including candle-making...
I came across this post a short while ago which talks about "Opportunities for Women in an Indian Prison" and thought that it was an amazing idea. Then I read the story...
They're talking about women working in fields, and about teaching them such skills as candle-making, and screen printing. I love the idea of an open jail, but somehow, I'm not quite as enthusiastic about it as one might expect to be.
Partly, that's because I know what the climate in Yerawada is like, and unless these women are used to being outdoors, I'd hate the think of what the effect of working on farms would be for their health. At the moment, and for a large part of the year, being outdoors for extended periods of time is simply not wise. (And depending on the time of year, "extended periods of time" could mean 45 minutes.
The article does not speak about what sort of protective gear the women would be provided (if any), and I can somehow picture a situation where women would "choose" to work outdoors just to get their sentences reduced.
And as far as the indoor skills being taught are concerned, the two which have been mentioned in the articles are candle-making, and screen printing. Really? And that is supposed to help women convicts start a "new life" after their release? The last time I checked, neither candle-making nor screen-printing were lucrative career options in India, except, possibly for the super-rich person who could create a brand name for him/herself, and sell products at exorbitant prices.
That, I somehow doubt is something which the average woman who's in jail would be able to do. So by teaching her a skill which may not actually enable her to support herself (much less her child(ren), if she has any who depend on her), the State may well be putting effort into teaching her a skill which would leave her in poverty; effort which could probably be better expended in teaching women in jails skills which they would be able to use to earn reasonable amounts on their release.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Reporting on the Need to Reform Child Abuse Laws
Labels:
Human Rights,
India,
Language,
Law,
Media
The Indian Express has published an article entitled ‘Need Act to bring child abuses under one law'. All said and done, there’s an element of truth in that – laws related to children are contained in so many diverse laws and rules that it is virtually impossible to be constantly aware of all the laws which relate to children. Among the many laws and rules which contain provisions which deal specifically with children are the Indian Penal Code, the Cable Television Network Rules, the various labour laws, and the Contract Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
With reference to Child Abuse though, the applicable laws would probably be Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 377 of the Penal Code is an antiquated provision which was enacted during the Raj, and which is simply not designed to deal with child abuse. It is, instead, designed to criminalise homosexuality by making so-called “unnatural acts” criminal. This Section has, nonetheless, been used to prosecute offences involving child sexual abuse simply for the lack of a more appropriate provision under existing law under which to do so.
There have been proposals to restructure sexual abuse law to make child sexual abuse a separate offence. However, the proposals in their current form do not appear to be entirely free of loopholes, to put it mildly.
What got to me in the Indian Express article, however, was its introduction. It began by quoting someone who said, “Neglect is of greater concern than abuse,” which left me rather confused because, to my mind, neglect is a form of abuse. The rest of the article seemed to clarify that the “neglect” referred specifically to the neglect of complaints of child sexual abuse, which, in itself, is an entirely valid point.
The reason why this bothered me is that, it seems to me, that if one is advocating change in the law, or writing about it, it is important that all stakeholders / interested parties / the media use precise language all the time – clarity right from the outset about what the law needs to do, and what exactly the law needs to address, would probably help to ensure that the “finished product” i.e. the enacted statute would be as strong as possible.
With reference to Child Abuse though, the applicable laws would probably be Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 377 of the Penal Code is an antiquated provision which was enacted during the Raj, and which is simply not designed to deal with child abuse. It is, instead, designed to criminalise homosexuality by making so-called “unnatural acts” criminal. This Section has, nonetheless, been used to prosecute offences involving child sexual abuse simply for the lack of a more appropriate provision under existing law under which to do so.
There have been proposals to restructure sexual abuse law to make child sexual abuse a separate offence. However, the proposals in their current form do not appear to be entirely free of loopholes, to put it mildly.
What got to me in the Indian Express article, however, was its introduction. It began by quoting someone who said, “Neglect is of greater concern than abuse,” which left me rather confused because, to my mind, neglect is a form of abuse. The rest of the article seemed to clarify that the “neglect” referred specifically to the neglect of complaints of child sexual abuse, which, in itself, is an entirely valid point.
The reason why this bothered me is that, it seems to me, that if one is advocating change in the law, or writing about it, it is important that all stakeholders / interested parties / the media use precise language all the time – clarity right from the outset about what the law needs to do, and what exactly the law needs to address, would probably help to ensure that the “finished product” i.e. the enacted statute would be as strong as possible.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Witty Women
Labels:
Quotes
In 1750 Elizabeth Montagu said:
"Wit in women is apt to have bad consequences. Like a sword without a scabbard it wounds the wearer and provokes assailants. I am sorry to say the generality of women who have excelled in wit have failed in chastity."Source: English Society in the Eighteenth Century by Roy Porter through Woman of Experience
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Writing about Africa and India
and the invisibility of the middle class...
There are two pieces I read this afternoon about Africa. The first was a piece with instructions on "How to Write About Africa" and the second was a piece which asked whether the anti-poaching activists, Mark and Delia Owens, went too far in their efforts.
Together, the two pieces made an interesting read. The piece on writing about Africa talked about all the stereotypes which must be spoken of when one writes about Africa. It spoke of the "need" to write about Africa's starving millions, about the corruption of government officials, about the great wilderness, about the amazing wildlife, but never about the individual African who may lead a life of absolutely "ordinariness", who may be a middle class person whose life is not full of unspeakable suffering, torn apart by strife and civil war.
The Indian version of such a piece would probably talk about writing the importance of writing about India as a land of mystery and magic, a land of extremes with its maharajas and their fabled jewels on one hand and its teeming millions which starve on the other. It would speak of the pantheon of Goddesses and the deplorable condition of Indian women – I remember once reading a French text book which described Indian women as “battered, submissive and illiterate.” It would probably mention the lack of the comforts of “Western living” and the wonders which Western influences have had on the country. It would almost certainly talk about seeing elephants on highways, and would probably say something about Indian wildlife. While talking about wildlife, and possibly forests, it would state that it is de rigeur to talk about poaching and the ignorance of the Indians which has lead to environmental damage.
What would often be missing from the narrative would be the Indian middle class. A class that is not starving, whose lives do not involve such things as suicide due to crop-failure, who live perfectly ordinary lives, and who are far removed from the splendours traditionally associated with India’s rich and its riches. This is a class whose lives are possibly comparable to the lives of corresponding classes in the West with their concerns ranging from healthcare to house loans.
The life of this middle class probably isn’t especially interesting from the point of the view of the Western consumer: there is nothing in the life of this middle class which is vastly different from what life in the West would. The result being that the West would neither be able to pity or to envy a person from such an alien middle class, which, as it turned out, wasn’t too different from its own. There would be no tales of diamonds or polo matches or palaces; neither would there be any tales of poverty or starvation or illiteracy.
Perhaps it is because the life of the middle class is so ordinary, it is often ignored in pieces about India. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that it is the middle class which forms the a large section of Indian society.
There are two pieces I read this afternoon about Africa. The first was a piece with instructions on "How to Write About Africa" and the second was a piece which asked whether the anti-poaching activists, Mark and Delia Owens, went too far in their efforts.
Together, the two pieces made an interesting read. The piece on writing about Africa talked about all the stereotypes which must be spoken of when one writes about Africa. It spoke of the "need" to write about Africa's starving millions, about the corruption of government officials, about the great wilderness, about the amazing wildlife, but never about the individual African who may lead a life of absolutely "ordinariness", who may be a middle class person whose life is not full of unspeakable suffering, torn apart by strife and civil war.
The Indian version of such a piece would probably talk about writing the importance of writing about India as a land of mystery and magic, a land of extremes with its maharajas and their fabled jewels on one hand and its teeming millions which starve on the other. It would speak of the pantheon of Goddesses and the deplorable condition of Indian women – I remember once reading a French text book which described Indian women as “battered, submissive and illiterate.” It would probably mention the lack of the comforts of “Western living” and the wonders which Western influences have had on the country. It would almost certainly talk about seeing elephants on highways, and would probably say something about Indian wildlife. While talking about wildlife, and possibly forests, it would state that it is de rigeur to talk about poaching and the ignorance of the Indians which has lead to environmental damage.
What would often be missing from the narrative would be the Indian middle class. A class that is not starving, whose lives do not involve such things as suicide due to crop-failure, who live perfectly ordinary lives, and who are far removed from the splendours traditionally associated with India’s rich and its riches. This is a class whose lives are possibly comparable to the lives of corresponding classes in the West with their concerns ranging from healthcare to house loans.
The life of this middle class probably isn’t especially interesting from the point of the view of the Western consumer: there is nothing in the life of this middle class which is vastly different from what life in the West would. The result being that the West would neither be able to pity or to envy a person from such an alien middle class, which, as it turned out, wasn’t too different from its own. There would be no tales of diamonds or polo matches or palaces; neither would there be any tales of poverty or starvation or illiteracy.
Perhaps it is because the life of the middle class is so ordinary, it is often ignored in pieces about India. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that it is the middle class which forms the a large section of Indian society.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Pioneer Settlers in Nebraska
"A Lantern in Her Hand by Beth Streeter Aldrich" is the story of Abbie and Will Deal, fictious pioneer settlers in Nebraska. Written in much the same style and tone as books like the "What Katy Did" series, the book, now a classic, despite being rather old-fashioned, is incredibly touching, and manages to protray emotions, describe characters and narrate events far more clearly than many contemporary novels manage to do despite being explicit. Perhaps it is the restraint in "A Lantern in Her Hand" which makes a difference coupled, of course, with the talent of its author.
The book focusses on the life of Abbie Deal from the time that she was a child till the time that she died. It isn't a happy-go-lucky book with a feel-good ending but a chronicle of a woman's life in that era. It tells of her falling in love with and eventual marriage to Will Deal, a man who chose to move to Nebraska because land was inexpensive there although he believed that the land was good. It tells of how she herself was less than enthusiastic to shift but that she lived in an era where if her man shifted, she would, of course, do the same. Although it also mentions that as much as she loved her mother, and siblings, and home, her love for them was less than her love for Will.
Life in Nebraska was anything but easy for many years. Crops failed year after year. The rains didn't come. Grasshoppers became abominable pests. Money was short. And it sometimes took great strength of character to keep her love for her husband intact and distinct from the lack of material comfort. Will Deal is described as a man who says little but feels deeply. And Abbie is described as a woman duty-bound, but one who did not truly seem to feel bound by duty.
"A Lantern in Her Hand" speaks of Abbie as a mother, as a daughter, as a daughter-in-law, as a mother-in-law, as a grandmother, as a friend, as a wife, and, finally, as an individual, although all her wants and needs and desires as an individual were invariably subsumed by the deamnds of one or other of the roles which she played. She gave up music and art as a young woman for her husband, and as an older woman, she made way for her daughters. To her, motherhood was about love first and duty second although she never seemed to preach about it.
By the end of the book, it is difficult to feel anything but much respect for the woman who, fictitious thoguh she is, seems just as real as those women who have lived not merely in the pages of a book.
Note: The entire text of "A Lantern in Her Hand" is available online.
The book focusses on the life of Abbie Deal from the time that she was a child till the time that she died. It isn't a happy-go-lucky book with a feel-good ending but a chronicle of a woman's life in that era. It tells of her falling in love with and eventual marriage to Will Deal, a man who chose to move to Nebraska because land was inexpensive there although he believed that the land was good. It tells of how she herself was less than enthusiastic to shift but that she lived in an era where if her man shifted, she would, of course, do the same. Although it also mentions that as much as she loved her mother, and siblings, and home, her love for them was less than her love for Will.
Life in Nebraska was anything but easy for many years. Crops failed year after year. The rains didn't come. Grasshoppers became abominable pests. Money was short. And it sometimes took great strength of character to keep her love for her husband intact and distinct from the lack of material comfort. Will Deal is described as a man who says little but feels deeply. And Abbie is described as a woman duty-bound, but one who did not truly seem to feel bound by duty.
"A Lantern in Her Hand" speaks of Abbie as a mother, as a daughter, as a daughter-in-law, as a mother-in-law, as a grandmother, as a friend, as a wife, and, finally, as an individual, although all her wants and needs and desires as an individual were invariably subsumed by the deamnds of one or other of the roles which she played. She gave up music and art as a young woman for her husband, and as an older woman, she made way for her daughters. To her, motherhood was about love first and duty second although she never seemed to preach about it.
By the end of the book, it is difficult to feel anything but much respect for the woman who, fictitious thoguh she is, seems just as real as those women who have lived not merely in the pages of a book.
Note: The entire text of "A Lantern in Her Hand" is available online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)