Indian Children in Norway- Cultural Differences and the Welfare System

Last month, a bizarre news article reported across various print and electronic media managed to create a significant amount of excitement in India. The incident happened in Norway and involved an Indian family and the Norwegian childcare system.

The family consists of a young couple who are on a temporary visa in Norway, and their two children: a three-year-old son and a one-year-old daughter. As per the reports, the couple lost custody of both their children several months back because the childcare authorities concluded that the care given by the parents were inadequate and did not meet the children’s needs. When the authorities visited the family on a few routine inspections, they were appalled by the various ways in which they perceived the children were being mistreated. They pointed out many anomalies; including:

1. The mother was feeding the children with her hand.

2. The boy was sleeping in the same bed with his father.

3. The boy didn’t have a bed of his own.

4. The mother breastfed the baby whenever she cried instead of following a fixed schedule.

5. The toys that the boy had were deemed inappropriate.

6. The boy didn’t have sufficient space to play.

7. The boy didn’t have suitable clothes.

8. The mother seemed depressed and irritable.

Apparently, representatives of the childcare system started visiting the household after the boy was seen to exhibit phases of irritability in school. Upon a “thorough investigation” that spanned several visits, the representatives deemed the parents unfit for rearing children. The verdict was that the children were to be cared for in foster homes until they were eighteen years old; and that during this period the parents would only be allowed to see them twice every year, for an hour during each visit.

The incident took place in May 2011 but it only began getting media coverage this January; when the parents, after a long legal tussle with the childcare authorities; took the matter to diplomatic levels and got the Indian High Commission involved.

As the news spread, it caused a great deal of furor in India. To the average Indian, most of the anomalies listed by the Norwegian authorities seemed commonplace; indeed in India these are the norms and not deviations. A mother feeding her child with her hand is common in India; as is common for one to eat with his own hands. In a society that values touch and familial affection highly and has little regard for individual space, it is also usual for children to share beds with their parents until they reach teenage. Breast-feeding babies when they cry, again, is the standard practice in India. Finally, it is also not unusual for children in India to have an inappropriate or an inadequate collection of toys and clothes; the Indian family ascribes little importance to these materials in the context of child-rearing.

At any rate, as per Indian cultural norms; the reported “discrepancies” were either normal and perfectly acceptable; or too insignificant for anyone to bother. Under all circumstances (barring the rare and unfortunate event where the parents suffered from some severe psychological disorder), separating children of ages one and three permanently from their parents would be considered outrageous by the average Indian. He would opine that the combined negative impact of all the points mentioned above would be far surpassed by the effects of forcefully denying a young child the love and affection of its parents.

The Norwegian authorities, on their part, insisted that this was not merely a case of cultural misunderstanding; that the parents were twisting facts to garner public sympathy; that the decision was made on the basis of a lot of compelling evidence of negligence and mal-treatment and after a considerable deliberation; and that the Child Protection System do not snatch children from their parents unless they have no other option. On the other hand, the fact that an astounding 12,500 children were being taken care of by the system in 2005 in sparsely populated Norway, gives an idea of how proactive the system is.

After a considerable interference from the Indian High Commission, the matter was finally resolved in the first week of February; when the Norwegian authority agreed to hand over the children to their uncle. It appears that the children may finally be re-united with their family; although the scars of an eight month long forceful separation from parents in an unknown land would perhaps only heal with time.

As one hopes that the children get to live a normal, fulfilling life, replete with the affectionate warmth of family; one cannot but help ponder over the cultural differences that seem so prominent in cases like these. We often talk about the underlying traits that are common in various societies and that can function as bases of our unity; but at the same time, one cannot deny these remarkable deviations among cultures that can potentially lead to misunderstanding and pain.

As an institution, the family has withered and weakened in the Developed World over the last century. Familial bonds, love between children and their parents have faded with the growth of individualism; personal freedom has come at the cost of a severance of chains that bonded people together. That effect has not been as pronounced in developing countries; and personal relations within a family still run deep. As Aishwariya Rai had once famously said to David Letterman, we don't have to make appointments to dine with our parents.

Another issue of concern in this regard is the role of the welfare system. While social welfare in many cases leads to a general improvement of the lives of people; there are ways in which it can negatively affect the peace and well-being of individuals; as clearly exhibited in this incident. If not implemented with foresight and deep understanding of cultures; the welfare system can lead to menacing results; even when applied with the best intentions. This incident therefore cautions the system to be careful and prudent when it attempts to interfere with someone else’s lives; it is of course foolish to spend tax-payers’ money in an endeavour as futile and useless as this one.

References:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9035776/India-and-Norway-in-diplomatic-spat-over-children-taken-into-care.html
2. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2829408.ece
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088337/Norwegian-authorities-away-children-Indian-couple-eating-hands.html
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16676508

Shifting Patterns in Bollywood

Those who know me well would never accuse me of being a fan of Bollywood. In fact, the accusation has often been the other way round. I've been deemed an aantel (Bengali adjective that ridicules intellectuals) because of my conspicuous disinterest regrading the popular entertainment presented by the likes of Karan Johar and Shahrukh Khan. Nonetheless, there have been occasional moments in my life, too, when I have watched a Sholay or a Kuch Kuch Hota Hai with considerable attentiveness; or when I have glanced, albeit casually, to whatever was shown on the television. I continue at present too, to keep myself abreast of the headlines in the world's largest film industry; and the musings reflected in this particular piece are conclusions drawn from such observations; from the past and from the present.

Whoever has seen Bollywood movies of the eighties and early nineties would probably agree that a majority of the movies tended to relate to a certain socio-economic stratum. The good guys overwhelmingly came from a poor or lower middle class background; their economic condition varying from a state of absolute destitution to that of moderate scarcity; but never of abundance. The bad guy almost inevitably was the obscenely rich and devilishly crooked businessman; who would device the dirtiest of means to harass the poor.

The hero would often take the role of a Messiah of the poor; someone who stands up against smuggling trades of the villain; someone who resists bulldozers that the promoter sends to destroy slums; someone who grows up through hardship and deprivation and one day goes on to avenge the misdeeds perpetrated against his family and his people. We have seen Amitabh doing that role a million times. We have seen Mithun there. We have even seen how wealth corrupts character; through the experiences of one Raju in Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman, portrayed by a young Shahrukh Khan.

Since the economic liberalization of India in the nineties; there seems to have been a paradigm shift in that regard. The hero and his friends are no longer poor; seldom are they from the middle class. In contemporary Bollywood movies, the main characters are filthy rich! They are either sons and daughters of industrialists preparing to take over family businesses; or MBAs living in the US; or Engineers working in London. They are dressed in designer clothes; they have well-groomed bodies and perfectly gelled hair and they drink champagne. They visit Switzerland and Australia during vacations and they go to Spain for Bachelor Parties. The modern day hero, too, has his own problems; but unlike his counterpart from the past, unemployment or feeding a family is not one of them.

There certainly is a correlation between the shifting pattern in Bollywood movies and the pro-market economic policies; but there is more to it. It would simply be wrong, for instance, to assert that Indians have gotten significantly richer in the last twenty years; for they clearly haven't. The rich and poor divide, on the contrary has widened; inflation rates have soared; and it is a matter of controversy whether there has been any significant reduction in the percentage of people living below the poverty line.

There is data, that shows that the middle class has become somewhat wealthier. This has been accompanied by a high degree of increase in their aspirations and more importantly, in the attitude towards the rich. The rich are no longer a class of oppressive minority that amassed wealth through deception; rather, they are what the middle-class wants to be. The values that traditionally defined the Indian urban middle-class for a large part of the last century are vanishing; giving way to those that are more suited to a consumer-based economy. Outlooks are changing fast, and socialistic ideals of the past are withering away rapidly from the minds of people; to be replaced by a strong desire for materialistic pursuits: a desire to make more money, a desire to buy more things.

My contention is that it is this aspiration among the middle and upper middle class; this ambition to be rich; this desire of emulating the lives of the rich; that more than anything else, has brought about the shift in the socio-economic ambience of the Bollywood movie. For after all, Bollywood caters by and large to the taste of the middle class.

There could certainly be a host of other reasons and factors that are directly or indirectly responsible for this change. It would indeed be an interesting topic in sociological studies to investigate these effects.

Movie Review: Gandu

In many ways, middle-class West Bengal is more liberal and modern in outlook than the rest of India. When it comes to the use of expletives in social life; however, sophisticated and cultured Bengalis tend to maintain a sort of Victorian Conservatism and cringe at the usage of swear words in popular media. The general view about the depiction of sex in media is likewise. Until very recently it was extremely unusual to find any demonstration of a vulgar vocabulary in Bengali movies; except for the somewhat benign (and more socially acceptable) Shala ("wife's brother") or Shuorer Bachcha ("son of a pig") thrown in here and there, and those, too, were rare. In the past decade or so, there has been some change in that paradigm, with some recent movies presenting sporadic occurrences of expletives, including the Ch-words (a family of Bengali equivalents of the F-word and derivatives), especially while depicting the colloquial style of gangsters and goons; in an attempt to make their portrayals more realistic. Nonetheless, such usages are generally very limited and occupy a minuscule fraction of show time. Barring a handful of recent exceptions, nudity and sex have been taboo as well.

The Bengali movie-goer, therefore, was startled last year, upon hearing of a movie titled Gandu, a Bengali slang loosely meaning worthless, or idiot, having the connotation of the word "Asshole" and rarely used in civilized society. Such a name was unthinkable; the word being considered unparliamentary by the urban upper middle-class. The trailer of the movie soon became available on youtube; and revealed scenes and language that would be considered vulgar, nay repugnantly obscene by most cultures, not just Bengali. As the internet-friendly younger generation frantically searched for a download link on torrent (this reviewer included); it was learnt that the movie had obtained quite a few favourable reviews worldwide and bagged a couple of awards here and there. To my knowledge, it was never officially released in India; in all probability, it couldn't pass the censors' scissors.

After having somewhat forgotten about the movie and the frenzy its trailer had created, I finally had an opportunity to experience it recently; thanks to the internet. It certainly was a strangely interesting experience.

The movie is named after the protagonist; a young guy who lives with his mother, a prostitute. The plot, thin as it is, revolves around the life of Gandu; his frustrations and aspirations. It depicts his relationship with his mother, his experiences with pornography, his visits to the neighbourhood cyber cafe, his friendship with a Rickshaw-puller named Rickshaw, his passion for creating Rap music and finally, his heroin addiction. Indeed, almost half of the movie is a continued depiction of his hallucination while he and Rickshaw were under the influence of the drug. In terms of expletives and depictions of nudity and sex the movie far surpasses its predecessors. Dialogues are richly adorned with profanities and nudity and sex scenes are available aplenty throughout. Some of the scenes would in fact put to shame a hardcore pornographic film and questions have been asked whether there was any artistic necessity for such depictions.

While the peculiarity and the boldness of the movie are striking, there is clearly a lack of substance in the plot. But then again, the movie is perhaps not so much about a central story as much as it is about the ideas it attempts to convey to the audience. A fundamental theme of this movie is addressing the frustrations and perversions of a sexually repressed society. The central character represents this very society. Not only do others call him Gandu, but he himself associates with that name; indicating that he too sees little worth in himself. Rap music is a channel to vent out his anger which stems from his sexual frustration. His complicated relationship with his mother, his constant ogling at the girl at the cyber cafe, his fascination with pornography and his raunchy hallucinations while on heroin; all imply too clearly his state of mind. Indeed, given the nature of the theme, it is no wonder that the scenes are explicit, too powerful perhaps for the general audience (this reviewer included); but meaningful nonetheless.

A second, somewhat less significant theme of the movie is that of a worthless loser dreaming to overcome all obstacles to achieve something big. This is reflected through Gandu's winning the lottery, or his becoming a famous Rapper (it seems that he doesn't really get famous; he only hallucinates of becoming so), or the dedicated attempts of Rickshaw to learn Kung Fu. This of course is a more clichéd topic and has been dealt with at length. A third aspect of the movie is a take on drug addiction; the environment that creates it and the downward spiral that ensues.

The movie is shot almost completely in black and white and has a good number of outdoor shots. There are only a handful of actors; the most famous of whom, Shilajit, is only seen while engaged in intercourse. As the mother, Kamalika, a seasoned actress, has been tolerably good. The characters of both Gandu and Rickshaw have been enacted by newcomers and they have both been excellent. The lead actor, Anubrata, has given a bold and raw performance (Incidentally, he has meanwhile obtained the notorious honour of having acted in a particularly explicit sex scene in another Bengali movie). The middle aged man at the lottery store and the girl at the cyber cafe have both done fine jobs.

Overall, Q, the director (he apparently calls himself by that name) has done an interesting job in creating a particularly unusual movie; the likes of which many viewers may have never encountered. By many definitions it would qualify as porn and yet it would be a mistake to ignore the message it conveys. Many would find the free flow of obscenities and elaborate depiction of sex and nudity shockingly repulsive; and yet these are the things that make the movie what it is.

Parallels between Israel and Pakistan

While Pakistan sees itself as the nemesis of the Jewish State, one cannot help to note the numerous similarities between the two states. Here are a few.

1. Both countries came into existence as an aftermath of the second World War and were earlier parts of the British Empire.

2. The creation of both involved partition that was opposed by many.

3. Both countries maintain hostile relations with their respective severed parts.

4. Both occupy territory claimed by others.

5. Both states were created on the basis of religion; as a homeland for communities that were perceived to be vulnerable.

6. Both are nuclear powers and have formidable armies, as well as (in)famous intelligence agencies.

7. During the formation of both countries a huge number of people were brought in to settle from elsewhere.

8. Both have been strategic allies of the United States of America.

9. Both countries have been victims of terrorism, and at the same time been accused by certain countries to harbor the same.

Of course, there are many differences but listing those wouldn't be as interesting!

The concept of "Akhand Bharat"

Recently (actually, about a month ago) I came across this article on the internet, where it was reported that the RSS has once again called for the re-emergence of an age-old concept, that of "Akhand Bharat".

The phrase "Akhand Bharat" literally translates as "Undivided India" and generally refers to a super-state of "Greater India" that encompasses the entire South Asia at its minimum and may include Afghanistan, Myanmar and even South-East Asia according to some definitions. The idea finds its bulk of supporters among conservative right wingers. It's often argued that the entire area has always belonged to India, and hence it's only natural that India should establish her political control over it. A cursory understanding of the subcontinent's culture and political history, however, would show that the concept makes little sense.

State boundaries change over time. Nations, ethnicities migrate. Demographics of regions change. It's an absurd idea to think that there exists some boundary for a country that is permanent.


China has this ridiculous idea of claiming all territories that were included in its greatest ever extent (and the Chinese do distribute maps showing vast lands of sovereign countries included in China ), but that doesn't mean that India too should be compelled to exhibit the same stupidity. The same region has been ruled by different kingdoms in different eras. If China can claim Central Asia, so can Mongolia! If India can claim Afghanistan, so can Iran, or even Macedonia, for that matter! :P

The truth is, while India has existed as a cultural/ geographical entity for several millennia (with, of course a great deal of internal diversity); India as a political entity didn't exist before the establishment of British Rule in 1857.

Also, while Afghanistan and South East Asia have been parts of Indian empires; there never was a time when both were the parts of the same empire. When the Mauryans had Afghanistan, their empire did not even include the Southern fringes of the Indian peninsula. Indian dominance in SE Asia reached its peak during the time of Cholas at a time when Northern India was divided in pieces.

At all times, the hills of North East Asia remained mostly independent. From the Mauryans to Mughals, Indian empires didn't capture any territory beyond the plains of Assam.

At certain points of time the sphere of Indian cultural influence did include an area from Central to South East Asia; but that influence did not come with military force. Cultural hegemony once upon a time is a bad argument for supporting expansionism.

And anyhow, adding more to the already large and rather diverse country is definitely not something to look forward to. The Republic of India has too many problems of her own to add some more from her current neighbours.

The IPL is obscene, and here's why

While entertainment is an inherent part of sports, there is more to sports than entertainment. Unfortunately, it often so happens that the organizers forget this simple fact and turn events of sports into shows where the superfluous clutter of entertainment becomes more important than the game itself. This, precisely is the case with the Indian Premier League, or T-20 Cricket, for that matter, in my humble opinion.

Let's face it, the game of cricket is too complex and too beautiful to be fully appreciated in a minimized version. A batsman doesn't get time to familiarize himself with the wicket, a bowler doesn't get time to settle down with his line and length, the fielding captain doesn't get time to set a field or choose a bowler. You don't see batsmen anchoring and building an innings, you don't see bowlers bowling spells, you don't see the enchanting beauty of stroke play, you don't see epic duels between individual bowlers and batsmen. There's no time for all that in T-20. You only see a frenzied rush to score as many runs as one can.

The shortened format isn't the only problem with the IPL. In an international match, the teams represent nations; the passion associated with the cricket-match watching experience largely emanates from a patriotic sentiment. The teams at the league don't represent anything. Sachin Tendulkar scoring a hundred for India against Australia is a million times more delightful than Sachin Tendulkar scoring a fifty for Mumbai Indians against Chennai Super Kings.

The loud music synchronized to fours and sixes, the frenzy of advertisements, the ridiculous nomenclature of teams, the ever-smiling blondes in skimpy outfits dancing in a meaningless way; all these may go well with baseball or the NBA but are not appropriate in a cricket match. These remove the seriousness of the game and reduce it to a degree of frivolity. The passion so often an inseparable part of watching a live cricket match is lost amidst this extravagant superfluousness.

The IPL is not cricket. It's a derivative that's produced when one strains out substance and grace from cricket. At best it's a caricature of cricket, and an obscene one at that. And like most obscene things, its only driving force is money.

The Paradox of Choice

I remember the first time I ordered a sandwich at an eatery in North America. I had walked on to the counter to ask for a grilled chicken sandwich, not expecting anything more to say and was subsequently stumped by an array of questions. I was asked to specify the type of bread, the type of cheese, whether toasted or not, and to choose the kind of toppings I would like.

Unprepared, and also only partially enlightened about the options before me (this applied especially for the types of bread and cheese), I took a significant amount of time to make a decision. Since then, of course, I have grown wiser and am much quicker in making such choices. Note, however, that my knowledge on the variety of bread and cheese remains sufficiently inadequate, only now I know that I don't really care if the latter is Mozzarella or Cheddar. I have realized that optimizing a sandwich can be rather taxing for one's brain when on an empty stomach, and therefore mostly make prompt random choices (barring a few exceptions).

There are many more examples where the availability of a myriad of options actually complicates the customer's decision making process and lengthens it. Imagine someone (perhaps a country bumpkin) going to an ice cream parlour with the simple objective of buying "an ice-cream", not familiar yet individually with the variety of desserts that are members of that vast family. At the shop he is bedazzled by the most gorgeous display of delicacies (each looking equally delicious and each well within his budget). When he entered the store he had in his mind this well-defined notion of an object called an ice-cream that he wanted. On entering, he finds out that the description of the object he had in his mind wasn't after all sufficiently specific; asking merely for an ice-cream is not informative enough, one has to say what flavour he wants, and there are several dozens of them. While earlier he wouldn't have cared about the flavour because of his ignorance, now the onus is on him to choose what is best for him. Even after making the choice he would be unsure about its aptness (and hence, not fully satisfied) because of his lack of knowledge on the many options he had to reject.

What does one do then? The more analytic among us actually go on to solve the optimization problem and come up with a definite answer. The rest, me included, would simply make an arbitrary or semi-arbitrary choice which would be very likely not optimal.

Funnily enough, in spite of the fact that the availability of a higher number of options complicates the whole process instead of simplifying it and most often does not guarantee a perfect match, we (including this blogger) tend to prefer places that offer more options. We would rather be baffled by a complex set of choices and end up making an unintelligent selection in the end, than to go somewhere that has fewer options and where the selection process would be easier, and perhaps more satisfying.

Is this another paradox of human nature?