Capital Punishment for Crimes
against Women?
Every
so often there is reported a crime, so heinous that it makes one and all sit
up. But, as is expected, the pace of investigation and the action to follow
slackens and it becomes another of those unfortunate incidents that would be
soon forgotten. This is especially true in the case of crime against women,
where, the extent of horror keeps extending the threshold of mental acceptance
and after a while the repeat incidents are reported often for sheer
titillation! Even today, it is not only the repressed and the uneducated woman
or the unsuspecting children that become targets of the sick machinations of
the human mind, but it is also the emancipated women who are not safe.
Surprising
but true, according to a WHO study, a woman gets raped in India every 54
minutes! It is not unusual to find stories of minors, and even children under
the age of ten, falling prey to the wicked intents. There have been incidents
that have escalated in the degree of gruesomeness, but not one ruling in the
cases to set an example. How else can one expect the offenders/potential
offenders to refrain from such acts?
So,
where lies the solution? Should there be capital punishment for such offenders
so that one can put a stop to this soaring crime rate?
Mr A I completely agree that this category of
crime should be totally unacceptable to the society and the best way to put a
curb on such happenings is to have capital punishment for the criminals and
offenders. What I am about to say should not be interpreted as a justification
of killing, but that of my contention here. When a murder happens, the person
is killed and not let to live and suffer the anguish. But here, in the cases of
rapes and molestation, the offender should not be let off even with limited
punishment. If they are allowed to get away with it, what is the guarantee that
they will not come up again with another of such acts? There has to be devised
a way to simply stop the incidents. There has been a lot of argument against
capital punishment, but how do you get back the same life for a six year old
who has been robbed of innocence even before life did start meaning something
to her, or that of a young woman who has just started shaping her career?
Agreed that the punishment will not revert their status, but it just might
prevent the others from even indulging in such acts.
Mr B
I feel for the victims of such acts, but there is another way the entire
picture can be looked at. It is really not true that an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth can come into play here. We cannot take away a life for a
life. That is exactly why capital punishment of any and every sort was done
away with, in the first place. Things would have been different if a life could
be got back by taking away another, or that meaning could be imparted to a life
by sentencing the other to death. It is very difficult to judge the
circumstances under which a crime has been committed. If it comes to be proven
later that the person, who had been convicted and done away with, was actually
innocent, how would you restore that life and give reprieve to the close ones
of that person. Capital punishment does not leave any room for correction of
mistake in judgement.
Miss C
I cannot agree with you. Just consider the scene in totality in the country.
Numerous incidents of sexual assaults and rapes of minors and women are
reported... what happens to them next. We don’t know. We just read about them,
shake our heads in despair and then forget the whole issue as we move on to
read the next news item. In this country, the victims would either die of
shock, or commit suicide and those who cannot do anything would be subjected to
further torture—be sold to become a part of the flesh trade, which is a
thriving industry now. How do you account for the lives of the countless that
have not known life in even its simplest colours? The conviction rate of the
accused in such cases is tremendously low. Only five per cent of the accused in
cases reported are convicted. In such a scenario where the system of appeals
lets the judgement move further and further away, how can one lie back and
promote this fearlessness. Do we want more half-lives or do we want the
perpetrators of such crimes dead? I feel that it is time someone took a stand
and had something substantial done about this problem.
Miss D
I admit that whatever my friend here says is absolutely true, but then, is
establishing truth easy these days? Much to the dismay, but I would like to
mention that the number of cases of women wrongfully accusing men are coming to
the fore. It is often seen that in cases of animosity among families, the
incidents are wrongly reported and stories are fabricated to take revenge. Just
consider a situation where an innocent could be sentenced wrongly to death.
Investigation takes time and the levels of corruption have enabled white lies
to seem real. It is not simply in the cases of molestation, but there are cases
of women having accused their men wrongly of harassing them for dowry to get
even on certain counts. I agree when my friend says that there must be some
room for correcting mistakes if they are ever made.
Mr A
There is something about the whole issue that is very disturbing. Instead of
simply presuming mistakes in the judgement, would anyone consider the plight of
the victim in such incidents? Our society is such that the offender can still
get away after committing the act and find a place among the multitude. The
woman, on the other hand, who suffers the violation of her mind and body, is
more or less transformed into a queer object for the society. She is considered
polluted and cannot be taken into the fold. This amounts to a condition in
which the victim is virtually ostracised for no fault of hers. The trauma
extends to the family members and is not evanescent. The stigma attached with
being a rape victim is as bad. The life stands almost ruined, as the mental
balance is very hard to regain and with no one coming forward to help the
wronged, there can hardly be any motivation to carry on. It does not matter if
the victim does not die, for it is as good as dying many times over in the
mind. How can one let the offenders in these cases get away so easy or even
allow leeway for them?
Mr B
One can really see that the crime is gross and reflects the sad state of the
society. But I would want to know if pronouncing a death sentence against an
offender will do much by way of helping curb the crime? Fear is an antidote,
but it will not work in all situations. In my opinion, a lasting solution for
the problem lies in a more constructive effort, that is educating the masses
and improving the outlook of the society as a whole. There can be a great
change if the women are made more stronger mentally and cautioned to carry some
sort of weapons like the stun guns to disable the assaulters. Patrolling must
be increased in the areas that are potential places of attacks. Often, it is
seen that the women themselves do not come out in the open about such incidents
having happened to them. They must be made to realize that it is in the
interest of the whole community and that they would not be ridiculed. Also, the
NGOs as well as the individuals must come forward and fight for the cause of
the victims. Moreover, if from the very beginning, the males are taught to
respect the women counterparts, things will become better. Literacy does work
magic.
Miss C
I still suspect how potent is our friend’s solution in doing away with the
filth that is there in the minds. There are several examples of debauchery on
part of civil and educated masses. Where does their sensibility and respect go
in such situations? I would still prefer that the strictest of punishments be
meted out to the offenders. In the riots that gripped certain parts of the
country, it was astounding to see that educated men from middle class families
indulging in such gross activities. This is a real life happening that has
belied all hopes of civilization and chivalry. There is not only this one
thing, violence against women exists in our society in so many forms and it is
disheartening that the women are so taken for granted. In my opinion, unless
and until a few examples are set up before all to see, there is hardly anything
that would refrain them from such despicable acts.
Miss D
It is really very demoralizing to see that in this age when we have made
advancements in all spheres, there are still aspects in the human character
that have failed to evolve. And what a pity, it only extends to the hapless
woman to be let out! It is a shame that women are still not recognized for the
contribution they make to a family and the society as a whole. The brutality
and the barbarity of the incidents that one comes across is truly shocking.
Suggesting capital punishment for such crimes against women could be one way of
intimidating the potential offenders and making them refrain from mores of the
sort. But then, there is also the danger of closing all doors after pronouncing
a judgment. The system of investigation cannot be relied upon with a blind eye
and one has to think twice when it is about deciding about a human life. One
cannot afford to decide in haste and repent at leisure here. Nonetheless, a way
has to be figured out to put an end to such tragic happenings.
Striking to win or Holding to
Ransom?
Bandhs
and strikes are something that affects the people across the country, as the
smooth functioning of everyday life is dependent on networks of supplies. The
truckers union calls a strike to register a protest, causing a paucity of
several essential goods and the cost of everyday consumables sky-rocketing.
State-wide bandhs are called to protest the arrest of political leaders,
creating a tense situation where the common man is on tenterhooks about the
duration for which peace will prevail. The amazing fact is that one section of
the populace can throw the economy out of gear by refusing to do their bit.
What
is debatable here is—whether the option exercised in the forms of bandhs and
strikes is legitimate? After all, it remains not just restricted to the major
parties involved, but drags to the common man who does not have any means or
the capacity to deal with the tough situations that emerge as a repercussion.
On the other hand, does the aggrieved section have any other option to make
their voice heard and more so acted upon?
Mr A:
In my opinion there is absolutely no merit in the strikes and bandhs as forms
of protest against policies and decisions enforced by the authorities. These,
in my view, are merely coercive steps that fall short of blackmailing to have
the demands met. If a particular section of people are upset about a certain
decision, then there is always the option of sitting across the table and
resolving the issue with the concerned authorities. A lack of forceful
vocalization of the ideas and demands should not be replaced by retaliation in
the form of stopping the services as such. Likewise, in a bandh there is an
artificial shortage created of all kinds of services and commodities. This
hampers the smooth functioning of life and spells big time problem for the
common man.
Miss B:
How do you make a wayward child listen to you? Certainly not by offering him
more candies! Similar is the situation where a person with powers greater than
the commoners; he has to be made to see their point or even hear out their
argument. The powerful here could be seen as the law and policy enforcing
authorities, the government. Many a times those in power do not see the ground
realities before issuing orders and then are not ready to listen to genuine
grievances caused by such orders. When the agitating side has no one to hear
them out, I guess they are left with only such strong measures to have their
voices falling on deaf ears. The feasibility of plans drawn up in plush
offices, without any idea about the real conditions, will without doubt be met
with such treatment.
Mr C:
I do not agree with my friend here. In event of a strike or a bandh, the common
man is the hardest hit, with the supply of essential commodities falling short.
There are cases like that of political parties calling nation-wide or
State-wide bandhs to protest against one party-related issue or the other. It
must be noted that all this is done, allegedly, on behalf of the people—people
who are hardly interested in upsetting their lives and letting a grim situation
crop up that could well take on communal colours and breed trouble. If a single
step can bring about so much of inconvenience and brew trouble, I do not
suppose that there is any element of desirability about it.
Miss D:
I hope that my friends will agree that the modus operandi of the politicians
and bureaucrats is something that can have people spinning for years together,
before they can have anything substantial coming out of it. I do not intend to
convey that this is always the case, but it is definitely many times when the
authorities want to have their way. Years and years of exploitation, a feeling
of powerlessness against this superstructure has left the people to devise
their own methods of having their voice heard and their demands heeded to. One
man’s voice is every easily drowned in the legal tangles and in the ‘smallness’
of his being, but when a mass as a whole protests, cutting out the economic
lifeline, it makes sure that the concerned authorities sit up and take notice
of the grievances and listen to the viewpoints. If such a mechanism of protest
were absent then it would only be those in power having their say all the time,
forcing decisions down the throats—irrespective of they being right or wrong.
Mr A:
One thing that clearly needs to be understood here is that strikes and bandhs
are becoming more or less like weapons with the unionised workers. And the
workers are taking resort to these weapons whenever something does not suit
their interest. I feel that even they have got to realize that they pay a heavy
price for agitating in such a manner. Such sections are not so economically
sound that they could bear to go without work for days together. Somewhere
along the course, they might have to give up, making the whole thing look like
a lost cause. Those who gain in such scenarios are only a handful of people—the
union leaders who cash in on such situations to make a name for themselves and
eventually start calling the shots as per their convenience and, of course, the
hoarders and the retailers who command an exorbitant price for the essential
commodities when the supplies are hit. The economic impact of such coercive
tactics is so large that sometimes it may prove to be counter productive. One
name that must be mentioned here is that of Datta Samant. During the time when
he was active as a union leader in Maharashtra, the production suffered so much
so that the industries left Maharashtra and set up base in neighbouring
Gujarat. Likewise, the situation created in West Bengal by the constant
protests, in which the workers resorted to such steps like gheraos, had the
industry doing a disappearing act from the State. I really don’t see any good
coming out of the entire scenario.
Miss B:
I am afraid I still do not agree with your point. The basic premise that
democratic structure is based on is that one has the complete right to express
one’s views and, in the absence of a proper forum, one can be created and the
grievances aired. I would like to reiterate what my friend has previously said
that it would be a long time before the people can even expect any positive
results. All they would be getting would be sheafs of papers filled with legal
and complicated clauses. Working out through this maze itself is quite a task
and they would have already lost the battle. For how long can you really keep a
man down who depends for life on his meagre earnings. How long can you have him
tied down with empty words? The common man isn’t so gullible any more. And, is
especially weary when anything threatens to reduce his little income to lesser.
How else can he prove the significance of his remote existence in the total
scheme of things, if not by organizing strikes and staging bandhs? In a
democracy one cannot be taken so much for granted.
Mr C:
Everything in this world functions smoothly because the principle of
co-existence applies to it. One must not forget that the harsh step will
definitely begot some harsh results, and let me make it very clear that the
benefit from all these antics accrues to a small section of opportunists who
claim to be doing this in the name of democracy and on behalf of the people. I,
however, see nothing democratic about the whole process. People are put to
great discomfort, the economic processes suffer, and production comes to a
standstill. How does it do any good to people who depend on their daily
earnings to feed themselves and their families? It only seems as an easy way
for a handful of people to shoot to prominence in a short span of time. There
is no sure way either, to ascertain the honesty and morality among this group
and also to make sure that none of them get sold out. After all, in any
situation where there is substantial power involved (even if it means carrying
out negotiations on behalf of a set of people), there is a good chance of the
lure of the lucre corrupting one’s self. And one must not forget that the
repercussions of the strikes and bandhs will not remain restricted to the
‘others’ only, but the earnings and the procurement of everyday necessities for
one and all is affected.
Miss D:
The commoner is certainly at sea when it comes to the ways of ensuring his
welfare. Neither does he have the money nor the power to bring about the
favourable changes. All he can do is consolidate into groups so that he can at
least rise to a position of challenging what he thinks is not right. The power
centres are known to be ruthless in their approach when it comes to dealing
with the commoners. Left with little else, mass protests like bandhs and
strikes are their only ways to express dissent. The flip-side is that there are
opportunists waiting to cash in on such occasions—politicos, union leaders
waiting to enter the corridors of power etc. The sifting out of this category
has to be made sure in order to have the suitable ends achieved.
Do Elections make a difference?
Mr A:
The present elections in India have been accompanied by a huge media campaign
that one must vote and participate in the political process. An urgency of
sorts was generated because of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Citizens turned
out to hold candle light marches amidst total disgust with our leaders. A
feeling was generated, at least in the media, that people should vote and elect
the leaders whom they liked. The question that was asked was: if people don’t
vote, do they have the right to protest against their leaders? Yet, voter
turnout has not been too inspiring. It would seem that people have gone back to
their lives and do not care about voting. From the point of view of majority of
voters, they don’t care two hoots for their leaders, perhaps because they know
that things will not change, whether or not they vote. That is the background
of this debate: do elections make a difference to people? Has the political
process left out the aspirations of the people?
Mr B:
I would say this is not the case. Elections do generate a lot of excitement in
the country. People are interested in the political process. Otherwise how do
you explain the great reversals in elections: the loss of Indira Gandhi despite
her huge popularity? Closer in time, who could have thought that the BJP would
be wiped out in the last elections despite being led by a stalwart like
Vajpayee? So it is wrong to say that elections do not make a difference. People
do see and analyse the policies of their government and are able to vote and seal
the fate of leaders who have let them down. This time also it will not be any
different. I would say that most people keep watching silently, at least the
majority. These people do not speak on television debates but have a strong
opinion of their own. If elections do not make a difference, how would you
explain the great electoral reversals that we have seen in the past?
Mr C:
I agree with your point of view, but if you go beyond electoral reversals, you
will see why there is voter apathy. Actually there is no choice before the
voter. Whether it is BJP, Congress or the Third Front, they all are the same.
Whether we choose one or the other, we know that there is no party in India
that can tackle the issues confronting the people of India: corruption, caste-based
reservations or affordable education and healthcare. Rather than talk about
these issues, every party is spewing forth poison against one community or the
other. Even the young leaders are no better, as was shown by the Varun Gandhi
episode. Parties are talking about the Kandahar episode or the demolition at
Ayodhya—unfortunately these are not issues that affect the people. The
electoral process in the country has fragmented the population in a way that
even the British could not. Can you blame the voter that he is apathetic? Vote
or not, he knows that he will have to pay a bribe to get things done from a
government office. So I would say that elections in India is a wasteful
exercise, because nothing changes for people.
Mr B:
The problem also is with the fact that we do not know whom to vote for. Since
no party is able to get the majority, the scramble for MPs starts after the
election. It is usually an ugly spectacle, with small parties offering
themselves to the highest bidder. The party that emerges with the majority does
not have voter mandate, so actually the vote of the people goes waste. For
example, in one of the earlier elections Mr Hegde was able to emerge as the
Prime Minister of the country, even though none of us knew his name before the elections.
In the last elections, the Congress was able to patch up a majority and pulled
out Manmohan Singh as the country’s leader, as if from a magician’s hat,
because he was seen as a humble and obsequious to the party president. He was
the non-controversial candidate who would not rock the boat by taking decisions
on his own, and the arrangement served the party well. The BJP had done the
same—it installed Vajpayee because he was the non-controversial, liberal face
of the party, but it did not change its colours and was defeated. So I would
say that the electoral system is flawed. We don’t know our leaders, we don’t
know who will be chosen by the parties when the voting is done, we don’t know
the policies that the government will make. So what’s the point of the
elections?
Mr D:
Elections are the backbone of our democracy. Even if the system is flawed, can
we say that elections do not make a difference? Look at the countries that do
not have elections: they are dictatorships or ruled by armies. Whatever the
flaws, I am glad that we are not in that category. We may not have a part to
play in selecting the Prime Minister, but we certainly have the power to throw
out leaders whom we do not like. That is quite a big thing. We are counted
today with great countries like USA, UK and France, because we are all
democracies. We have citizen and human rights, unlike people in China and
Russia. There is accountability of the elected leaders towards the electorate.
We cannot and should not wish it away. Despite all the flaws, elections do
serve a very important function.
Mr E:
I think none of us have any problems with the democratic system in our country.
A democratic system is definitely better than any other political system.
However, the problem is that the system has become so corrupted that voters are
turning away from it. You cannot subscribe to the argument that we deserve the
government that we get because we don’t vote. The point is that even if we
vote, we cannot remove criminals from politics, we cannot make the government
act when we are attacked, we cannot remove the policeman who demands a bribe
from us, we cannot even meet our Prime Minister and express our concerns
because of his heavy security. What kind of democracy is this?
Mr A:
I agree with you. Our leaders preach development but encourage people who beat
up girls wearing jeans or going to pubs. They play the caste and religion card.
So where is the choice? Whether we vote or not, these things are going to stay.
That is why we say that elections do not make a difference. Perhaps the answer
to this riddle is that the political system should be reformed. No big reforms
are needed, just implementation of existing laws. Parties fielding criminals
should be banned, parties asking for votes on caste or religion propaganda
should also likewise face penalties. Parties should also declare their leaders
before the elections and make their position clear in terms of patching up with
regional powers before the elections. Without such considerations, you cannot
blame the people of India from turning away from the electoral process.
Mr B:
The voter is quite helpless. All he can do is to hold candle-light marches. The
system remains exploitative. Instead of electing leaders who can represent us
in Parliament, we are forced to elect leaders who treat their term as an
opportunity to enjoy the privileges of power and to amass wealth. You can say
that we have the power to throw them out—and we do—but is that the purpose of
voting? Somewhere along the line we have forgotten that the purpose of
democracy is to elect leaders who can represent our concerns, instead we are
forced to vote for regressive people who come out with strange policies like
banning English, beating up people for wearing a dress they disapprove of, or
declaring that a particular city is for people of a certain State.
Mr C:
A lot of interesting points came up for discussion today. I think we all agreed
that there is apathy among the people and we also know that voting will not
change the exploitative system. So, while we are not against the democratic
process, all of us feel that if some basic laws are implemented, people will be
more willing to take part in the political process. The voice of the people has
been lost in the electoral din. It is time it is recovered, to save our
democracy. We want to be a vibrant, modern country, but our leaders are holding
us back by talking about caste, region and religion. If we can eliminate these
three non-issues from the political life and are able to get a leader who can
address the real issues of the people, I am sure that people will respond to
him. Unfortunately, for the past many years we have not had even one leader who
could rise above narrow electoral gains to address the issues affecting people.
That is why people feel that elections do not make a difference. I just hope
that some leader realizes this in the future and puts us on the path to growth,
as also above all narrow non-issues.
Ragging: A Criminal Act?
Ragging
was supposed to be harmless fun where students could mix and become friends
with their seniors at educational institutes. In India it has taken an ugly
face. Every year incidents are reported where students are beaten and killed by
their seniors, many young people commit suicide than face the humiliation of
ragging. And, for every case that is reported in the media, there are thousands
of cases of making students do unspeakable things in the name of ragging. We
question whether ragging should be treated like any other crime or whether it
serves a useful purpose.
Mr A:
The issue of ragging comes into limelight every academic year when some
students either commit suicide or are murdered in some college of higher
learning in India. Mostly government institutes are named in ragging excesses
cases. Our society has been unable to deal with the problem; apart from
condemning the incidents every year, the government has not done anything. The
present debate is whether ragging is another form of crime, but I feel that
everyone should not be painted with the same brush. It is good fun to interact
with new students and to make friends. If some people go overboard and commit
crimes, they should be dealt with according to the law. But to ban ragging or
to say that students who indulge in it are criminals, is going too far.
Mr B: You may be right but
facts do not match up to your statement that ragging is mere fun. Young
students have died. They have been stripped and made to do sexually degrading
acts. I fail to see how these humiliating acts will result in any kind of
friendship. On the contrary, young students may start disliking their studies.
There have been cases where students have run away from their institutes or
tried to kill themselves rather than spend days of being beaten or exploited.
Unfortunately, only the murders and suicides get the attention of the media. If
the daily humiliation was reported, we would realize the extent of this disease
that has crept into education institutes. The problem seems to be severe in
prestigious institutes like medical and engineering colleges, but even in other
cities and small towns every group of senior students seems to take delight in
the sadism they are able to inflict on helpless fresh students. Instead of
making learning fun, these students, who are nothing short of goondas, ruin
careers and lives. It is for this reason that we should be able to say that
enough is enough, and that ragging is nothing but criminalisation.
Mr C: You have a point
there. Ragging is not recognized as a crime, even though it has serious
consequences. So students who indulge in it know that they can roam around
scot-free despite committing the most heinous of crimes. Juniors suffer in
silence because they are beaten up if they complain. In the highly improbable
event of being caught, they are suspended for some time, or in the worst case,
they might be expelled. So they go somewhere else and finish their education.
These criminals go about their lives without any fear of punishment. Is it a
surprise that our society is becoming more and more violent? When people fight
on the streets, or when they beat up their families, or when policemen beat up
suspects mercilessly, it is just because they were not punished for doing
similar things in college. Our society is paying the price of letting people
with sadist tendencies to go scot-free. I would say it is high time we put a
stop to this. Ragging should be equated with crime.
Mr D:
Friends, you seem to forget that not all ragging is bad. In most cases we just
have fun. People open out and become confident. They are not scared of anything
anymore. I would say that ragging should not be banned, since it helps in many
ways. As seniors we see a lot of fresh students and there is no way of getting
to know them. In many colleges where there is no ragging, students go about
their studies and pass their three or four years without getting to know their
seniors or their juniors. Through ragging we can make a lot of friends; at least
we know who is doing what.
Mr E: I am afraid that these
are myths that are propagated to continue an evil practice of ragging. No one
makes friends by being subjected to sexual torture, or by being beaten up.
Also, do not expect anything from the Supreme Court or the government, apart
from strong statements. Ultimately the responsibility lies on the institute,
and unfortunately, heads of institutes are busy protecting their own turf than
bother about hostels. They have no idea what is going on in their own
institutes. Even after a murder, the institute first tries to cover up, then
denies responsibility. We have seen this happen wherever cases have been
reported. As for the Supreme Court, how will it ensure that its directives are
being heard in the states? Please remember that only extreme cases reach the
Court’s notice. Can it ensure speedy justice for murders and sexual crimes
before the senior students are released on bail and the case forgotten? I think
these crimes require exemplary punishment but it is doubtful that the courts
will ever do that. So, young people will continue to suffer the indignities of
going to college.
Mr A:
The problem exists, no doubt, and some demented students have given a bad name
to ragging. Beating up students or making them do degrading acts are certainly
reprehensible, but let us not ban ragging altogether. More control is needed at
the college level. Unfortunately, the teachers and the institute heads have
failed to fulfil their duties. If only they are made accountable, such things
might cease. So the idea is to control such incidents and I would say ragging
should not be banned completely. Let the students indulge in their harmless
fun. What is wrong with that?
Mr B: Ragging is not
harmless fun anymore. Let’s not deluge ourselves with this kind of logic. It is
the most harmful, the most devious form of criminality. When we gloss over
these things, we are actually encouraging the criminalisation and brutalisation
of society. This has to stop. Even a small ragging incident should be made
punishable, in order to send a message to students that this is not OK. If you
look at the report of the incident at Rajindra Prasad Medical College, you will
see that these colleges are torture chambers. There is high degree of sadism involved.
Yet, neither the colleges nor the government has done anything. The Supreme
Court must take it upon itself to make ragging a non-bailable offence. We need
to go further: students caught doing ragging of juniors should be debarred from
further studies and sent to do social service.
Mr C: You have a point
there. I think that in the long term interests of society, we have to award
very strict punishment. Ragging arises because senior students are frustrated
and they vent their frustrations on junior students. When they finish their
education, they perpetuate the same system that causes frustration among young
people. The brutal policeman, the bribe-seeking teacher, the corrupt
bureaucrat, the husband who beats his wife, the father who demands sexual favours
from his daughter—these are all manifestations of ragging behaviour. This
vicious circle has to be broken somewhere and it should be broken at the
college level. Let us send out a clear message that bullying the weak is not
acceptable in our society.
Mr D: Friends, we are all
agreed that ragging is a menace that has to be stopped. Some students felt that
not all ragging is bad, but since it has taken a very ugly face, especially in
government institutes, it is high time that we did something about it. When I
read accounts of ragging on the Internet, I feel sad at the uncontrolled sadism
that takes place in hostels. Students have written that they preferred to sleep
outside on the drain-pipes rather than go back to their hostels; some students
have written that ragging left them hating their studies. There are some
instances of people dropping out of college rather than face the humiliation of
ragging. We cannot just say that these are just fun things. The Supreme Court
has done well in its strict directions about ragging. It should be backed by
severe government action as well.
Reality TV Show For
Children—Pushing it too far?
Mr A:
I completely agree with the point of view that the reality shows that have
children as participants are not doing them much of good. It is that age when
the children should be playing and enjoying their time, rather than fretting
about not having practised hard enough or dealing with pressure of expectation.
It is a small part of life, a bright and innocent patch that each one remembers
when it comes to recalling happy memories. What would it be like to have none
such in the cache? It is quite unfortunate that a number of shows have been put
together to boost the ratings of the channels. The prize money runs into big
amounts and the drama runs to incredible limits as well. What the grown ups who
advocate the presence of reality shows as a platform for talent do not
understand is that big money spells big costs and it can take a real toll on
the participants. I do not really understand what people would be deprived of
if they did not get to see children perform on the television. They should
instead be encouraged to blossom and dedicate time to whatever activity they
would gladly want to pursue. Once they enter into the world of grown ups, the
pressures and strains of life will as it is catch up with them, so how much
sense does it make to tire them at the very beginning?
Miss B: I think that it is
just a singular incident that is causing the whole issue to be blown out of
proportion. These are better times than the days of yore where one had a very
miniscule chance of being noticed unless one had exceptional talent and the
understanding to make it big. Now, it all comes in a very simplified form and
you simply have to make a choice. There are multiple shows that provide forum
for individuals with talent in a wide variety of fields. What is wrong in
identifying talent and promoting it? I think that the critics are unable to see
the ease with which individuals can showcase their skills. How else do you find
out latent ability and groom it? Definitely not after waiting till children are
25 or 30 years of age! It takes very little to let the diatribe loose on
anything new, but what I would definitely like to point out is that talent
needs identification and honing from the earlier stages. Many of the people
today, who have outshone others in their field have been encouraged from their
younger years. True, we did not have reality shows then, but still these uncut
diamonds had to be found, cut and polished to dazzle the world.
Mr C:
Imagine this—little girls having parlour appointments, little boys rehearsing
tirelessly to songs they probably do not even understand, babies having
portfolios shot…does it carry the whiff of normalcy about it? I think not.
Reality shows centred on children are making a huge negative dent. Talent
scouting is not just about a day’s competition when several children perform
individually or in teams and the achievers are announced. This is very
different. It is about long periods of rehearsals, multiple shootings, enacting
scripted dramas, usually unhealthy interpersonal rivalry, harsh remarks from
judges that evoke strong sentiments in audience and keeps them glued. Why would
anyone want his or her child to go through this grind? I think children should
compete, but a competition that has been twisted out of proportion to make for
interesting and arresting viewing should be shunned altogether. I also
subscribe to the view that talent needs to be nurtured, but not at the cost of
losing childhood.
Miss D:
I think that such a view is extremely self-limiting and does not represent the
complete truth. I believe that there is nothing so drastically wrong with the
reality shows so as to shun them altogether. One can dig out many psychology
theories and say this is right and that is wrong. But one should take a look at
the complete picture before rubbishing any singular idea or aspect. Where does
competitiveness for children not exist? It is everywhere. It is among friends,
classmates, peers and even siblings. There is a lot of hue and cry about kids
being pushed around for fame and money. What should be done about kids being
pushed around to three to four tuitions a day or to multiple skill acquisition
classes. What for? Can one go and start
condemning everything. A remark from a teacher or a parent can have an equally,
if not more devastating effect on the child’s psyche. I think that it is unfair
to pick at reality shows. After all no one is forced to participate.
Mr A:
I still think that the reality shows are not good for the children. They are
only fuelling the hunger and the greed in parents. Children may not be able to
make economic sense of the entire exercise; they are merely happy with the
praise. It is often the case that parents want to live out their unfulfilled
desires through their children, or rake in the fame and money as well. It is
not important to know whether the child is aware of what this participation
entails? Is he or she physically and mentally prepared to take it on? The parents are desperate to give the world a
prodigy, a star, the cutest baby, the smartest model, the whiz kid, the singer,
musician and what not… And in this process are willing to subject the young
mind to evaluation by someone who may or may not be able to do justice.
Miss B: Well, as they say you
cannot have the cake and eat it too. There is a price for fame and for standing
out among many. If there is a desire in an individual to outshine the others he
or she will have to find a forum and display the talent. It is all a matter of
choice. One can choose to stay away from the arc lights and lead a nice, normal
and ordinary life. Or one can take a plunge and risk it to achieve fame or
money or both. I feel that the children only become more competitive and come
out of their shell by participating in such shows. ‘Survival of the fittest’
holds good for every aspect of life. Even if a small milestone is achieved by
this route, the child will get a huge pointer to future. Otherwise too, the
interactions and the experiences only add up in one way or the other. As far as
the harsh criticism is concerned, it is for the choice makers—most likely the
parents in this case, to arm the kids with a positive attitude and with the
knowledge of what can be expected. Competitiveness is in fact the exact tool
that educates one on how to leave behind mediocrity. I think that reality shows
are alright in their place.
Mr C:
I am yet to get convinced about the relevance of these shows. There is much
more to the show than just TRPs and desire for fame. Hunger for fame, money,
recognition, applause, praise is all very human. It cannot be condoned and one
adopting a high moral ground with reference to these has to be extremely
saintly. There is nothing wrong with participating in talent hunts. What
bothers me is the drama that comes as a package of these shows. There will be
several episodes and several rounds of performances or display. It is
understood that there can be only one winner at the end of it all. Apart from
the winner, who basks in the glory, there are several others who are
criticised, rebuked and ridiculed as well in front of others and a nationwide
audience. And now that channels are available to audiences abroad, it becomes a
case of worldwide humiliation. And for what—what are the parameters of
judgement, what are the benchmarks or standards. Judgements are, however,
notional and nonetheless are given. Children, when they participate can give
all but simplicity of effort. And if ridicule or rebuke is what they get as a
performance appraisal, it can be devastating for their self-confidence. I think
that in case of children, letting a child participate in a reality TV show is a
sure way to scar a child for life.
Miss D:
I do believe that some things at the reality shows are a violation of the
rights of children. It is only proper that the parents as the deciding authorities
should make intelligent choices and refrain from sending their children to
shows that require torturously long working hours, including recordings and
other constant rehearsals for various promotional programmes for which private
channels get a lot of mileage. The environment in which the children would be
working for so long is equally important too. A proper guideline for operations
and ethical behaviour of the shows needs to be charted out. High drama
involving sentiments of children should be made liable for jurisdiction before
a court of law. Public performances seem to cast an everlasting impression on
the minds of the participating kids, and no matter whether they win or lose, it
affects them significantly. Forums for showcasing talent are appreciable and
required as well, but they should strive to maintain the dignity attached to
art of any genre.
Brick or Click—E Learning or
Traditional Education
Miss A:
I think that online education is a far better option because it allows far more
freedom and flexibility. Online courses give the same opportunity to learn as
on-campus courses, but they stand at an advantage as they offer more
flexibility. One does not have to be in a particular place at a certain time in
order to participate. When one opts for an online or “web-based” course, it is
as good as enrolling for a regular course, or for a still better one as the
exposure to a larger number of resources is ensured. From this starting point,
there is a step by step easy process that acquaints one with stages of the
course, learning activities, resources, discussions with the teacher and course
mates etc. It may not be the same as a regular discussion, as teleconferencing
is the medium, but you do get to exchange ideas and opinions. And, although
many online courses are “web-based”, many come supplemented by course manuals,
video tapes or CDs. It is no different from the regular education and
assignments have to be submitted on time but you have the luxury of studying at
your pace.
Mr B:
In my opinion, the traditional classroom teaching cannot be replaced as it
combines a lot many elements other than the lesson content. The interactions
that can ensue in a traditional classroom cannot be replicated in the virtual
world. It is this one to one exchange that better aids the learning. A
classroom creates a distinct atmosphere where education acquires an air of
seriousness and where new thought is stimulated to yield much more mental
output than what the lesson aims at. While the traditional way of learning may
bind the student by the specifics of time, location and qualification, it is
much better in terms of the result it yields. After all, there is no point of
education if actual learning is not achieved. And what does one do in cases
where hands-on training is required? Medicine and other physical sciences
cannot be taught through the computer/Web-based learning.
Miss C: I think that the
resistance to online education should fade away as it has come to stay. The
ways of conducting business and work is beginning to get dictated by technology
and the sooner we accept and get comfortable with this change, the better it
will be. E-learning is definitely a better option vis-Ã -vis traditional
learning and has become a widely used tool for teaching and training
individuals in both academic and corporate settings. It is a convenient and
inexpensive way to gain knowledge and information. The interesting part and a
great advantage that comes with online education is that it facilitates an
opportunity for continuing education for the individuals who are employed or
for some reason cannot enrol for/attend regular lectures. Additionally, many
students are able to complete their educations because they can study as and
when they have the time to do so.
Mr D:
I agree that the benefits of online education in terms of benefiting the people
short of time and those affected by distance constraints are many, but in my
opinion we still cannot do away with the traditional education delivery system.
This holds especially true in case of school education as the assistance
provided by the teacher in the younger years cannot be replicated by the cold
electronic medium. Whenever starting with any subject/line of education that is
entirely new to the pupils, the teacher plays a vital role in establishing a
basic level of comfort and priming that may not be possible otherwise. In a
traditional classroom setting, the teacher is able to gauge the sensibilities
as well as apprehensions of the pupils and address the issues apart from those
related to the syllabus. The teacher can continually monitor students for cues
about their level of comprehension, probe their understanding, and respond to
difficulties. The teacher can hold the students in an endless variety of
individualized and cooperative learning activities, as also attend to student
motivation and generate enthusiasm.
Miss A: In my opinion, the
line of reasoning extended by our friend may hold true for children who need to
be guided at every step, but I think that the new education delivery system or
omputer/Web-based learning is a much better option for higher studies. A major
roadblock that hits the traditional system is that there are only a limited
number of students that a brick and mortar classroom can accommodate. However,
the case is different with a virtual classroom—anyone with genuine interest and
requisite qualification can apply and chances of larger number of students with
no variation in quality of teaching can be accepted. Students/learners can
study at their own pace and receive direct, immediate, and individual specific
feedback. The content that is being provided can be reviewed as needed. This
saves the time and energy that the student puts into making notes and
collecting relevant material. I see another advantage with the new method and
that is the anonymity. The students can muster up more courage, try innovations
and risk being wrong, which would be subdued in a traditional environment as
bumbling would subject such attempts to jeering and mocking. The classroom setting can also hinder one’s
ability to learn by allowing more vocal
students to dominate the bulk of the discussion environments. Quieter
personalities are limited in their communication options for exchanging ideas
and information.
Mr B:
That is precisely my point. Classroom study to my mind is really essential as
it does not merely make an individual learn/understand syllabus, but it imparts
skills-sets that are essential while dealing with sundry situations and people
as well. The shy ones, as our friend here stated, will have to come out of
their shell. They have to realise that gain can be made only if you take a
risk. Classroom learning promotes two levels of socialisation: among students
via group discussion, team projects, peer evaluation, etc.; and between
students and professionals via guest lectures, field trips etc. There is no
dearth of studies showing how people are becoming reclusive and instances of
maladjustments are on the increase. Hiding behind the screen may be an easy
option, but it deprives an individual of many lessons of life. If one cannot
walk in step, balancing out life alongside, that education is highly unlikely
to serve any purpose.
Miss C: As I see it, I am all
for the e-learning vis-Ã -vis traditional learning. I feel that in the absence
of a teacher, one is able to trigger independent thinking and is able to see
the content in a fresh perspective. In an actual classroom, the student’s
faculties are overpowered by the teacher’s perspective and that comes out to be
the final word. There are also modules in which the instructor communicates
with the students real time, but that has to still become popular as
computer/Web-based instruction is faced by problems of connectivity and
bandwidth in India. However, the idea of online learning, which incorporates
tools like video conferencing, audio streaming and chatting, is fast gaining
currency among the student community for its flexible structure which allows
them to access lessons and take tests from anywhere in the world. Another
amazing facet is that e-learning can be delivered at one-third the cost of
traditional learning in a sustainable manner. With careful service, the quality
can well exceed almost any form of learning.
Mr D: The discussion is a
huge pointer to the change that is rapidly setting in. It will be hardly any
time before technology determines the method of education delivery. But the
truth of the matter is that there are advantages and disadvantages to every
type of learning environment. There are
tremendous benefits of the traditional classroom learning that cannot be ruled
out, no matter how advanced the technology becomes. And then there is the
revolution called e-learning that has already changed the face of education. It
is best to use the advantages that each method offers to their fullest extent.
It may be of relevance to note here that a basic comfort, understanding and
discipline that can be imparted well through the traditional method is required
to go into a child before he/she grows up to choose and go about in self-study
mode. There is also the need for high level of sensitivity required to design
the curriculum and assess the work, keeping in consideration the medium. In
conclusion, the interest and motivation of the student will be one big
determinant in success of the method of education delivery.
Celebrity Endorsements: Right or
Wrong?
While
roping in a celebrity may or may not work out for a company there are no two
ways about the charisma of these individuals and their ability to get hold of
the audience’s attention. A
well-formulated strategy could catapult the fortunes of a company or, in
another scenario, it could well prove to be a costly mistake. However, now that doubts are being raised and
studies proving the harmful effects of certain products, the big question
arising here is that whether celebrities should be endorsing products and
services at all?
Miss A
In my opinion there is nothing wrong about celebrity endorsements. It is simply a marketing strategy to increase
sales that cannot be denied to any company.
There are no regulations against this and it can hardly be perceived as
a dangerous activity. People are free to
make use of endorsements and it is a very easy way for the stars to make more
money. And that’s not all, featuring in
an advertisement today is not just about money.
It is a barometer of one’s popularity and fame. A good example in this would be that of Bill
Gates who went on to endorse a brand of golf clubs in the nineties. Now what possibly could the world’s richest
man desire out of endorsing a certain product.
It could only mean that he has liked the quality and performance given
by that particular brand. Not allowing
endorsements by stars is such an undemocratic thing to do and it sure is
unlikely to go down well with anybody.
Going by the logic that it can start a wrong trend, there is so much of wrong/unhealthy/inappropriate
stuff already going on, why single out this one issue.
Mr B
Well, I would like to believe that each and every individual is larger than the
single role played by him/her in the capacity of a celebrity. Therefore, the responsibility as a concerned
citizen should be greater. This calls
for a more active role and a greater level of awareness too. It has been outlined that the persona of a
star carries tremendous power and can be harnessed to send out a message with
above average effectiveness. There is
nothing wrong with celebrities endorsing products and services per se. What
really calls attention is the fact that manufactures / providers of sundry
products and services may not be true to their word and could possibly be indulging
in some malpractices or providing a substandard product. Not only can this sully the image of the
celebrity in question, it is akin the duping the consumers too.
Miss C
To endorse or not would be an extremely discomforting position. Endorsements work well when the star is able
to infuse confidence into it. And that
can come only after using a certain product or subscribing to a certain
service. Ethically, endorsements done
simply for the sake of money are as condemnable as dishonesty itself. One is at great fault, when the attempt is
simply to pass off something to the consumer without ascertaining whether it is
right or not. It took the government
such a long time to put a stop on the advertisements selling gutkhas and
liquor. And this after knowing fully
well what havoc these things can wreck upon users. Nonetheless, surrogate advertising continues
and brand recall is still maintained for consumers. Celebrities continue to feature in pan masala
ads too. The right approach would be to
figure out whether a product has positive value for the public or is rather a
bane. There should be no problem with
endorsements by celebrities; it is the products and services that should be
scanned well enough with regard to their contribution to quality of public
life. If products have the potential of
being nuisance, celebrities should keep away from them.
Mr D
The marketing and advertising people in India are well aware of the people’s
obsession with cricket and movies. The
stars of the two are the real heroes of the Indian public. However, one must not forget the current
trend. What is going on these days is a
short-term romance of the people with few celebrities whose time has come. These are individuals who have caught fancy
of the nation temporarily. When they hit
the crest, one can see them endorsing everything—from toothpaste to engine oils
to food products. What is more, they can
clearly portray the whys and wherefores of these endorsements. Since the stars are likely to have an
extremely short shelf life, the idea is to make as much money while the sun
shines. If a star exploits his/her
charisma, indiscriminately, it can cause much damage. It is an act devoid of thoughtfulness and
concern for welfare of people. If
endorsements are done without liking into the finer details of the products or
services, the people will only feel cheated.
I think one should lend one’s name but only after checking the details
carefully. And if the case is as with
the stars of the moments, then the consumer should be extra careful too.
Miss A
I think it is absolutely all right for stars to endorse products and
services. The people are well aware and
cannot be fooled easily into buying something.
Just because Shahrukh Khan is someone’s favourite actor does not mean
that he or she is going to buy the oil or shampoo, soap, fridge, TV etc. he
endorses. These decisions are based on a host of other factors besides the
stars’ recommendations. The person has to take care of issues like how much
money he can spare for that particular item, his requirement, the choice of
other people in his family and the storage or space available in the house. In
case of soft drinks the factor that makes them popular is not the star appeal
but the taste. People like the taste of
the aerated drinks, their ability to soothe quickly during the hot summer
months and, lastly, because of their easy availability across the length and
breadth of the country. If, in truth, endorsements could whip up that kind of
magic, people would end up buying almost everything because there are so many
celebrities endorsing all kinds of products. There are many people who have
expressed futility of remarks against celebrity endorsements. After all it is
an art—how to use a celebrity power during a few seconds that the commercial
lasts. Most people are simply overawed by the stars’ presence and do not even
remember what the product was unless the connection has been established
properly.
Mr B
Well, everyone seems to be focusing everywhere but on the segment of audience
which is growing the fastest—children. I think that film stars have the
greatest fan following among children. And it is this category that takes its
idols seriously. Therefore, when an actor or an actress endorses soft drinks
that are harmful and seriously can cause depletion of elements like calcium, it
is indeed a deplorable matter. Detractors may argue that next in line would be
fast food like French fries, pizzas, etc… but one has to start somewhere.
Children are affected greatly by such persuasion. They may not be participating
in taking major decisions at home, like buying of durables, but they can
certainly cajole their parents into buying food stuff of their choice. Soft
drinks, sugary juices, junk food laden with high fat content haven’t really got
much going against them, at least as of now. Since they are at a greater risk
due to such persuasive selling, a line needs to be drawn here. Also, what needs
to be noted is that if stars refuse to endorse products with a dubious value
for public welfare then it is going to act in their favour only. Their positive
image is likely to register up scaling, as socially responsible and mature
individuals who are not driven simply by monetary concerns. The goodwill
generated by this effort would be far greater than the crores made by them
through endorsements.
Miss C
This angle does make it an issue worth considering since the ramifications for
children are only too clear. However, due to the heightened passions in the
argument, it must not be forgotten that the children do not and cannot act on
their own. Parents must assume a more firm and responsible role when it comes
to such matters. They know better what to choose when it is child’s health
versus momentary happiness. And it is
not as if healthy options are not available. It is the older members of the
family who have to teach the children discerning right from wrong and how they
would tend to gain in the longer run. Even by this logic one cannot actually
stop the celebrities from endorsing the products. In fact, sometimes this
itself may work as a deterrent. Stars may be liked by some and disliked by
others. In case the latter are greater in number, they might cause the
popularity as well as sales of a certain commodity to plummet down. The reason
why companies rope in mega-stars and pay them incredible sums is because
markets are flooded with numerous similar products. Endorsements add an element
of superiority, credibility and exclusivity to them.
Mr D
Notwithstanding the several arguments, the truth remains that it is every
advertiser’s dream to have the rising sun vouches for his or her offering to
the markets. There is hardly any doubt about celebrities saying no to
endorsements. There’s money in it, there is fame and there is the reach into every
home. It may be true that people do not buy an item because their favourite
star/idol says so. The companies still use their power for their presence.
These people are certainly the show-stoppers and have it in them to get public
to stop awhile and pay attention.
In today’s times, with minuscule attention
spans, and multiple media hankering for that look, a mega-star’s voice or
glamorous look is sure to get the attention.
Privatisation of Education
The public choice strategy proposes that functions that are not
being carried out properly/efficiently or have received a lackadaisical
approach towards them must be delegated to the private sector. The world has
been seeing a wave of privatization sweep across many spheres. It is sometimes
not only essential but also the only choice that remains when breaking the
monopoly of the government is concerned, especially in infrastructure. The
impact of privatization on education could not be contained either, as it
seemed to help a cause and diversify choice of resources available. At the
school-level, privatization has become a very normal phenomenon.
Even though privatization is a necessity, it does not come without
drawbacks. The process involves private sector in the ownership or operation of
a State-owned enterprise. In reality, the ideals that are upheld by the State
in its enterprises has been overtaken by the underlying mantras of business
enterprise— profits and more profits. It becomes necessary at this stage to
understand that when the Constitution has laid down free and compulsory
education for children until they complete 14 years of age, why is the State
not able to meet its responsibility. And subsequently, even if it does involve
the private sector to reach its goals, why is it unable to hold the ideas of
social equity and service to the deprived sections! Is privatization of
education really going to help or is it just another up-scale factory turning
up nose on the natives?
Miss A At the time of independence, Nehru’s vision to make India a
socialist country placed immense responsibility on the shoulders of the State
to establish and oversee the expansion of educational institutions. The highly
ambitious goals of literacy achievement have been shouldered by the State-run
schools so far. In the rural pockets, the elementary schools are State-aided
and so are the majority of schools in the urban areas. In the present times,
the presence of private enterprise is being felt much in the area of
school-level education concentrated in the urban areas only. Even at the
colleges and the university levels, the State’s contributions loom large over
the country’s education scenario. Now the time has come when India’s burgeoning
population demands more resource allocation and larger infrastructure to combat
illiteracy and promote education. With the paucity of funds being an almost
permanent feature of the departments of State, privatization has to be resorted
to on a larger scale if the targets are to be met. In this scenario, the unrealistic
burden that has been cast upon the State can be effectively met, too.
Mr B There are many myths about the private enterprise in education
and how it can aid the government’s efforts in scaling down illiteracy and
building up a veritable force of educated human beings. It must be realised at
the very outset that the motives of the two organisations are at cross-purposes
and one cannot substitute for the other. It has been seen a lot many times that
corporate/religious bodies take up the onus of contributing to the field of
education. There is a great exhibition of the philanthropic spirit in the
beginning, but it soon fizzles out. In reality, these are the image-building
exercises of these trusts, which transform into commercial activities guided by
motives of profit-making and diversifying operations to garner more resources.
In this arena also exists the misnomer of ‘public schools’, which are
completely run by private bodies or trusts. These schools have English as the
medium of imparting education and are churning out children from the upper
class exclusively, while the lesser mortals continue to go to the State-aided
schools.
Miss C The quantum of knowledge available to the world has increased
rapidly in the past few decades and that itself is a pointer to the fact that
knowledge is power. It is of utmost importance that the developing and the
underdeveloped must focus on the education for keeping the knowledge gap
between themselves and the developed nations to the minimum extent possible. Even
the World Bank has corroborated the view, stating that the knowledge explosion
is fast dividing the world into fast moving rich economies and the slow moving
poor ones. Now, that this is the true state of affairs, education is no longer
considered a part of social service. It is a necessary area that needs careful
investment that will be a greatly contributing factor to the human resource
development. The value of human capital has dawned upon the world and it is
much more important to invest in human being than to invest in assets of any
other sort. There can be no doubts about the required contributions of the
private sector in the enhancement of the education, as they are sure to benefit
from such a move. Technological developments across the country have fostered a
need for skilled and knowledgeable manpower. Without adequate infrastructure we
will not be able to meet up the challenges, therefore the intervention of the
private sector is required.
Mr D It is true that we need a large and competent infrastructure to
meet the demands of the new times and that the current system will need a great
revamp. However, calling for the contribution of the private sector in a field
like education can have serious ramifications. One has to consider several
aspects here. When the State undertakes the onus of educating the masses, a
certain non-partisan character of education can be guaranteed. But when the
management is in the hands of people who are private entities, they could have
agendas for fulfilment through education, ranging from generation of profits to
promotion of an ideology, to mould the children’s characters in tune with
certain specific values, to mention a few. In that the government think tanks
have to get rolling and churn out ways and means to ensure the meeting up of
requirements and standards in the field of education. It is certainly one area
that cannot be left in the hands of private individuals. It is quite evident
from the public school experience that the children who come out of those systems
have little powers to empathize with anyone else but those of their own social
class and ethos. However, when the idea is to reduce gaps and foster
social equity, one cannot rely on this option.
Miss A There is not one but many maladies that ail the system of governance in our country. And to think that it is easy to circumvent or surmount those issues to reach the goal of equitable education and opportunities in the same field is like burying one’s head in sand, like an ostrich. The government resources are on a real low as compared to the needs of the people. It is not an inherent lack but it so happens that the funds allocated happen to disappear on their way to the projects. It is not really possible to replace the people handling the affairs in one go. In such a scenario, privatization can relieve the system of the enormous responsibility that is important and yet not fulfilled. It can easily make up for the lack of funds, sincerity and political will that effects the public sector. Privatization of education can be relied upon for overcoming structural and operational rigidities and promote the effective and efficient steps towards the implementation of education projects necessary for development of the human capital. According to W.W. Rostow, the world is going through the fourth Industrial Revolution and it needs true professionals to fit the slots created for employment.
Miss A There is not one but many maladies that ail the system of governance in our country. And to think that it is easy to circumvent or surmount those issues to reach the goal of equitable education and opportunities in the same field is like burying one’s head in sand, like an ostrich. The government resources are on a real low as compared to the needs of the people. It is not an inherent lack but it so happens that the funds allocated happen to disappear on their way to the projects. It is not really possible to replace the people handling the affairs in one go. In such a scenario, privatization can relieve the system of the enormous responsibility that is important and yet not fulfilled. It can easily make up for the lack of funds, sincerity and political will that effects the public sector. Privatization of education can be relied upon for overcoming structural and operational rigidities and promote the effective and efficient steps towards the implementation of education projects necessary for development of the human capital. According to W.W. Rostow, the world is going through the fourth Industrial Revolution and it needs true professionals to fit the slots created for employment.
Mr B Against the backdrop of speck and span environments and
efficiently run organisations, are the other realities that need an equal
mention. The new breed of entrepreneurs—the educational entrepreneurs—take full
advantage of the situation and capitalize on the need for good education. Land
allotment is done on a nominal cost and slowly as the structure begins to take
shape, students are charged with building fee, development fee, maintenance fee
and sundry other charges. These unaided schools, although they charge huge sums
from the students, come to be sweatshops for the teachers. The country has a
high level of unemployment, which helps these institutions hire well-qualified
individuals at low salaries. The teacher’s work under a system of rigid rules
and regulations, where innovation in teaching is not appreciated; they only
have to tread the beaten path. The management has the prerogative of hiring or
firing a person any time and this is what keeps the teachers on their toes. The
State-run schools, however, have much attractive packages for their employees.
Miss C One has to look at the gains in terms of the output vis-Ã -vis the
inputs given. The case with the public sector education has been that it has
failed to regenerate constructive resources from the recipients of education.
Over the years, time and again, as the State has been identified responsible
for the provision of education to the masses, services have been sought from
it, however, considering all that comes free in this deal and the number of
subsidies that are given, education has come to be a social service activity.
People do not place the premium on it as is required. It is just the same
phenomenon that happens to all things—they are not valued when they come free
of cost. On the other hand, if education is privatized, and the institutions
charge a full fee at all times, the student is likely to value it, the parents
will take care that every penny worth is extricated and that efficiency and
effectiveness in service is maintained. It will stop the process of devaluing
of education.
Mr D The position of our country, on the ladder of development, demands
that great strides be made in the direction of building up the human resource
base. It is imperative and a need of the times that education is necessarily
provided to the people. The definition of literacy itself needs a revamp,
because simply learning to read and write does not bestow powers of discernment
on an individual. It has often been recognised by the experts that skill
imparting and development of areas where the aptitude of the learner lies, are
prerequisites of good education. The economic base of the country cannot
support demands of the country, but there is nothing impossible if there is
willingness and the great Indian ingenuity is put to use. The role of private
sector has proved to be greatly facilitating in diverse fields, but the need
for a guarded approach cannot be ruled out in areas like education. Relevant
legislations can be worked out to ensure that privatization does not degenerate
into commercialization. An under-standing between government and the private
sector can work miracles—universities can start up R & D activities funded
by the corporates. In so far as professional courses are concerned, the issue
of capitation fees must be taken seriously and here is where State intervention
is required.
Environmental Damage—Price of Progress?
Miss A There are always two sides to a coin and as they say one man’s
meat is another man’s poison. I think that progress is achievable and one can
minimise the environmental damage if not completely avoid it. Man has come so
far from being just a survivor. Every technology takes some time before it can
be implemented. There can be additional studies that can be commissioned to
make it eco-friendly or to start with efforts that off-set the negative
effects. If there is knowledge that a factory will manufacture some path
breaking product, and there will be affluent or waste water, a water treatment
plant started alongside will ensure that the ecosystem and environment is saved
the pollution that would have been caused otherwise. It requires only some
additional resources to fix such a solution, and it more than pays off in the
long run. Resistance to a concept arises from lack of knowledge or partial
knowledge. If the entrepreneurs are conscientious and the laws of the land are
favourable to environment conservation, it is possible to move forward without
damaging the environment.
Mr B Well, there are a lot of concepts and solutions that look
very good on paper but the ground realities are very complex. All the things
that human beings have designed and devised for comfort have some kind of
repercussion for the environment. Most of them require some kind of energy to
manufacture, operate, maintain and disposing off is very difficult too. The
energies that are in use for most part are polluting and renewable energy forms
a miniscule part of what is used on a significant scale. Nature’s bosom is more
often than not ripped apart and later it is choked with the refuse of human
actions that are carried out in the name of progress. Something that is
designed to fulfil a small purpose is sometimes taken far, and then the
resources are overstretched, making it a damaging exercise.
Miss C I am of the firm belief that nature gives human beings enough
clues to understand its workings. I think it is possible to achieve progress
without damaging the environment. For instance, we know that there are
renewable sources of energy and which energy sources are lesser polluting.
Already there are people who are designing houses that do not require air
conditioning even in extreme summer. They have understood and modified their
knowledge of architecture in keeping with natural principles, using material to
optimum levels. There are people who are trying to ensure that dependence on
modern conveniences does not become absolute. I feel that if there is
sensitivity to the cause, there can be progress achieved literally in its true
meaning. I think that there is a need to reinforce the value of what we have,
why we need to preserve it and how it can be done. Once people see nature as the
sustaining life force, they will not try to eat away into it but strengthen it.
And it is something that we owe to the generations to come.
Mr D I still think that progress will bring environmental damage in its
wake and this goes without a doubt. Energy from coal, oil, gas, falling water
and nuclear is now doing most of the work. This extraordinary increase in the
use of extraneous energy has changed the face of the earth; it has expanded the
dependence on the earth’s resources to unprecedented levels, and it has
increased the pollution of the earth proportionally. It has made it possible
for more people to live longer lives but this, in turn, requires more resources
resulting in more damage to the environment than ever before. Standing in the
way are factors like lack of communication, human inertia and hostility. It is
true that cost-effective ways have to be devised, and in cases where they have been
devised, there is yet a need to find people for implementing them. There are
lobbies that have their short-term interests on the mind and will not allow any
kind of change that works contrary to their interests. Countries that are
underdeveloped or are developing may find it very strenuous financially to
adopt newer technologies which come at a price.
Miss A Well, I think that we have our priorities all wrong. We seem to
pay attention to elections, wars, crimes but not to the issue that deserves our
attention. Because it is one area where conscientious action from each
individual can make a huge dent in the way things are. We need to attribute
true value to natural resources as they deserve. It is as if it has been taken
for granted that these resources will remain. But now alternatives need to be
found. Climate change can be seen as writing on the wall. The coal fired power
plants, petrochemical industry, automobile industry, pulp and paper industry,
textiles industry have all added to the overall well being of mankind. However,
in an effort to compete in the race with industrialized countries, attention
was not paid to the side effects of these industries which are detrimental to
the environment. Industrialized nations became aware of these environmental
concerns in early stages of their development. However, developing countries
like India overlooked the damaging aspects of these industries. In the last
10-15 years, many scientists and NGOs have raised awareness about the damages
that industrialization has caused to our environment and from time to time also
suggested some corrective measures. The social awareness has already put our
industry on the defensive. But due to the lack of availability of the green
technologies in the country, our industrialists are at a loss to opt for the
alternatives. Then, there is also greed and lack of vision resulting in that
corrective measures not getting adopted.
Mr B I agree with my friend here that green technologies are the
way to go. The world may be divided into many countries but environment and
ecosystems are not divisible. They are a common property and one cannot limit
damage to one place. There are no boundaries limiting it. If there is
deterioration in one part of the globe, the effect of it will be felt globally.
Freak weather phenomenon is being reported from across the globe. However, the
underdeveloped and developing countries have much more on their plate than
merely green technologies to deal with. The cost of this new innovation is also
too much for them to procure. It is cheaper and easier for them to outsource
obsolete, second hand and yet outdated technology as it serves their purpose
and does not cause additional pressure to muster up monetary aid or expertise
for implementation of the newer technologies. It appears to my mind that even
though inventions and innovations are opening doors to corrections, it is not
easy for all countries to adopt the measures and it will be a long time before
progress becomes an unconditionally good thing.
Miss C Long before human beings evolved, the face of the earth was
changing and to my understanding, it is still changing and will change in the
future too. Human beings with the faculties and resources at their disposal
have utilised them to their advantage. Humans are also discerning enough that
if it is a question of sustaining their planet and their species, they will
have to take corrective action, despite lobbies, interests and cost. Progress
will be achieved with understanding and this evolution will also carry on
notwithstanding what the experts say. If we do not understand it as a natural
outcome, nature has its way of reinforcing its superiority and knows how to
bring man down to his knees. Progress, I believe, is at nature’s mercy. So
melding and moulding will continue till a homoeostasis is achieved.
Mr
D From the above
discussion I have concluded that some causes of the damage to the environment
lies in the legislating and the regulating agencies of the country. But at
present the question that assumes importance is that what will work. The answer
lies in the green technologies which increasingly use renewable resources;
reduce wastes, pollutants, emissions; recover, reuse and recycle; reduce the
pressure on natural resources and restore the balance of the eco-system and
biosphere and ultimately help in providing “ecologically sustainable
development”. Progress is a wholesome word and carries much weight. In order
for it to be at minimum to damage to environment, sustainability has to be
worked at.
Physical Appearance—Appropriate Yardstick for
Judging?
Miss A I think that judging any individual simply by the outer
appearance is too shallow an approach. There is an old saying that a book
should not be judged by the cover. For all you know, there may be a wonderful
gift inside a shoddily packed box! People are not uni- dimensional beings.
Every person has something special innate to them or something that they have
worked hard to achieve and it may not be evident on the face of it. But if an
individual would simply look at the exterior and try to judge the worth, there
could not be a greater folly committed. Take the simplest example of the monks.
Their living is austere, completely devoid of any frills or guiles. Yet in
their simplicity they aim for the highest and noblest purposes and are men of
enviable wisdom that is not taught in the best of schools.
Mr B Well, there is a lot of truth in what my friend has stated here
but I do feel that one cannot discount what the appearance says. A person can
be a pretender but the pretence does not last for long, does it? A well turned
out person in every aspect is a reflection of a well- cultivated mind. A polished
exterior must be respected because it has been acquired by lots of hard work
and effort. A person who makes an impressive public appearance cannot be said
to have done it just like that. The aggregate has been arrived at after a lot
of hard work by way of discipline of mind, attention to detail of dressing,
cultivating real knowledge, honing skills etc. How can this be put in a bracket
labelled ‘shallow’? This can be explained through an easy example. One can look
at the public interactions of some of the biggest Indian cricketing icons when
they debuted. And compare them with what they are now. Even though they may
shine on the field, but to acquire a magical aura in the minds of all people,
they have worked hard on personality aspects and transformed themselves.
Whether we like it or not, the truth remains that the book jacket is always
evaluated and the eyes first traverse that territory. Same is with people.
Appearances cannot be ignored and I feel that they speak volumes about
individuals.
Miss C I would like to differ significantly. I still feel that
appearances are a very basic and misleading parameter of looking at
individuals. There could be people who are simply incomparable in different
aspects but are too shy or reserved. This does that lower their worth in any
manner. Of course, there is an impact of this factor— people get recognition
much later than when it should have been due to them. But it is high time the
perception changed. It is those we call the ‘geeks’, who are writing the course
of advancement for the times. It is the scientists, who have traditionally held
a very unglamorous image, who define the ease and extent of our lives. How can
one even consider appearance for assessing individuals? I feel it is the value
addition, in whatever terms, an individual makes to the society that should be
the yard- stick for gauging worth.
Mr D If there is true substance in a person then there will be
qualities perceived that cannot be hidden away. And let us not discount the
fact that it is an integral part of the human psyche to lean towards what is
familiar. It is an instinctive reaction that is present even in children who
make a move towards or away from others who are similar or dissimilar to the
images in their mind. It is not always about making prejudiced notions about
other people but also about establishing an identification of sorts. Lacking
any other information about an unknown person, appearance allows the human mind
to sort and categorize based on previous experience. This allows the person to
determine whether the stranger most likely poses a potential threat or a
potential benefit. It gives the person a starting place from which to begin any
encounter, if any, with the unknown.
Miss A It is not always a smart option to go by the appearances even if
it is only a natural reaction. As they say, appearances can be deceptive. The
most often taken recourse by any con man to accomplish a fraud is to assume a
deceptive external appearance. It is not very difficult to take on a role or
put up a façade. It is what the pretenders are best at. Some time ago there was
a ghastly piece of news doing rounds in the press that an aspiring actress and
her boyfriend committed one of the most gruesome murders ever reported. If one
would have gone by the appearances, then an educated, well mannered, well
spoken lady and a well educated, employed man would not have butchered another
human being in the manner that they did. No matter what the provocation, their
exterior belied the cruelty that they actually carried out. One can now be
sceptical that behind the established symbols of respectability, there can be
much more sinister and suspicious substance. And there are countless incidents
one can refer for proving that appearances can indeed be misleading.
Mr B Well, I would still not take such a definitive stand for
appearances are decided by a whole lot of factors. It is more circumstantial
than a matter of choice. There are people who have the resources to maintain
their appearance in the manner that they would like to, and others who would be
restricted by financial constraints. Humans are creatures who gather a lot of
visual information and process it automatically—it is the first bit of
information usually. Not only that, physical appearance normally lends clues
about the person’s lifestyle, orientations etc., although they are not always
correct. People appraise visual and behavioural appearance from head to toe.
They observe demeanour, mannerisms, body language and even assess personal
accessories like watch, handbag, etc. Within only three seconds, you make an
indelible impression. One cannot say that a person is less capable if he
dressed sloppy in comparison to a dapper gentleman, if their levels of
education and proficiency are the same.
Miss C Well, there is a simple answer to this complex question: that the
times that we live in today, have pushed everything down the fast lane. When
new people come in contact, the fastest way to make sense of the situation is
to visually evaluate the individual for that is the simplest way of reckoning.
Outward appearance is gaining importance only in these times. It is only now
that the stereotypes have become so hugely popular and are not resisted at all.
This is mostly because people resist spending time on a matter that they have
devised shortcuts to deal with. It is an instantaneous method where categorisation
happens by mental segregation based on established ideas or stereotypes. People
are often treated differently simply because of differences of faith,
ethnicity, physical beauty etc. Even though this is definitively shallow, the
truth is that this is how human behaviour is guided today. Thinking is a
strenuous activity and so is breaking patterns or acts of justice! Somebody
devised the rule of thumb long ago that is what operates for convenience.
Mr
D I think that the
discussion has provided some useful insights. I do feel that appearance as the
sole parameter of judging a person is very shallow and unfair. It is really
important to reserve judgement for later, when a person is given a chance to
unfold his complete persona or at least significant aspects of it. Until then
labelling a person or forming an impression about a person would be on very
flimsy ground. On the other hand, I also feel that if a person has an
impressive personality or appearance, due credit must be given for it is indeed
achieved only through hard work and discipline. It shows a willingness to go
that extra mile. Also, as my friend has correctly stated before that one cannot
be out of sync with the times. In today’s world, appearance counts as much as
spelling does in a sentence. It is also a normal human reaction and cannot be
criticised unduly as it is the safest measure of assessment when there is a
lack of other parameters. One has to keep a holistic view of the picture, but should
also refrain from making premature ideas without knowing a person beyond just
physical appearance. It is true that handsome is he who handsome does.
Assessing a person completely on the basis of plain looks would be an almost
certain way of getting it wrong.
|
Miss A I think that the mass media shapes our reality. We have come a
long way from when society directed the course of what was to be projected. It
is now more like feeding an addiction. Mass media has a phenomenal reach and
gripping power over people all across the globe. It not only reaches out to the
people but people actively seek it out for various reasons—out of boredom, to
be entertained, informed, to educate themselves, to update their
knowledge. There is actually a hysterical chasing of several aspects of
the same events on every channel and every newspaper that is making a small
happening very-very big in our minds. As if a total revelation on that issue
would make a difference to our lives? But admittedly, we lap it up. We all fall
hook line sinker! We read it in the morning papers, see it on television and
then seek out some more on the internet. Without realising it, individuals have
become slaves to a ‘constructed’ reality—a world of make-believe, which we fail
to see in its true colours.
Mr B I personally think that the society provides the fodder for
media. There are real people and real events that are committing acts, leading
the way, doing a ‘first’ etc. The media are only able to pick up the random
strands and weave a fabric that we see. Imagination and fictitious incidents
cannot fool people for long. There are enough number of goings on for media to
take up and present to its audience or readers. It would be almost a lopsided
view of things if one said that reality does not play any role and media is the
culprit here. Individuals are not entirely gullible to believe everything that
is dished out. It is true that swaying people has become an easy job, more so
with emotional capture becoming a full time study area, but it still does not
discount the rationality of man. There is a lot of freewill involved in what he
or she does.
Miss C The figures that are now associated with media, in terms of
numbers, investment and stakes are mindboggling. There are hundreds and
thousands of companies looking out for their share in the pie and each one is
looking for a meaty chunk. There are pages to be filled and hours to be
programmed for. Incidents that happen, human misery etc. are things that do not
have much novelty about them. Hence what results is a construction. According
to experts studying the field, there is a social construction of reality.
Reality according to them is unknowable and the way we understand it is nothing
but only a mediated phenomenon. In a normal course of life, some knowledge of
reality is based on individual experience but most of it is aided but an
understanding of environment, thrown our way by the media. Since
commercial viability and profits have to be ensured, novelty is sought and
projected through oddities and unusual events, even though it may or may not be
ethical to print or televise. In fact, it may not be newsworthy or deserving of
attention at all. The greater the shock value, the more eyeballs are ensured.
Now if this is the track, then one really cannot say that reality shapes media
content.
Mr D Well, I have a differing view and I feel that there is so much
more to it than assuming the general public to be completely irrational and
naïve. I do believe that people by nature are driven more by their
circumstances than by the media. How they act or react in a situation is not
because of the media but these responses are primarily driven by personal
fears, hopes, compulsions, habits, desires etc. Media by and large is mirroring
the society. Whatever we see or read by way of news reports, serials, films,
articles, blogs are all given form and content by other people. There is a
strong contention for grabbing the attention but constructing a reality is
another ballgame altogether. I still think that people do like to play along,
in the sense that they derive entertainment when their free time is taken care
of. But belief systems are strong enough to see through ploys that seek to only
sell an idea or a product.
Miss A Yes, people are driven by their fears, habits, desires and
motivations. But where do these come from? Media manufactures it for the
society. Why is there a premium on fairness? Why are women in traditional garb
treated with more respect than anyone who tries to defy convention or the
established norm? What is morality? How are morality and goodness intertwined?
There are images that the media creates, and people lap them up, consider and
understand them as the reality and expect the same confirmation of views and
opinions. It is a totally foregone conclusion, to my mind, that we live in a
mediated world and an understanding of reality as it is, and whatever it is,
has now become and immensely tough job. It is media that has created the
material aspirations, spurred desires and defined values. Where is it specified
that happiness is guaranteed on reaching the CEO level in one’s career? And yet
people dream of a high status, riches and alongside nurture the notion of
happiness (without the essential projection of hard work that it requires to
sustain the status) that is assumed to be a default gain because it is shown to
be so in every film or advertisement. I think that it is the media that is
defining our goals and aspirations. It is actually shaping the society.
Mr B Well, there can be a larger understanding of the entire issue.
The mass media is also owned by people who are very real. And they have an
agenda that needs to be fulfilled. This agenda is all about making profits and
keeping the whole business perpetuated. Logic cannot get any bigger than this.
I agree that in an attempt to sell and sell some more, the media is trying its
hand at reinventing norms, values, areas of thrust and human limits of being
able to stomach the ‘never before’ themes. However, sooner or later, it is
question time. Every individual deep down is aware of the limitations or
advantages that form his/her arena of play. You cannot sell a lie for long and
you cannot keep exploiting an emotion which is working for some but putting
others on a back foot. Why do you think that time and again there is hue and
cry about ethical issues? Why do people try to put a legal framework in place
to set limits to the spread of this grip? It is because we realise that setting
boundaries to curb influence of any powerful medium is extremely important. I
think that people will never allow themselves to be manipulated to such a large
extent.
Miss C In the busy hum- drum of life, there may be people who are
educated but these are not essentially thinking individuals. Regular people are
preoccupied by the concerns of meeting challenges at work, discharging
responsibilities at home and mundane affairs. For their leisure and
entertainment, they seek out distraction provided by media, recreation provided
by external sources and I do not think that they would get into the ponderables
about their leisure activities also. When one is seeking relief from stress of
the routine affairs, last thing that the individual would look for is analysis
of that activity. One has to take a look at any aspect of life and it is an
easy conclusion that people try to conform to a view of life that they have
acquired from what they have seen in the media. Roles in relationships, picture
of happiness, definition of achievement, criteria for acceptability, morality,
occasions and events are all created by media. Did we know that doctor’s day or
daughter’s day were occasions until a few years ago? I see it only as a
deliberate construc-tion of a reality that sells everything to a very willing
consumer.
Mr
D There have been a wide
variety of views and each one carries undeniable reason. However, I guess it is
a sort of reciprocal relationship where both media and reality contribute
towards defining the structure and character of each other. Media mirrors the
society and society provides fodder for the media to generate agendas. It
perceives needs of the individuals emotional and psychological needs and feeds
it with the extra intent of generating profit from the whole exercise. Society
in turn laps up visualisation of grandeur, goodness, success, right, wrong,
evil, and even what tradition should be. It provides media the initial scheme
which it would enjoy and like projected. Media modifies the ideas picked up to
suit its purpose and perpetuates a design that benefits it and ensure
regular consumers. In effect, it is a give and take relationship and the
phenomenon pervades our environment to a great extent.
Do
Women make Better Parents than Men?
Bringing up the children has been the mother’s duty since time
immemorial. However, things are changing fast as there are single persons
opting for adoption and couples unwilling to tide it through together who are
opting to take up the job single handed. There is much to support the mother’s
role as the primary caregiver of the family and the young ones, especially
through reasons embedded in tradition as well as convenience. However, there
have been many examples of single men coming forward, with the nurturing spirit
surfacing strongly. Would they fare equally well as any woman or would they be
at sea, if confronted by the daunting task of caring for a real child 24/7?
The external responsibilities that a male usually carries out in a family—set up as the breadwinner and the protector—give him a tough aura that comes in the way of visualising him performing the mother’s role. However, this cannot be used as a benchmark to determine whether the man is capable of providing children with equal, if not more, tenderness, love and care. The perception that precedes any male when it comes to parenting may well have become redundant now, or is it still the same? Are men likely to fare badly at parenting, or have they become more sensitive to the needs of children in a changed environment? In fact some would rather believe that they better than the mothers as well. So do men actually make better parents than women?
Mr A This question is quite a poser as there cannot be a perfect answer to it. All individuals are different from one another and may respond or perform at different levels as per their individual capabilities. However, if a generalist idea has to be formed it would be so that women generally make the better parents as they have the innate maternal instincts that allow them to take the best care of their children. Women would have subconsciously built a bond with the child even before it is born. Carrying a child in the womb for nine month is sufficient for strong emotional ties to be formed that are beyond understanding of average human relationships. Nature has implanted the nurture and care automatically in women. Bringing up life in its first few years is extremely important and to ensure safety and survival the women are attuned intrinsically to this need. For the men this part might be the difficult bit. They are seen largely making valuable contributions in a child’s development after he/she has achieved control over bodily functions and has reached a certain level of comprehension.
Miss B Well, the normal perception would be that a woman definitely makes for a better parent due to her instincts and her innate capabilities. However, there are certain ways in which a father or a male can contribute in the upbringing of children that women cannot do complete justice to. Men are generally rational and logic driven and decisions/choices and actions are based on sound reason. The way a father can allow a child to go all out and grow up would not be possible with mothers, who are more protective and would be daunted by the slightest crunch in the heart. Of course, the exceptions are always there but the go getting spirit, courage and fierce determination can be imparted very well by the male only. It is important as it makes the child more worldly wise and equipped with a skill that will not be taught in any school as a part of the curriculum.
The external responsibilities that a male usually carries out in a family—set up as the breadwinner and the protector—give him a tough aura that comes in the way of visualising him performing the mother’s role. However, this cannot be used as a benchmark to determine whether the man is capable of providing children with equal, if not more, tenderness, love and care. The perception that precedes any male when it comes to parenting may well have become redundant now, or is it still the same? Are men likely to fare badly at parenting, or have they become more sensitive to the needs of children in a changed environment? In fact some would rather believe that they better than the mothers as well. So do men actually make better parents than women?
Mr A This question is quite a poser as there cannot be a perfect answer to it. All individuals are different from one another and may respond or perform at different levels as per their individual capabilities. However, if a generalist idea has to be formed it would be so that women generally make the better parents as they have the innate maternal instincts that allow them to take the best care of their children. Women would have subconsciously built a bond with the child even before it is born. Carrying a child in the womb for nine month is sufficient for strong emotional ties to be formed that are beyond understanding of average human relationships. Nature has implanted the nurture and care automatically in women. Bringing up life in its first few years is extremely important and to ensure safety and survival the women are attuned intrinsically to this need. For the men this part might be the difficult bit. They are seen largely making valuable contributions in a child’s development after he/she has achieved control over bodily functions and has reached a certain level of comprehension.
Miss B Well, the normal perception would be that a woman definitely makes for a better parent due to her instincts and her innate capabilities. However, there are certain ways in which a father or a male can contribute in the upbringing of children that women cannot do complete justice to. Men are generally rational and logic driven and decisions/choices and actions are based on sound reason. The way a father can allow a child to go all out and grow up would not be possible with mothers, who are more protective and would be daunted by the slightest crunch in the heart. Of course, the exceptions are always there but the go getting spirit, courage and fierce determination can be imparted very well by the male only. It is important as it makes the child more worldly wise and equipped with a skill that will not be taught in any school as a part of the curriculum.
Mr C Indeed this one is a tough call but I must admit that
somewhere there is an initial advantage that lies with the woman. She is the
one who is physically and mentally programmed naturally to do a better job of
parenting. Women generally are more sensitive and attentive to even the
smallest needs exhibited by the children. They are inherently good listeners,
blessed with more patience to deal with hours of bawling. It can be very
challenging to keep comforting little children as they are not able to express
or communicate at times about what bothers, pains or frightens them. Mothers
are usually patient at such time and are willing to put aside hours to calm and
reassure them. The important part worth taking notice of is that the young
years are really crucial in the formation of a self-confident and a secure
individual. If the children are neglected and ignored, they are likely to shape
up as insecure somewhere and no matter how much of inputs and care are given
after they grow up, that deficit cannot be made up for. I personally think that
women are more capable of adding this tremendous value to a child’s life.
Miss D Well, there may be a slight element of risk in generalising
totally about who is actually a better parent. My friends here have argued that
women make better parents as they are innately programmed to be so. However, in
the light of recent developments I would like to differ and cite the
alternative point of view. The equations in today’s world are changing and the
women are actively seeking employment and pursuing very challenging careers.
Though the idea of motherhood is very fascinating, the actual process of
bringing up a child can be very demanding. And here is where the male’s rational,
organised and practical outlook counts. They can make it tick even in such a
very demanding situation and hence men are capable of being better parents.
Mr A I would still say that there is no doubting the fact that mothers
make better parents as they are known to be more balanced, especially in crunch
situations. If we were to take a neutral scenario where the financial pressure
and the emotional mess of a broken household are absent, women are capable of
dealing superbly with the task. Usually, the women are projected as emotional
wrecks, poor decision makers and incapable of providing a secure future only in
situations where they are not educated enough to go out and earn. Other than
that, there are ample examples where independent single women have done a
splendid job of parenting. I feel that the women are capable of a healthy left
brain- right brain activity balance and create and nurture life adeptly.
Miss B I do agree that there are some very valuable skill sets that may
be the exclusive domain of women, but there is much that men may be capable of
doing. Men are usually not known to be very expressive about their ideas or
their feelings. They are more of the doers. The fact that I really appreciate
about fathers is that they are capable of imparting many critical life lessons
to their children without actually making them look like lessons.
Children emulate their elders. A practical parent would teach the child to
evaluate situations without really reacting at the drop of a hat. Men are good
at controlling their emotions and by exhibiting more of the controlled
reactions in crisis situations teach them calm, analytical approach. Then,
there is the general conduct adopted toward the various people that instils
etiquette, politeness and fist lessons in people skills. The other issue with
the females is that even when the child has grown up, they may still be
clinging on somewhere. Men will not be so edgy about letting go. I really feel
that men are better parents as they are capable of a more hands off approach.
Miss D Well this has been one really tough call where each one has tried
to shed light by expressing their perspective. It comes across as a logical
conclusion of this debate that the role of both man and woman is equally
significant as parents and it is not necessarily so that women make better
parents. Most women make good parents as they are better listeners and tend to
be more attentive to one’s needs. Being more sensitive than males, women can
forge a closer relationship with their children. Father is commonly seen as the
rationalist, but this is not always true. Some fathers can make better parents
than mothers; and this could be largely attributed to an individual’s personal
upbringing, the childhood he or she experienced and the values that they
believe in. If one has had a loving family unit and an environment that made
him/her feel loved, it inspires a quite confidence and self-assurance which
further gets translated into further parenting. Therefore, it is really
immaterial as to whether men or women make better parents. Anyone, with a more
mature and balanced outlook is likely to do a better job of parenting—being
hands off when required and involved when desired.
No comments:
Post a Comment