IN HINDSIGHT   by an Indo-German newspaper columnist

(In Hindsight 10/Dec 25-29, 2007)

How many feet does a football team require? Many would say 22 feet; but there are some national teams that need more than 9,000 feet to win matches.

Teams like Bolivia frequently get thrashed in matches played at sea level. However, in the high cities of Bolivia it’s visiting teams who are all at sea.

Though Bolivia is ranked last in South America, and number 108 in the world, it has recorded famous victories over both current top teams, Argentina and Brazil, in the thin cold air of its home stadium at La Paz which is also known as the Condor’s Nest. The stadium is located at nearly 12,000 feet.

This year, a top Brazilian league team played a Bolivian one at the still higher city of Potosi, in freezing rain at over 13,000 feet. Several Brazilian players had to receive oxygen from cylinders during the match. They escaped with a draw, but swore never again to play in such ‘inhumane’ conditions.

This month FIFA banned international matches at above 2,750 metres (9,020 feet) “without acclimatization” of players. Earlier they had banned matches starting at 2,500 metres, but backed down after a campaign led by the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, who called it discrimination and participated in a protest match with mountaineers on a volcano at almost 20,000 feet, managing to score a goal himself. I don’t know whether they just let him.

After this performance Morales declared, “Wherever you can make love, you can play sports.” I only wonder how many ladies got frostbite.

Whether Morales’ moralizing once more forces FIFA to give ground is up in the air. Perhaps we should think about ourselves first. In stark contrast to our high cricket ranking where we are in the top five (out of about 10), our football placing is far behind Bolivia. The solution must be to find some unfair advantage of our own.

Let’s not forget we have the tallest mountains in the world. If we invited a highly-ranked but low-lying side like the Netherlands, and sent a team of brick-tea-toughened Sherpas to play them in the Himalayas, I’m sure even Dutch courage wouldn’t help the visitors.

Bolivians have underscored that FIFA lacks rules limiting the temperature of a football field, or other home advantages. They believe extreme heat, for example, would be more harmful to athletes than elevation. At its meeting to ice the altitude attitude, FIFA’s president mentioned the problem of mid-day matches scheduled for next year’s Olympics at Beijing where temperatures can reach 40 degrees Celsius; but made no move to tackle it.

So even if Evo fails, there are other tricks available to us. I don’t believe FIFA has yet banned matches in mud, moderate flood or polluted air. Ours is a diverse country with many terrains and temperatures: when we invite Iceland to play, the venue could be the Thar Desert; and when we take on Africans or Arabians, how about the Siachen Glacier? No, that might bring up the altitude issue again–if not a turf war.

Maybe we needn’t worry so much about physical sports. For at those sports which the most unfit people can play, such as chess, we are doing very well. And where does brawn matter more than brain in the civilized world, except when you’re jostling for tickets to rough games that only fools would risk hurting themselves in?

(In Hindsight 9/Dec 11-15, 2007)

Over 100 million Indians spend money on homeopathic medicines, far more than anywhere else in the world. Who’s being fooled–we, or the rest of the world? There’s no conclusive evidence that homeopathy has any medical value.

We also have hundreds of homeopathic colleges and research centres, though the money might be better spent on modern methods of treatment–or at least decent funerals for some who refused to seek it.

Homeopathy literally means ‘similar suffering’. It is based on the principle that ‘like cures like’, or that small amounts of poison and disease-causing substances can cure your illness. Like it or not, they must be greatly diluted: the second principal principle says ‘less is more’; or the higher the dilution, the more effective is the medicine.

Many homeopathic ‘medicines’ are so diluted that not a single molecule of the original substance is left. Yet homeopaths believe that the ghost or ‘spirit-like essence’ of the substance remains in the diluent, which is good enough to do the job. This reminds me of the kind of talk one hears from people on spirits of a stronger sort.

Comparison with vaccines is invalid, as these elicit no antibodies in such infinitesimal amounts nor are any use after you develop a disease. It has been pointed out such dilute products contain less of the intended substance than of contaminants like dust particles and insect faeces, which cannot be kept out even in cleanest manufacturing conditions. So if the remedy had any effect, how could we say the credit shouldn’t go to some incontinent insect that took a bathroom break at the right moment?

Nowadays attempts are being made to defend the ‘spirit-like powers’ claimed for such medicines by resorting to the theory of relativity, and declaiming that ‘subatomic fields’ do the work after the substance is gone. You don’t have to be Einstein to see these are not the world’s greatest scientists. As for the big scientists themselves, they are repeatedly warning against homeopathy.

Most recently Britain’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, said, “There is not one jot of evidence supporting the notion that homeopathic medicines are of any assistance whatsoever. Therefore, I would say they are a risk to the population because people may take them expecting they are dealing with a serious problem.”

Some people may argue that we should not listen to snooty voices coming from the West (especially from someone who is both Sir and King). They forget the home of homeopathy was the West–at a time when the West was undeveloped. Now they’re developed, and are shutting their homeopathic colleges. Perhaps it’s time for us to catch up.

If you use homeopathic medicines, your best hope is either that you are gullible enough for your system to be tricked into accepting the placebo or sugar pill, and making you better (if the malady is minor), or that the doctor has cheated by adding a non-homeopathic medicine, as often happens when false claims of success are made.

So is homeopathy mere quackery? I prefer to duck the question. There’s always a small chance that it will one day be proved right. There’s also a chance we’ll discover the earth is flat, or that global warming can be cured by more of the same; but unless cap costs go through the roof I won’t worry my head about it.

(In Hindsight 8/Nov 28-Dec 1, 2007)

Why was the International Film Festival of India shifted to Goa, which has no film industry or culture? Are the beaches and the (fewer) topless women supposed to make international delegates think they are in Cannes? Unfortunately the venue has a long way to go before it catches up with the world’s most prestigious film festival.

The annual IFFI is run by mutually hostile government agencies, which means there’s more red tape than red carpet to roll out. The festival’s management has sometimes been as ineffective as the administration’s anti-nudity laws.

And it gets iffier. The selection of films isn’t red-hot either. Poor procedures and worse politics are involved. The best bets are probably leftovers from other festivals. Nor do they know how to promote bad films as ‘Art Cinema’, which Cannes has made an art in itself.

Still, last year crowds of thousands were seen queuing for badly-staged shows in poky theatres seating only hundreds. People shouted less acclaim for actors than abuse at the organizers. This year, they tried to reduce the chaos by adding several hundred seats and discovering the ticket-printing press.

However, these measures complicated things, and from the moment ticket counters opened film fans suffered erratic timings and software failures. Thankfully, there was at least one instance where people protested loudly enough for the management to reopen their closed counters. Nonetheless some shows marked ‘House Full’ ended up almost half-empty.

Some delegates’ passes were delayed too. And the politically unconnected are less welcome at this party. Yet the festival’s director, Neelam Kapoor, explicitly stated, “It is not correct that [the] general public is banned from viewing the films.” Well, at least intentions are good. This may yet pave the way somewhere.

In contrast to the queues for some films, there are none at the ‘Film Bazaar’. Major studios feel no urge to splurge. So at least we can say we haven’t sold out to the West.

What else is to see? Sideshows, unconnected parties and bhel puri stalls. Our beach beauties can’t compete with Cannes’, because most Indian women bathe fully-dressed in their saris. Neither did chief guest Shah Rukh Khan take off his top at the opening ceremony, as famously happened in his latest movie.

Aishwarya Rai, a red-carpet regular at Cannes, has shown a little cleavage in France, but I doubt she’d dare do the same here. So if you like such shows you’ll have to follow the regular first-world tourists who come for their spiritual awakening, or to attain the colour that Indians including Shah Rukh are filming TV ads advising against, or to get robbed or run over or whatever.

One good thing the tourists have brought with them, it’s said, is books. Goa is now full of shops selling their second-hand books, and a few new ones too.

Because, let’s face it, movies are for lazy people who won’t read books. Yes, there are good films; though when you see someone like Sharon Stone on the Cannes jury you begin to wonder.

But let’s give credit where due. This year’s festival has been an improvement. The removal of Bollywood blockbusters from the list lent instant respectability. Providing booze to journalists was also wise.

As this column is being written before the festival ends, there could still be a disaster (such as the Golden Peacock going to a masala movie), though that’s unlikely. Given time and good sense, the IFFI could grow into a meaningful international event.

(In Hindsight 7/Nov 13-17, 2007)

Indian elephants are more intelligent than African elephants. Much easier to train, they have a different skull shape and two big bulges on the forehead. Also, they hold their head 45 degrees higher than the African ones, possibly either through pride or because we have more flying politicians to watch out for. If they were human (the elephants, never the politicians) there’d be plenty of racism among them.

But intelligence is an overrated virtue. How many guys are interested in intelligent women, for example? I’m sure that double bulges in the upper trunk region are more important to us than anything on the forehead. And who knows, the women may have still lower expectations.

Now Mayawati’s elephant is trudging into Gujarat to engage the high-flying Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, in upcoming elections. Modi has been called ‘Hitler’ by several politicians. In India Hitler is a popular figure, so that won’t necessarily hurt him. Indeed some who call him by that name are his own admiring partymen.

Both contenders are political heavyweights–offering competition to some elephants–who have moderated their casteist and ‘creedist’ campaigns. Mayawati hasn’t repeated her party’s appeal to thrash certain other castes, and rather forged an alliance of sorts with them; nor has Modi been making inflammatory statements such as his alleged invitation to chase and chasten people of other creeds for 72 hours running.

In India there is little conventional racism, but plenty of inter- and intra-religious discrimination, as well as regionalism. Most quasi-racists’ aim is the same: to impose some kind of apartheid if not extermination of a group of people, or its supplantation by a superior one (usually their own, of course).

This may sound like a wonderful idea to many of us. And let’s be honest: anyone who thinks all races are equal is either uneducated or has a most inferior brain.

Firstly, however, the project is impossible in our modern world. Despite the best efforts of any Modis or Todis, nobody can stop the eventual intermixing of the earth’s people.

Yet if somehow a reborn Hitler rose to power, would it herald the creation of a higher race? Unfortunately, no. All he’d leave us is a human herd of his chosen stripe, the same as before erasing others. After that there would be no–or very slow–progress even if he started discriminating against his own people and culling them.

The last great leap in evolution came when animals developed the ability to reason and self-observe. To anyone with a bit of foresight (including this dumb Hindsight columnist), the next is nearly upon us. It comes when creatures acquire the ability to self-evolve.

Within a relatively short time we’ll be mapping and modifying human genes, of any race, in whatever way we want. Complex mathematical models may also predict the outcomes. This makes someone like Hitler, even if he had any brains, irrelevant in the long run.

No doubt there are some who’ll object that God would be jolly sad to see this happen. Such people should be ashamed of themselves for telling God what to think.

Mayavati’s elephant, away from its home region, will achieve little other than splitting or squashing the vote. But it’s important to realize that casteism and communalism are a lost cause. To use a trite cliché, it’s all ‘maya’ anyway–even the money they’ll make out of it.

(In Hindsight 6/Oct 30-Nov 3, 2007)

If American intervention in the Middle East is due to oil, could India’s non-intervention in Burma be due to gas? And I don’t mean the intestinal kind.

Just before the Burmese liquidation of pro-democracy protestors, India signed a gas deal with Burma. The international community had expected us to at least emit some hot air about human rights, but all that’s been said is “We are monitoring the situation.” It’s supposed to be part of our ‘Look East’ policy toward South-East Asia.

Look East or Look Least, we are letting Burma get away with it. But then, that little country does have big reserves of natural gas: trillions of cubic metres of the explosive stuff. Both India and China are interested in exploiting it. This puts the Burmese army, which has controlled their government since the 1962 coup of General Ne Win, in a win-win situation.

In 14 years following India’s decision to support the generals and abandon Noble Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, their luck has held. Though ordinary citizens have grown poorer, the military has got richer through its export of resources, mainly natural gas–and, indirectly, drugs. They are now among the world’s largest armed forces, and also the most generous, at least to themselves. One-third of the national budget is consumed by them.

The current leader, Than Shwe, who accused and arrested the late General Win for treason, last year got his daughter married to the more obedient Major Win–another no-lose situation–where the ceremony reportedly cost more than three times the national health budget, and gifts received totalled 50 million dollars in value. This comes to about one dollar for each Burmese citizen–though some might consider themselves lucky to get that much in any budget.

Despite India’s affection for the Burmese army, and the agreements we keep reaching with them, we haven’t got much out of it. There has been abundant talk about building a pipeline to supply Burmese gas to us, but like our plans to pipe gas from that other great democracy, Iran, it’s been a waste of energy so far.

Regardless of our efforts to proceed sans Suu Kyi, most Burmese gas may go to China instead of India. They too have plans in the pipeline to pump out gas for themselves. And Burma is more likely to listen to their grumblings than ours.

China is after all Burma’s main security partner. Not only have they used their veto power at the Security Council to protect the junta, but provided arms and training, and imposed a huge debt for weapons purchases and leaders’ lavish lifestyles. Plus, they shed even less tears than we do for democracy.

Though Burma’s bosses don’t want to become terminally dependent on China, we should take no chances. Perhaps the only option we have now is to become more competitive, and ship more arms and alms to them, or finance more infrastructure projects involving forced labour than we’re doing already.

But then we’re never too keen ourselves to upset China. In contrast to our patent protests concerning Iran, Iraq, Secretary Rice or Basmati rice, China’s periodic claims to the whole of our own Arunachal Pradesh don’t evoke much outrage at all. Even the Aksai Chin blow is taken bravely on the chin.

(In Hindsight 5/Oct 16-20, 2007)

Do cell phones cause cancer? Probably, the answer is yes. But don’t panic or throw out your phone, because I’m going to show you how to solve the problem and save your brain (even if it’s too late to save mine).

Cell phones do affect one’s cells. There’s now evidence that long-term use of these phones increases the chance of contracting malignant tumours on the side of the brain where the phone is held. Regular usage of an hour a day for more than ten years could lead to this.

Most people, of course, don’t care what happens after ten years. So long as there are no tumours coming out of their ears after one phone call, they’re happy. Other tend to overreact. Apart from tumour rumours there was one in Pakistan this year that people were being killed by a mobile phone virus, which led to mosques issuing warnings and citizens seeking hospital treatment believing they had caught it.

Let’s also not forget the recent mass hysteria about Indian phones blowing up like bombs and killing hundreds of civilians. The few phones and batteries that burst were probably fakes, nor did anybody die.

Since you have read thus far, dear reader, I assume you’re interested in a rational discussion of the issue. Either that or you expect me to make some tasteless jokes about brain cancer. So let’s proceed before I succumb to the temptation.

Cell phones are actually low-powered radio sets. Thus the ‘radiation’ they emit is not as fearful as the word sounds. It’s only low-frequency radio waves, which aren’t strong enough to ionize human body tissue or cause mutations. All they can cause is a bit of heating.

But obviously if you apply continuous heating to the side of your brain, which has poorly-cooled nerve fibres, there’s a chance it won’t be dissipated properly, resulting in problems. The solution would be no more than common sense: just switch the phone from one ear to the other at regular intervals, and give either side a chance to cool down.

For months, if not years, I’ve been hearing people say numbskulled things like “My phone’s getting hot, and so is my ear,” only to revert to jamming that fiery phone to their seared ear. Well, if they have only so much neural matter in their head then perhaps they don’t deserve to keep it. Such people merit an attic tumour in the shape of their phone, with the manufacturer’s name baked over it.

But if we care about our brain-bins then there are further precautions we can take, like buying phones with a low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) level of radiation. Yet I doubt there’s any need for rules like the new cigarette law requiring pictures of deformed faces and bodies to be displayed on packs–unless they have aesthetic or facetious value.

And, after all, the economy must keep moving. One must sell cell phones. I’m aware all media including newspapers require advertising revenue. So I’ll shut up about the matter now, except to repeat that as long as the common-sense solution isn’t forgotten we should be all right.

To summarize: keep switching the phone from ear to ear. Otherwise, from year to year your risks–and worse things–may grow.

(In Hindsight 4/Oct 2-6, 2007)

September 11 was a day of terror for journalists. Four were convicted by the Delhi High Court, and ten days later sentenced to four months of imprisonment each for accusing a former Chief Justice of India of corruption. Whether he was actually corrupt wasn’t considered of any importance in this case.

A few years ago another ex-CJI, S. P. Bharucha, had opined that 20 per cent of Indian judges are corrupt. As for the general public, their assessment of the judiciary’s uprightness is not as lofty as Lady Justice’s double-edged sword. How much sharp practice goes on? A popular survey shows that 77 per cent consider the judiciary to be corrupt. In addition there are endless delays in delivering justice, because of which the Supreme Court recently said people were losing faith in the courts. Now when it comes to the matter of saving the courts’ dignity, a fool might well ask the question, ‘Exactly how much is left to save?’

Luckily, I am not such a fool. Life outside prison suits me fine. So I’ll say nothing about the Indian court system. The last thing anyone would want to do is get in trouble for contempt of the corrupt. I shall use this space only to attack crooked judges in other countries who are far away and can’t get their gavels on my glutei.

The ‘Global Corruption Report 2007’ claims that more than 80 per cent of citizens in Paraguay, Peru, Cameroon, Macedonia and Bolivia perceive their legal systems to be corrupt. (In India, remember, the number is only 77 per cent.) On a continental scale of bribery, Africa and Latin America lead with 21 per cent and 18 per cent of court-goers saying they have paid. (In India the figure in 36 per cent, but then we’re just a subcontinent.) Argentina and Russia merit special mention as high-performance areas where “international standards and political impartiality are totally ignored.”

Judicial misbehaviour and manipulation can occur anywhere. Judges may collude with politicians, delay cases, or solicit sexual favours in exchange for acquittal. My personal favourite is former Oklahoma judge Donald Thompson who exposed himself in court on at least 15 occasions, using a device known as a penis pump not less than 4 times. At his own trial last year, he declared in his defence that “It wasn’t something I was hiding.” He got four years and a fine.

So if even Donald couldn’t duck (or worse) the law, perhaps there’s hope. Criminal judges can be punished. And at least truth is now considered a defence in Indian contempt cases, thanks to last year’s amendment. George Orwell would have been pleased–or beggared for lack of material.

In some lands, as of continental Europe, judges don’t have discretionary power to uphold their honour by popping people in jail. What then, you may ask, do they do if someone defames them? Why, they may seek redress under the normal defamation law, like any other citizen. Sometimes there’s nothing like a taste of one’s own medicine.

This is generally seen as part of a dismantlement of the old ‘feudal’ systems. (In some countries a better term might be ‘quasi-caste system’.)

Getting back to the business of fools, maybe the best approach is that of the Supreme Court’s Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, who stated earlier this year, “If a person calls me a fool… I would simply ignore the comment, or else say that everyone is entitled to his opinion.”

(In Hindsight 3/Sep 18-22, 2007)

China is growing fast. Then again, it may not be growing so fast because a significant amount of its GDP gets eroded by pollution’s health costs.

However, we should temper our joy at their misery because India has problems of its own. We too suffer enough pollution deaths to give them a run for their yuans.

International agencies estimate that in China, about 750,000 people die annually due to air and water pollution. In India there’s evidence the figure is well over 1,000,000. These numbers should be treated with a healthy scepticism, but do seem to show that as far as pollution goes we have our noses in front.

Well, actually that’s a bad pun, because India’s air pollution is lower than theirs. A recent WHO report (which makes one wonder if Pete Townshend could still See For Miles) reckons that diseases caused by indoor and outdoor air pollution kill 656,000 Chinese each year. In India, such pollution is thought to cause 527,700 deaths. On the other hand, our proportion of water pollution deaths is much higher.

One does feel somewhat happier living with polluted water than air. You can always avoid the bad water by buying bottles of mineral, or even cheap champagne; whereas the only solution for air pollution is wearing gas masks that make you look like Darth Vader (or breathing sulphur as Warren Anderson may soon be doing). This might be okay for men, but I personally prefer women who look a little more like Princess Leia.

Yet there’s not much difference in the total number of deaths. Why then are the international media full of stories on China’s pollution and poisoned products, while saying little about India?

Could it be the world feels more threatened by the Chinese? Are we all scared that hordes of inscrutable Chinamen will take over the earth and make us eat with chopsticks? Will the term ‘Chinese takeaway’ take on a much larger meaning involving our families and children?

There is no clear answer. Meanwhile, as China advances and grows into the world’s largest economy, we’ll at least have the satisfaction of saying “Look at the dirty guys who did it!”

The best thing is both countries are allowed to keep polluting. As developing nations they’re excused from the Kyoto Protocol’s demand for reduced emission of global-warming gases. Never mind that China is possibly already the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide.

Moreover, China’s carbon dioxide emissions are partly neutralized by that country’s high discharge of sulphur compounds, which reflect the sun’s warming rays back into space. But let’s not forget these compounds cause acid rain and respiratory diseases. So it’s like having a choice of two evils and picking both.

But the seriously good news is that China and India have recently been making efforts to control their emissions. Also, their leaders and politicians are promoting alternative energy sources such as wind. It’s good to know that after having wasted so much wind power in the course of their usual talk they’re now trying to harness it.

Last month another political group, the Bush administration, praised both countries for these efforts–which could be either a gesture of support or a prelude to bombing.

Will our problems be solved? Can emissions be sufficiently reduced? Or must we go back and sign a revised proto-Kyoto protocol? It all remains to be seen–if indeed, in a few more polluted years, we can still see anything at all.

(In Hindsight 2/Sep 1-8, 2007)

Sanjay Dutt spent time in jail, and then it was Salman Khan’s turn. They have suffered nearly normal prisoner’s lives, and one terrible haircut too.

Whether or not they deserve it, prison is much harder for celebrities and politicians than it used to be. Last year we had the first case of a Union Minister being convicted and imprisoned in a murder case–though not unexpectedly he’s free again.

Gone are the days when big shots used to be jailed in air-conditioned guest houses with personal assistants and home-cooked food. Criminals used to run their gangs, and one renowned politician virtually ruled the state of Bihar from (sometimes) behind the bars of Beur Jail, where the entire government reported to him.

And then there was the famous case of ‘Sir’ Charles Sobhraj, who prolonged his stay in Tihar Jail and practically ran the place, having tea with the superintendent, enjoying not only a flourishing business in drugs and liquor, but good food, fine wine and private visits from girlfriends.

Today even the future of cell phones in your cell looks bleak, as the Supreme Court has ruled that jammers must be installed in all jails.

But many jails around the world still believe that convicts’ comfort comes first. Swedish prisons are perhaps the most sought-after by condemned criminals. There, metal detectors are rare, conjugal visits common, and cell doors often left unlocked. TV sets are provided in each room.

Some jails don’t have boundary fences. Prisoners can apply for leave of a few hours, or go to town for work and return. This year Sweden’s highest court ruled that sex offenders may not be deprived of the right to read pornography either.  No wonder Saddam Hussein’s lawyer had enquired whether he could be shifted to a Swedish prison.

Similarly Dutch authorities may free murder suspects because there aren’t enough extra rooms in jail; and a high-security New Zealand prison has been described as a ‘holiday camp’ where one officer says, “We’re basically porters in a hotel…. [The prisoners] watch TV, play pool and table tennis, have barbecues…. It’s like a holiday camp, not a prison. When they get released, they do something to get back inside.”

But this pales in comparison to a certain Guatemalan prison, where the prisoners took complete control and ran it for ten years. There, they built their own shops, restaurants, drug labs, and private residences, one of which had a Jacuzzi.

One jailbird enjoyed life so much that he persuaded his son to break into the prison and live with him. When security forces finally recaptured the prison after a decade, it took 3,000 heavily-armed officers to do so. The prisoners defended it valiantly with their own guns and grenades.

The aim of all this, of course, is (except in the Guatemalan case) to reform prisoners through ‘humane’ rather than rough treatment. Does it work?

That probably depends on the criminal himself, and the society he lives in. Peaceful societies may require less severe prisons.

In India, a reputedly peaceful land that is growing more violent every year, basic reform probably needs to begin much earlier–in those dreaded prisons known as our schools.

(In Hindsight 1/Aug 20-25, 2007)

There have been regular reports of teachers beating and humiliating students. This is not a new phenomenon, of course, but another late discovery of the media. There’s nothing like a little torturing of children when other news is slow.

A few weeks ago, a ten-year-old girl in Andhra Pradesh was administered electric shocks by her principal in a bid to “improve her academic performance”. And in still more shocking incidents, several students in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh were beaten to death by their teachers in the last few months. One of their bodies was thrown inside a well (for what–to perform “well”?). Recently, in West Bengal, a schoolmistress made four boys stand on their benches with pants   pulled down for half and hour, while the girls watched from an adjoining section in (it is hoped) horror.

Although there may be people who believe walloping schoolchildren is part of ‘Indian culture’, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has recommended a ban on corporal punishment in schools. By their definition this includes not just beatings but any form of physical punishment, as well as mental injury such as humiliation and insults. Parents are advised to rush to the police when required. Apparently calling a child ‘stupid’ could now land a teacher in jail.

If only I were back in school! What a missed opportunity for me–with the NCPCR’s help I would have made my teachers beg for mercy! Granted I was pretty ‘stupid’, and still am, but…

But before we start celebrating, let’s examine the other side of the argument.

Some teachers go too far. Yet how could they discipline students if they’re not allowed to scold them? Students aren’t all angels who would sit quietly at their desks and swot Sanskrit if you didn’t whack them on the head with a duster, if not call them cerebrally challenged.

There are plenty of troublemakers and even criminals in the student population. I’m not just talking about making flatulent noises in class and cheating in exams, but threats to a teacher’s life. Arguably more teachers are killed by students than the other way round. If teachers sometimes ding you with a duster to make a point, then students use knuckle-dusters to hammer home theirs.

In countries where punishment has been banned, some schools have gone completely out of control. In Berlin’s Ruetli School, teachers dare not enter their classes without a mobile phone to call for help. At London’s Brandon Three Estate School, even residents of surrounding buildings are too scared to go out on the road when school finishes in the afternoon.

August 15 marked our 60th anniversary of independence from the British government. It was also the 20th anniversary of British students’ independence from their government, in that corporal punishment was banned from that day in 1987. Must have been quite an occasion at Brandon Three.

So whose side am I on? I’m neither a teacher nor a student, and since I’m not affected I’ll just sit back and enjoy the fight. But the answer, clearly, is to build trust and mutual respect among teachers and pupils. Is that ever going to happen? No. So let the killing continue.

No, I don’t mean that. And the detailed answers are too long for a brief column like this (meaning I don’t know them). All I can add is that anyone who gets itchy trigger fingers should pick up a pen instead of a gun.