than they are, is partially caused by the proliferation of non-native trees which transpire more than the trees which normally grow in the region.

More importantly, a group of trees alone cannot replicate a forest. Forests take decades to develop, and they include not just the trees, but the mosses and lichens, the shrubs and creepers, and the insects, reptiles, birds and mammals which depend on the forest for their food and habitat. It is unlikely that trees planted as a part of a plantation drive will grow into a forest.

Eucalyptus is a tree that is often planted in large numbers as a part of afforestation or compensatory forestation drives. While the straight rows of eucalyptus trees may look pleasing aesthetically, they are disastrous from an environmental perspective. The trees do not support much biodiversity, and since most of them are destined to be chopped down to feed paper factories, they do not permanently sequester carbon either.

The need of the hour is to protect existing trees and forests

Even if planting trees doesn’t make much of an impact from the environmental persepctive, isn’t it better to plant trees than to not plant trees? On the face of it, one would be tempted to agree. However, when we plant trees, we get lulled into complacency and feel we are doing something for the environment, while in fact we are not.

Instead of planting trees to commemorate various “days”, we should pledge to protect the existing trees and forests everyday. We should vehemently oppose the cutting down of decades old trees and forests in the name of ‘development’. While politicians and government authorities try to present a binary where protecting the environment comes in the way of development, it does not have to be a binary. With careful planning, it is possible to design development projects which do not have an adverse impact on the environment. However, this will happen only if a sufficient number of people start demanding that existing trees and forests shouldn’t be indiscriminately felled in the name of development.

Instead of merely planting new trees, let us also cherish and document the existing ones. About a year back, I started geo tagging old and mature trees. The trees are now on Google maps, and the first tree I tagged has received more than a thousand views. If we similarly document trees in our neighbourhood, we leave a record of the giants who give us so much.

I am certainly not making a case against tree plantation. I have planted many trees myself, most of them in honour of someone I lost as a way of keeping their memory alive.

All I am saying is that even while planting trees, let us not get lulled into the false belief that by planting trees we are doing our bit to save the planet. To truly save the planet, we need to do a lot more than just planting trees.

[The author is not an expert, and these are opinions she has gathered by reading various books and articles. Please do point out errors, if any.]