New Delhi: Child rights activists Shantha Sinha and Enakshi Ganguly have taken strong exception to Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat’s comments that there may be a need to put Kashmiri children in ‘de-radicalisation camps’, saying it echoes the ‘worst excesses of colonial regimes across the world’. They also expressed disappointment at the way the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has reacted to the presence of children in anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests.
Shantha Sinha was the first chairperson of the NCPCR, while Enakshi Ganguly is a child rights expert who recently filed a PIL in the Supreme Court against alleged illegal detention of minors in Kashmir.
In their statement, Sinha and Ganguly said that they were deeply disturbed by General Rawat’s referring to 12 year olds as ‘radicalised persons’, without any description of or discussion on what ‘radicalisation’ might even entail. “Is General Rawat referring to ‘thoughts’/ ‘opinions’/ speech and suggesting that the way a child thinks might still land him pre-emptively in a ‘de-radicalisation camp’?” they asked, saying such a move would destroy “the social fabric of any community”.
They said that it would be “meaningless to speak of ‘radicalisation’ in terms of how Kashmiri children feel or behave, without first considering their everyday lived realities”.
“Children in Kashmir have grown in an environment of fear and violence. That would include Kashmiri Pandit children who have had to leave their homeland because of militancy. Their particular experiences and memories do not afford them the luxury of lives sanitized from ‘radical’ political opinions. Likewise in the valley, children have experienced the security apparatus acting in opposition to the local community. As any good child psychologist will tell us, distrust is formed not through ‘external brainwashing’, but more often through affective memory and experience.”
They said children need love, safety and security and instead, the CDS is “selectively looking upon some children as a threat to the country”. Sinha and Ganguly said that both domestic laws such as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and international conventions provide for a system that seeks to “engage even with an offending child in a non-punitive manner”.
“We sincerely hope that the CDS will consider that children growing up in conflict situations need special care and protection and not institutionalisation, which will only dehumanise them,” they said.
The duo also expressed surprise at the NCPCR first sending a letter to the director generals of police (DGPs) asking them to take note of “misuse of children in protests” and then asking the district magistrate of South East Delhi to identify children protesting in Shaheen Bagh to ‘offer them counselling’.
“We had expected that the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) would take note of General Rawat’s statement and at least initiate a discussion on the subject. We had also hoped that, as is its mandate, it would take note of the reported arrests and detentions of children in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh in the wake of the recent Anti-CAA protests,” they said.
They said the protest at Shaheen Bagh represents the “abstract values of the constitution such as secularism, equality and freedom of expression”, which children are being able to immediately relate to, learn, absorb and celebrate. “We cannot deny our children exposure to constitutional values of equality, secularism and democracy, love and respect for all. They are learning about peaceful protest and spirit of voluntarism,” they said.
The children are not “being used”, they said, but are being “involved in some of the finest of human sentiments”. “It is so contrary to what children experience and hear in times of tension and conflict. This is a lifetime learning and they cannot be insulated from it,” they said.
“Contrary to the NCPCR’s advice to DGPs and the District Magistrate of South- East Delhi, it is in fact incumbent upon the State to ensure that children are able to demonstrate their agency, to exercise their right to self-expression – either to dissent or to endorse, to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and to engage meaningfully in public discourse. The State is duty bound to provide safety and security to children and adolescents to ensure that rights of young persons are upheld not only prior to or during their engagement, but also that they do not face any backlash for their views.”
The statement has been reproduced in full below.
§
We are deeply disturbed to read the first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) of India, General Bipin Rawat’s statement on the need for to put children in ‘de-radicalisation camps’ and by the reaction of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights to the presence of children in the ongoing anti-Citizens (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens agitations.
Destroying a community
Rawat’s statement echoes the worst excesses of colonial regimes across the world.
It is disturbing to see 12 year olds being referred to as ‘radicalised persons’, without any description of or discussion on what ‘radicalisation’ might even entail. Is General Rawat referring to thoughts, opinions or speech and suggesting that the way a child thinks might still land him pre-emptively in a ‘de-radicalisation camp’? The ‘de-radicalisation camp’ would presumably teach him that whatever he had experienced at home, the memories that were handed down to him and the ideas he had learnt were false and motivated; that his family was manipulative and traitorous. It is undoubtedly one way of destroying the social fabric of any community.
Does ‘radicalisation’ mean that the child has pelted stones? The juvenile justice system is capable of dealing with graver offences; surely pelting stones does not merit mass ‘de-radicalisation camps’? In fact, we believe that the suggestion that children are being ‘radicalised’ is quite melodramatic and capable of causing unnecessary panic amongst the susceptible.
We also believe that it is meaningless to speak of ‘radicalisation’ in terms of how Kashmiri children feel or behave, without first considering their everyday lived realities. Children in Kashmir have grown in an environment of fear and violence. That would include Kashmiri Pandit children who have had to leave their homeland because of militancy. Their particular experiences and memories do not afford them the luxury of lives sanitised from ‘radical’ political opinions. Likewise in the Valley, children have experienced the security apparatus acting in opposition to the local community. As any good child psychologist will tell us, distrust is formed not through ‘external brainwashing’, but more often through affective memory and experience.
Children need love, safety and security. Instead we find the CDS selectively looking upon some children as a threat to the country. Clearly, he has not taken into consideration the compelling factors that drive children to react to what they see as injustice around them, causing stress and anxiety within them.
In any case, both domestic laws (such as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, national and in Kashmir) and international conventions that India has ratified provide for a system that seeks to engage even with an offending child in a non-punitive manner. Its guiding principles stress on non-discrimination, best interests of the child, dignity, importance of family and institutionalisation as the last resort. Putting children away in ‘de-radicalisation camps’ is violative of all of the above.
We sincerely hope that the CDS will consider that children growing up in conflict situations need special care and protection and not institutionalisation, which will only dehumanise them.
What it means to protect child rights
We had expected that the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) would take note of General Rawat’s statement and at least initiate a discussion on the subject. We had also hoped that, as is its mandate, it would take note of the reported arrests and detentions of children in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh in the wake of the recent anti-CAA protests.
First, it sent a letter to director generals of police (DGPs) asking them to take note of the ‘misuse of children in protests’ and take necessary action under the JJ Act. Inexplicably, the letter does not raise questions about the alleged detentions of children, or any excesses by the police during the protests.
Today it has issued an order to the district magistrate of South East Delhi to ‘identify children in Shaheen Bagh and send them for counselling’. This is preposterous . What is the basis of this? These children are neither offenders, nor are they victims. They are merely part of society and what they are witnessing around them. We have visited Shaheen Bagh ourselves and have been witness to children’s presence and participation.
What we witness in Shaheen Bagh is that abstract values of the constitution such as secularism, equality and freedom of expression are values that children are being able to immediately relate to, learn, absorb and celebrate. We cannot deny our children exposure to constitutional values of equality, secularism and democracy, love and respect for all. They are learning about peaceful protest and the spirit of voluntarism.
The NCPCR, in its silence on the illegal detentions of children, has not only chosen to exonerate the state from all reports of excesses committed against children, but also exhibited an ignorance of the practical lives of working class children and their families, some of whom have been protesting or caught up in protests happening across cities in India. There are areas even in Delhi where there are no separate playgrounds for children; they play on the streets, which is indeed the site of all communal activity – including festivals and also of protests.
It is perhaps much more reasonable to demand that the state treat peacefully protesting adults and their children with dignity and care. The NCPCR must also recognise that children are also affected by the same sense of fear and insecurity that pervades their families – they cannot be segregated from it.
In this case children are not being used but are getting involved in some of the finest of human sentiments. It is so contrary to what children experience and hear in times of tension and conflict. This is a lifetime’s worth of learning and they cannot be insulated from it.
We take this opportunity to reiterate that children’s right to participate and be heard in all matters concerning them is enshrined in the constitution as a fundamental right and complemented by the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) as well as the National Policy for Children.
Contrary to the NCPCR’s advice to DGPs and the district magistrate of South East Delhi, it is in fact incumbent upon the state to ensure that children are able to demonstrate their agency, to exercise their right to self-expression – either to dissent or to endorse, to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and to engage meaningfully in public discourse. The state is duty bound to provide safety and security to children and adolescents to ensure that rights of young persons are upheld not only prior to or during their engagement, but also that they do not face any backlash for their views.
Our mythology shows how children fought valiantly against injustice and stood for truth. Young Ram and Lakshman, not even in their teens, bravely combatted the rakshasas. So did Krishna, who battled the serpents and monsters and kept their entire community in peace. Prahalad defied his own father Hiranyakaship, questioned his atrocities on common people and even threatened him that the people as ‘Narayan’ would revolt against him in their fight for justice and Truth. Enraged, the rakshas father connived to kill his son. He tried to throw him down from the mountains, drown him at sea, send him to detention camps. Nothing deterred Prahalad: he rose again with the support of people, the ‘Narayan’, and finally emerged victorious in his battle against his own father for truth and justice.
Our own General Rawat must be aware that normally children are innocent, submissive and obedient, and that they listen to their loved ones. They are pure and ‘innocent’. But when children are compelled by circumstances, not of their making, but of those in power and authority, they can see where the harm is coming from. They become Ram, Lakshman, Krishna and Prahlad, and seek justice.
To the NCPCR we have this to say – as a statutory body set up for protecting children, they cannot be selective in what they take notice of. It is their duty to protect children from even the state if it is violating their rights. They have to uphold the values of non-discrimination, best interest and children’s right to be heard.
The remedy lies in creating just conditions, where children are treated with love and respect. In creating an atmosphere of safety and security, and making them feel secure and empowered. And this responsibility falls on the state and also the NCPCR that is constituted for this very purpose.
Shantha Sinha and Enakshi Ganguly are child rights activists. Shantha Sinha was the first chairperson of the NCPCR from 2007 to 2013.