My new blog on Freedom
I have created a new blog to write about freedom -- freedom in general, and free software in particular. You can read this at http://swatantryam.blogspot.com. Since freedom is the most important thing (at least for most people), I hope you will be interested in my new blog.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
The Blame the Politician Game
Elections are here in many states in India and the political machinery is getting into full swing. Election manifestos are released and promises made to the people - promises that are forgotten as soon as the polling is over. This is nothing unusual in India, or, for that matter, in any country. People have no option other than voting for a candidate, or a party, knowing fully well that it often hardly makes any difference who they vote for. The so-called 'verdict' of the people is often a response to the misrule of the party that has been in power, and hence the important place given to the incumbency factor.
On the other hand, we often hear people and the media blame the politicians for being dishonest and insincere. There appears to be very few gentlemen and ladies in the political arena who have been spared such branding. I think we need to look into this problem closely, if only because it is something that can affect our lives and that of our children significantly. Other than lamentations in the media, there doesn't seem to have been many serious efforts to understand the problem and find solutions. In this situation, it may not be totally out of place for me to give some ideas, though I am very much ignorant of history and politics.
I would like to look at the issue from a different point of view. Admittedly, a good number of politicians today are insincere and dishonest. I take this as a given (basic premise, or whatever) without bothering about its truth. Though this may not, strictly speaking, be a correct approach, I am sure many of you would agree with me on that. I then ask the question: Why? Why are today's politicians 'bad'? Is it because the parties have promoted all rotten people, and ignored the genuine ones? If so, again, Why? Is it because, as they say, Power Corrupts? Then what about the young leaders who have not tasted power? How come so many of them are also branded as insincere and dishonest?
I would like to go back by a few decades and take a look at the leaders who led the political parties of the time - be it the Indian National Congress or the Communist Party of India or any other. We see a number of outstanding individuals who could have landed good positions in the British Indian government before India got independence sacrificing all that for a life of uncertainty and, sometimes, great personal difficulty. You and I may or may not agree with their policies or actions, but it is rarely that we brand them as dishonest or insincere. Where have such people gone? Is it that today's people are all selfish and dishonest? I find it difficult to believe that, somehow, the character of the entire population has undergone a drastic change. On the contrary, could it be that honest and sincere people no longer come to politics? If that is the case, then, I guess, it is high time that our society did something about it, rather than simply blame those who are currently in politics.
"Oft-repeated Johnson's definition that politics is the last resort of the scoundrel holds good even to-day." says The Modern Rationalist. It goes on to say, "Why Thanthai Periyar shunned politics is also due to the same reason." This is not an isolated case. Pakistan's Daily Times ran an article by J. Sri Raman in its issue dated July 29, 2004, in which he wrote, "“Politics is the last resort of the scoundrel.” I suppose a computer-aided quantitative analysis can give a more precise finding; but, offhand, I will say that not a week passes without someone or the other citing this maxim in the Indian media." "It seems to be the nature of politics that ignorant racist boors often end up as "leaders", whether in the USA or Iran or anywhere else. It's not for nothing that the phrase "politics is the last resort of the scoundrel" was coined. We are best off ignoring these people and their ugly beliefs." goes a comment on, of all things, a review of a new GNU/Linux distribution at distrowatch! But can we simply ignore them? In an article by Ashu Pasricha in The Tribune dated January 30, 1999, she says, "Today the decent people in politics are a fast vanishing species in our land. This leads to the question why more decent people are not entering the fray? This is proving the dictum that “politics is the last resort of the scoundrel”. Today politics has undergone a sea change. Now it stinks. Politics has degenerated to the level of corruption, dishonesty, rank opportunism, expediency, manoeuvrings and manipulation of all kinds and above all, greed — devoid of moral fabric." Although she raises the question of why decent people are not coming to politics today, she does not try to answer it. Of course, the article was meant to be on Gandhiji, so she may be excused for not delving more deeply into the question above.
I too do not have a ready solution. In fact, I do not think that there could be any easy and quick solution anyway. But I think this is something our society needs to ponder over with more sincerity and seriousness if we expect to have good governance in the not too distant future. And, having raised this question, I feel it is also my responsibility to place a few suggestions here. So here they are, for whatever they are worth:
1. As a society, we need to repeatedly tell ourselves that running a government is one of the most difficult of tasks. Instead of repeating the Johnsonian quote given above, we need to spread the word that we need the best of individuals to run the government. Politics as a profession needs to be given a pride of place so that we attract the best of talent.
2. Politics should be taught right from school and there should be serious political debates from high school or higher secondary school onwards. These debates should be moderated by the teacher (who also may have his/her opinion). Children should be encouraged to delve deeper into current political issues so that they learn to discriminate between the superficial statements of politicians and the equally superficial analysis often dished out by the media.
3. We seem to expect the politician to give up everything and serve the people. I think this is absurd and counter-productive. Politicians also are human beings (in case you did not notice) and they too need families whom they have to support. In other words, society needs to find ways in which politicans can feed, clothe, educate, their families without having to collect money on the sly from whoever is willing to offer. I am strongly in support of allowing all employees to involve in political activity (which is banned now, though it is a public secret that almost every government employee has affiliations with a party). The employment gives them an income, and this brings into the political arena a large group of people, many of whom could be capable, honest and sincere.
Ladies and gentlemen, the topic is open for debate. Advance thanks for your contributions.
April 7, 2006. Let me add something that I missed last time.
People are often told that it is their duty as citizens of a democratic country to cast their votes. Voting is considered to be the most important responsibility of a citizen -- almost the be all and end all of democracy. I think this is a very wrong idea that should never be spread. Admittedly, every citizen should cast his vote for a democracy to function properly, although even that could be circumvented. For instance, at least in principle, if a survey is planned and executed very correctly, it should tell which is the party or the candidate that is most popular. The increasing accuracy of pre-election opinion polls is one sign of how the techniques are improving.
The problem is that we tend to see political parties as separate entities, one of whom we select to rule us for the next five years, almost like we select a contractor to build a bridge. In this process, we tend to forget that these parties are composed of people from among us, and that each one of us does have a role, however small, in deciding what these parties are and how they function. In fact, I think it is more important for every one of us to be involved with a political party and influence its functioning than to vote. Let me hasten to add that this is not at all to take away the importance of voting in the elections.
Let me narrate an incident which may give a clue to what I am trying to say. We have a Residents' Association in our colony, the responsibility of running which is put on someone's head at every General Body. Sometimes people protest, but usually someone takes on the responsibility. It so happened that the office bearers once elected did hardly anything for two years. There was none of the usual activities like cleaning the premises or arranging a family get-together once a year. They did not even bother to collect subscription from members. Eventually, some people got together and called for a General Body meeting to elect new office bearers and to revive the activities. Someone suggested that the dues from members should be collected first and a family get-together arranged. Then one elderly gentleman said that there was no rationale for collecting the subscription for the previous years because, as he said, "We did not get any service"! This was such a ridiculous statement because the Association is not a private agency whom we, the residents, are paying to get some service!
In a similar manner, we should not consider political parties as organisations external to society whom we select for a five year term based on the kind of service the previous party provided and the "quotation" (Election Manifesto) given by the different parties. These are structures built by us, for us and among us to carry out certain jobs. If these structures are not functioning properly, there is no point in blaming them. This is not like a class where you can blame the teacher if (s)he does not teach properly, or like your autombile workshop which you can change if you find that one fellow does not do his job properly. Political parties are organisations created by society, composed of individuals who are willing to work for them, and are required for a democracy to function properly. If they are not functioning as they should, let us get involved and do something about it, rather than just complaining. But, unfortunately, that has become our national habit -- complaining about anything, but doing nothing to bring about a change.
Any comments?
Elections are here in many states in India and the political machinery is getting into full swing. Election manifestos are released and promises made to the people - promises that are forgotten as soon as the polling is over. This is nothing unusual in India, or, for that matter, in any country. People have no option other than voting for a candidate, or a party, knowing fully well that it often hardly makes any difference who they vote for. The so-called 'verdict' of the people is often a response to the misrule of the party that has been in power, and hence the important place given to the incumbency factor.
On the other hand, we often hear people and the media blame the politicians for being dishonest and insincere. There appears to be very few gentlemen and ladies in the political arena who have been spared such branding. I think we need to look into this problem closely, if only because it is something that can affect our lives and that of our children significantly. Other than lamentations in the media, there doesn't seem to have been many serious efforts to understand the problem and find solutions. In this situation, it may not be totally out of place for me to give some ideas, though I am very much ignorant of history and politics.
I would like to look at the issue from a different point of view. Admittedly, a good number of politicians today are insincere and dishonest. I take this as a given (basic premise, or whatever) without bothering about its truth. Though this may not, strictly speaking, be a correct approach, I am sure many of you would agree with me on that. I then ask the question: Why? Why are today's politicians 'bad'? Is it because the parties have promoted all rotten people, and ignored the genuine ones? If so, again, Why? Is it because, as they say, Power Corrupts? Then what about the young leaders who have not tasted power? How come so many of them are also branded as insincere and dishonest?
I would like to go back by a few decades and take a look at the leaders who led the political parties of the time - be it the Indian National Congress or the Communist Party of India or any other. We see a number of outstanding individuals who could have landed good positions in the British Indian government before India got independence sacrificing all that for a life of uncertainty and, sometimes, great personal difficulty. You and I may or may not agree with their policies or actions, but it is rarely that we brand them as dishonest or insincere. Where have such people gone? Is it that today's people are all selfish and dishonest? I find it difficult to believe that, somehow, the character of the entire population has undergone a drastic change. On the contrary, could it be that honest and sincere people no longer come to politics? If that is the case, then, I guess, it is high time that our society did something about it, rather than simply blame those who are currently in politics.
"Oft-repeated Johnson's definition that politics is the last resort of the scoundrel holds good even to-day." says The Modern Rationalist. It goes on to say, "Why Thanthai Periyar shunned politics is also due to the same reason." This is not an isolated case. Pakistan's Daily Times ran an article by J. Sri Raman in its issue dated July 29, 2004, in which he wrote, "“Politics is the last resort of the scoundrel.” I suppose a computer-aided quantitative analysis can give a more precise finding; but, offhand, I will say that not a week passes without someone or the other citing this maxim in the Indian media." "It seems to be the nature of politics that ignorant racist boors often end up as "leaders", whether in the USA or Iran or anywhere else. It's not for nothing that the phrase "politics is the last resort of the scoundrel" was coined. We are best off ignoring these people and their ugly beliefs." goes a comment on, of all things, a review of a new GNU/Linux distribution at distrowatch! But can we simply ignore them? In an article by Ashu Pasricha in The Tribune dated January 30, 1999, she says, "Today the decent people in politics are a fast vanishing species in our land. This leads to the question why more decent people are not entering the fray? This is proving the dictum that “politics is the last resort of the scoundrel”. Today politics has undergone a sea change. Now it stinks. Politics has degenerated to the level of corruption, dishonesty, rank opportunism, expediency, manoeuvrings and manipulation of all kinds and above all, greed — devoid of moral fabric." Although she raises the question of why decent people are not coming to politics today, she does not try to answer it. Of course, the article was meant to be on Gandhiji, so she may be excused for not delving more deeply into the question above.
I too do not have a ready solution. In fact, I do not think that there could be any easy and quick solution anyway. But I think this is something our society needs to ponder over with more sincerity and seriousness if we expect to have good governance in the not too distant future. And, having raised this question, I feel it is also my responsibility to place a few suggestions here. So here they are, for whatever they are worth:
1. As a society, we need to repeatedly tell ourselves that running a government is one of the most difficult of tasks. Instead of repeating the Johnsonian quote given above, we need to spread the word that we need the best of individuals to run the government. Politics as a profession needs to be given a pride of place so that we attract the best of talent.
2. Politics should be taught right from school and there should be serious political debates from high school or higher secondary school onwards. These debates should be moderated by the teacher (who also may have his/her opinion). Children should be encouraged to delve deeper into current political issues so that they learn to discriminate between the superficial statements of politicians and the equally superficial analysis often dished out by the media.
3. We seem to expect the politician to give up everything and serve the people. I think this is absurd and counter-productive. Politicians also are human beings (in case you did not notice) and they too need families whom they have to support. In other words, society needs to find ways in which politicans can feed, clothe, educate, their families without having to collect money on the sly from whoever is willing to offer. I am strongly in support of allowing all employees to involve in political activity (which is banned now, though it is a public secret that almost every government employee has affiliations with a party). The employment gives them an income, and this brings into the political arena a large group of people, many of whom could be capable, honest and sincere.
Ladies and gentlemen, the topic is open for debate. Advance thanks for your contributions.
April 7, 2006. Let me add something that I missed last time.
People are often told that it is their duty as citizens of a democratic country to cast their votes. Voting is considered to be the most important responsibility of a citizen -- almost the be all and end all of democracy. I think this is a very wrong idea that should never be spread. Admittedly, every citizen should cast his vote for a democracy to function properly, although even that could be circumvented. For instance, at least in principle, if a survey is planned and executed very correctly, it should tell which is the party or the candidate that is most popular. The increasing accuracy of pre-election opinion polls is one sign of how the techniques are improving.
The problem is that we tend to see political parties as separate entities, one of whom we select to rule us for the next five years, almost like we select a contractor to build a bridge. In this process, we tend to forget that these parties are composed of people from among us, and that each one of us does have a role, however small, in deciding what these parties are and how they function. In fact, I think it is more important for every one of us to be involved with a political party and influence its functioning than to vote. Let me hasten to add that this is not at all to take away the importance of voting in the elections.
Let me narrate an incident which may give a clue to what I am trying to say. We have a Residents' Association in our colony, the responsibility of running which is put on someone's head at every General Body. Sometimes people protest, but usually someone takes on the responsibility. It so happened that the office bearers once elected did hardly anything for two years. There was none of the usual activities like cleaning the premises or arranging a family get-together once a year. They did not even bother to collect subscription from members. Eventually, some people got together and called for a General Body meeting to elect new office bearers and to revive the activities. Someone suggested that the dues from members should be collected first and a family get-together arranged. Then one elderly gentleman said that there was no rationale for collecting the subscription for the previous years because, as he said, "We did not get any service"! This was such a ridiculous statement because the Association is not a private agency whom we, the residents, are paying to get some service!
In a similar manner, we should not consider political parties as organisations external to society whom we select for a five year term based on the kind of service the previous party provided and the "quotation" (Election Manifesto) given by the different parties. These are structures built by us, for us and among us to carry out certain jobs. If these structures are not functioning properly, there is no point in blaming them. This is not like a class where you can blame the teacher if (s)he does not teach properly, or like your autombile workshop which you can change if you find that one fellow does not do his job properly. Political parties are organisations created by society, composed of individuals who are willing to work for them, and are required for a democracy to function properly. If they are not functioning as they should, let us get involved and do something about it, rather than just complaining. But, unfortunately, that has become our national habit -- complaining about anything, but doing nothing to bring about a change.
Any comments?
Monday, November 21, 2005
Lest we Forget
India has had many great sons and daughters. Many of them earned our respect and we cried when they passed away. We forgot some of them soon, and some we remembered on specific days only because we thought that was the appropriate thing to do or because it brought us media attention. There are others who quietly, and in their own way, attempt to bring about a silent revolution. They are often far ahead of their times and society is unable to catch up with them. Such people are often forgotten even when they are alive. Sure, they are sometimes used by careerists for their selfish interests. And that is a tragedy.
There still lives a person among our midst who has all along tried to put some sense into our heads in matters related to environmentally sustainable planning and development. He has repeatedly pointed out how much of our traditional knowledge can be of help in designing and constucting environmentally and financially cheap, but safe, beautiful and highly utilitarian buildings and towns. And he is not even an Indian by birth. Yes, I am talking about Laurence W. Baker. We have largely ignored him (although a certain type of buildings are known by his name) and we are sure to forget him soon.
Laurie Baker is known for his 'low cost' houses. And that is another tragedy. When we say 'low cost', we tend to focus on the low financial cost of his buildings. While it is true that his buildings cost much less than 'conventional' (the term itself is a paradox -- what is conventional, traditional Indian architecture or the concrete matchbox monsters that started appearing a few decades back?) buildings, branding them 'low cost' misses out on everything that Bakerji stands for. Low cost is only one of the many aspects of his buildings that set them apart from the monsters other architects impose on us. His buildings merge with nature and do not stand apart like a sore thumb, are environmentally inexpensive, make best use of the space available, are designed with the needs of the client, and not just the external appearance or some design trend, in mind, makes best use of available sunlight and winds, thus reducing the need for artificial lighting and fans, just to mention a few. This in a society which discusses environmental issues in large rooms with tall windows, all of them shut tight with thick curtains, artificial lighting and air conditioning, with tea and snacks served in disposable plastic cups and plates. Come to think of it, it is no wonder that we don't take Bakerji seriously!
And Bakerji is not just a proponent of a building style. He has developed refreshingly innovative plans to rejuvenate the choking Alapuzha town and to solve the traffic problem in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram city. He has drawn very insightful cartoons - one on Gandhiji and a nuclear India, and another on Malayalee's mundu come to mind. He is a very creative designer. As my friend Sundar says, Bakerji has never repeated a window design! He is a person with a great sense of humour, something that anyone who has met him would never forget. In spite of all this, he is a person with great humility. Again, as Sundar has recounted, Bakerji never thought twice about picking up the worn out slippers that Sundar had left outside and placing them before their owner's feet.
How have we treated this person? The first time I went to Bakerji's house, I stopped at the junction near his house to ask for directions. I spoke to a few well dressed gentlemen, who appeared never to have heard of Laurie Baker! Bakerji was invited to design houses for some of the earthquake victims in Latur. He realised that the villagers have no need for matchbox houses of the kind the Public Works Department or any of the 'conventional' architects would design. So he set about studying their needs and the houses that they traditionally build. In spite of his advanced age, he went about the job with all sincerity. One year passed, and no design was ready. The sponsoring agency then replaced Bakerji with a 'conventional' architects. The design was done quickly and the houses were built and handed over to the people. A year later, if what I hear is true, the people put their cattle inside the houses and live outside!
The term 'low cost' associated with Bakerji's buildings has done much damage. Many wealthy people feel that it is below their dignity to build such houses or even use technologies that Bakerji has suggested. When I saw tiles piled at a building site, I was excited because I thought they were using the 'filler slab' technology that reduces the weight of concrete slabs and thus reduces the amount of steel needed for reinforcement. When I asked the owner whether they were planning to use this technology, he replied that he did not have to use it (aparently because he could 'afford' not to). But the object of using the filler slab technology is not just to reduce the financial cost, but also to reduce the environmental cost by reducing the energy consumed to produce the materials used in construction. Environmental cost, unlike financial cost, affects the entire society, and hence a person can take credit if he does less damage to the environment.
Bakerji is almost ninety, and the age is telling on his health. Yet, no one has attempted even to build a good web page for him. He decided to stay on in India after he met Gandhiji, and like Gandhiji, he also may soon be forgotten for what he was. But some of us are sure to use his name for our own benefit. Maybe, that is the fate of every great person.
PS: 1. I found another blog on Laurie Baker, that gives a brief biography. To read it, visit http://arch-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/laurie-baker-living-for-cause.html
2. Though not a blog, there is a nice piece on Abu Abraham here.
India has had many great sons and daughters. Many of them earned our respect and we cried when they passed away. We forgot some of them soon, and some we remembered on specific days only because we thought that was the appropriate thing to do or because it brought us media attention. There are others who quietly, and in their own way, attempt to bring about a silent revolution. They are often far ahead of their times and society is unable to catch up with them. Such people are often forgotten even when they are alive. Sure, they are sometimes used by careerists for their selfish interests. And that is a tragedy.
There still lives a person among our midst who has all along tried to put some sense into our heads in matters related to environmentally sustainable planning and development. He has repeatedly pointed out how much of our traditional knowledge can be of help in designing and constucting environmentally and financially cheap, but safe, beautiful and highly utilitarian buildings and towns. And he is not even an Indian by birth. Yes, I am talking about Laurence W. Baker. We have largely ignored him (although a certain type of buildings are known by his name) and we are sure to forget him soon.
Laurie Baker is known for his 'low cost' houses. And that is another tragedy. When we say 'low cost', we tend to focus on the low financial cost of his buildings. While it is true that his buildings cost much less than 'conventional' (the term itself is a paradox -- what is conventional, traditional Indian architecture or the concrete matchbox monsters that started appearing a few decades back?) buildings, branding them 'low cost' misses out on everything that Bakerji stands for. Low cost is only one of the many aspects of his buildings that set them apart from the monsters other architects impose on us. His buildings merge with nature and do not stand apart like a sore thumb, are environmentally inexpensive, make best use of the space available, are designed with the needs of the client, and not just the external appearance or some design trend, in mind, makes best use of available sunlight and winds, thus reducing the need for artificial lighting and fans, just to mention a few. This in a society which discusses environmental issues in large rooms with tall windows, all of them shut tight with thick curtains, artificial lighting and air conditioning, with tea and snacks served in disposable plastic cups and plates. Come to think of it, it is no wonder that we don't take Bakerji seriously!
And Bakerji is not just a proponent of a building style. He has developed refreshingly innovative plans to rejuvenate the choking Alapuzha town and to solve the traffic problem in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram city. He has drawn very insightful cartoons - one on Gandhiji and a nuclear India, and another on Malayalee's mundu come to mind. He is a very creative designer. As my friend Sundar says, Bakerji has never repeated a window design! He is a person with a great sense of humour, something that anyone who has met him would never forget. In spite of all this, he is a person with great humility. Again, as Sundar has recounted, Bakerji never thought twice about picking up the worn out slippers that Sundar had left outside and placing them before their owner's feet.
How have we treated this person? The first time I went to Bakerji's house, I stopped at the junction near his house to ask for directions. I spoke to a few well dressed gentlemen, who appeared never to have heard of Laurie Baker! Bakerji was invited to design houses for some of the earthquake victims in Latur. He realised that the villagers have no need for matchbox houses of the kind the Public Works Department or any of the 'conventional' architects would design. So he set about studying their needs and the houses that they traditionally build. In spite of his advanced age, he went about the job with all sincerity. One year passed, and no design was ready. The sponsoring agency then replaced Bakerji with a 'conventional' architects. The design was done quickly and the houses were built and handed over to the people. A year later, if what I hear is true, the people put their cattle inside the houses and live outside!
The term 'low cost' associated with Bakerji's buildings has done much damage. Many wealthy people feel that it is below their dignity to build such houses or even use technologies that Bakerji has suggested. When I saw tiles piled at a building site, I was excited because I thought they were using the 'filler slab' technology that reduces the weight of concrete slabs and thus reduces the amount of steel needed for reinforcement. When I asked the owner whether they were planning to use this technology, he replied that he did not have to use it (aparently because he could 'afford' not to). But the object of using the filler slab technology is not just to reduce the financial cost, but also to reduce the environmental cost by reducing the energy consumed to produce the materials used in construction. Environmental cost, unlike financial cost, affects the entire society, and hence a person can take credit if he does less damage to the environment.
Bakerji is almost ninety, and the age is telling on his health. Yet, no one has attempted even to build a good web page for him. He decided to stay on in India after he met Gandhiji, and like Gandhiji, he also may soon be forgotten for what he was. But some of us are sure to use his name for our own benefit. Maybe, that is the fate of every great person.
PS: 1. I found another blog on Laurie Baker, that gives a brief biography. To read it, visit http://arch-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/laurie-baker-living-for-cause.html
2. Though not a blog, there is a nice piece on Abu Abraham here.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Finally, I have taken the plunge and created a blog for myself. As the name suggests, I plan to put my random thoughts here, on whatever I happen to be thinking about. It could be about science, literature, cinema, music, people, development issues, or something out of this world.
Having said that, let me say something that has always been close to my heart -- the way children are being brought up, the atmosphere they get in their own homes, and the mental or physical torture that parents often inflict upon these helpless individuals, knowingly or unknowingly. (This is particularly about the middle class families in Kerala, and possibly some other states in India. I do not have sufficient information about other countries to say anything about the situation there.) The simplest of these is the pressure modern parents, especially from the middle class, put on their children to earn high marks. This could sometimes become so powerful a pressure that the child eventually breaks down. The parents forget that scoring marks is not the most important thing in a person's life, and that even a talented child may not have the skills required to score high marks. The numerous suicides by students expecting their examination results that the media report every year is itself evidence for this. Thankfully, the change in the education system in Kerala, with grades replacing marks and ranks, can be hoped to reduce this burden to some extent.
Parents are capable of torturing their own children in many other ways. One example is the means adoopted to "discipline" them. This could mean a hundred things, including getting up, having their food and going to sleep at specified times, respecting elders, going out to play, watching television, whatever. Unlike in the case of scoring marks, many of these may actually be desirable, but the manner in which it is enforced often leads to the opposite effect. Adults often teach children undesirable behaviour patterns unknowingly. An example is the use of the stick to get the child to do something the adult wants. This effectively is equivalent to teaching the child that the use of physical threat is fully justified. And in today's nuclear families, the child often does not have recourse to consolation from any elder. In joint families, an uncle or aunt could act as a sink for the child's anguish.
I believe, a certain amount of serious counselling is essential before marriage. This should cover not only problems that may arise between husband and wife, but also child care and child psychology, including how to tackle problems that the parents may face as the child grows up. We often see an adult ignoring an accompanying child's questions or cries. This should never happen. The child's apprehensions or doubts may appear trivial to an adult, but they are very real to the child. The child should be given as much importance as any other individual -- after all, it is also an individual. Communication between parent and child should start right from the time the child is a baby. Parent should be willing to listen to what the child has to say, and to talk to it on equal terms and encourage it to communicate. Most of the problems between parents and children that we see today can be traced to a lack of communication between them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
