Corporal Punishment

Transcription

Corporal Punishment

Eliminating
Corporal
Punishment
in Schools
National Commission for Protection
of Child Rights (NCPCR)
Children do not lose their human rights by virtue of passing
through the school gates…Education must be provided in
a way that respects the inherent dignity of the child...that
respects the strict limits on discipline...and promotes nonviolence in school.
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,
General Comment 1
Contents
Acknowledgements
i
Corporal Punishment: Everyday reality of India’s Children
1
Articles on Corporal Punishment
41
Towards a Culture of Non-violence in All Institutions
43
The Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit and Eliminate
All Corporal Punishment of Children 49
Banning is Just the Beginning
Corporal Punishment in Schools will Prove Tenacious
55
Every Child has a Right to Learn with Dignity
61
Teachers and Corporal Punishment
65
Annexures
71
Acknowledgments
The Commission thanks all the eminent contributors to this volume.
The Commission acknowledges the support it received from the Ministry of Women and
Child Development (MWCD) and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),
Government of India in carrying out its mandate in protecting children’s rights.
Our profound thanks to Dr Latika Gupta who conceptualized the study on “Corporal
Punishment: Everyday Reality of India’s Children” and also executed it with passion as the
Project Investigator. We are grateful to Prof Krishna Kumar for his deep interest in this
study on corporal punishment which was conducted under his guidance.
We cannot thank Mr Peter Newell enough for associating himself with the Commission,
sharpening its perspectives on corporal punishment and giving his expert advice despite heavy
demands on his time, as part of his global commitment to end all corporal punishment.
Our special thanks to Ms Karin Hulshof who has unstintingly supported the implementation
of the right to education in the country and offered the services of UNICEF at all times to
fulfil the mandate of protecting child rights.
We thank Prof Poonam Batra for her valuable input to the volume. The contribution of
Ms Karuna Bishnoi, Child Rights Specialist (Social Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation),
UNICEF (India Country Office) to the work of the Commission in bringing about this
volume is laudable. We thank her for her involvement at every stage in the Commission’s
endeavour to stop corporal punishment in schools, institutions and all settings including
the family.
We acknowledge the contribution of all our colleagues in the Commission including
Ms Gunjan Wadhwa (Consultant, NCPCR) who have worked relentlessly on this volume.
The prevalence of corporal punishment in schools and all other settings as a social norm
goes on unquestioningly causing untold harm to children. We hope that this document
contributes towards elimination of corporal punishment completely.
i
Corporal Punishment:
Everyday Reality of India’s Children
A Study by NCPCR
No violence against children is justifiable and all violence
against children is preventable.
Prof. Paulo Pinheiro,
Independent Expert
who led the UN Secretary General’s
Study on Violence against Children
Introduction
5
1. Methodology
11
2. Data Analysis
13
Section I: Introducing the Sample
13
Section II: Direct Punishments
17
Section III: Posture Punishments
24
Section IV: Verbal Abuse
27
Section V: Projective Tool
30
3. Conclusions
37
Introduction
Introduction
Corporal or physical punishment involves the use of some degree of physical force to punish or discipline
children. It is acknowledged to be the most common form of violence experienced by children in all
regions of the world.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the monitoring Treaty Body for the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, defines corporal or physical punishment in its landmark General Comment No. 8 as
“any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort,
however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slapping’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with an
implement – a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking,
shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, forcing children to stay
in uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouths
out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment
is invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also cruel
and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment which
belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”
In India, large-scale interview studies have found corporal punishment to be commonly used both in the
home and in schools1.
Since the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted two decades ago, the scale and extent
of corporal punishment and its damaging impact on children has become more visible. And with increased
visibility has come recognition that this is a violation of the human rights of children. The Convention,
acceded to by India in 1992, and by 193 States worldwide, requires the State to protect the child from
“all forms of physical and mental violence” (Article 19); from “torture and other cruel or degrading
punishment or treatment” (Article 37); and to ensure “that school discipline is administered in a manner
consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention”.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the highest authority for interpretation of the Convention,
emphasises States’ immediate obligation to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and other forms
of cruel or degrading treatment. Issuing its 2006 General Comment on the right of the child to protection
from violent punishment, the Committee explains that its purpose is “to highlight the obligation of all
States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or
degrading forms of punishment of children and to outline the legislative and other awareness-raising and
educational measures that States must take”.
The Committee reiterates States’ obligations to prohibit and eliminate corporal punishment in all settings
of children’s lives: “Article 37 of the Convention requires States to ensure that ‘no child shall be subjected
to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. This is complemented and
extended by Article 19, which requires States to ‘take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and
1
Kacker, L., S.Varadan & P. Kumar, 2007, Study on Child Abuse: India, 2007, New Delhi: Ministry of Women and Child Development,
Government of India.
5
Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools
educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse,
neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of
parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child’. There is no ambiguity: ‘all
forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children.
Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and States
must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate them.2”
In its examination of States’ reports on progress towards implementing the Convention, the Committee
has recommended prohibition of corporal punishment to more than 160 States, including India in 2000 and
again in 2004. The Committee’s concluding observations on India’s second report state: “The Committee
notes the decision of the New Delhi High Court of December 2000 regarding prohibition of corporal
punishment in the schools under its jurisdiction, but remains concerned that corporal punishment is not
prohibited in the schools of other States, in the family, nor in other institutions for children, and remains
acceptable in society.
“The Committee strongly recommends that the State party prohibit corporal punishment in the family,
in schools and other institutions and undertake education campaigns to educate families, teachers and
other professionals working with and/or for children on alternative ways of disciplining children.”3
In 2006, the report of the UN Secretary-General’s Study on violence against children was submitted to
the UN General Assembly. Among its key recommendations was that all States should urgently prohibit all
forms of violence against children, including all corporal punishment.
In the context of the almost universal ratification of the CRC, repeated recommendations from the
Committee on the Rights of the Child and other UN Treaty Bodies and follow-up to the UNSG’s Study,
there is now rapidly accelerating global progress. By October 2011, 31 States had achieved a complete
ban on corporal punishment in all settings, including the home. A substantial majority of States (120) has
banned all corporal punishment in schools (for details of progress, see www.endcorporalpunishment.org).
In 2009 India enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act which explicitly
prohibited physical punishment and mental harassment in schools in its Section 17 (this protects children
aged between 6 and 14 – the current limits of compulsory education).
A Legal Perspective in India
Article 21 of the Constitution protecting the ‘Right to Life’ is the first point of reference here. It has been
interpreted to include the right to education for children under 14, and the right to dignity4. Article 21A
provides that the State “shall provide free and compulsory education” to children within this age group.
It thus moves universal primary education from an aspirational Directive Principles of State Policy to
a Constitutional obligation that Central and State Governments are duty-bound to deliver. The Child
Rights’ Charter (2003) of India specifically states that: “All children have a right to be protected against
neglect, maltreatment, injury, trafficking, sexual and physical abuse of all kinds, corporal punishment, torture,
exploitation, violence and degrading treatment.”5 Prohibition and elimination of corporal punishment in
schools is identified as a priority in the National Plan of Action for Children (2005)6 and in the report on
child protection in the National Plan for 2007–2012.The National Policy on Education (1986, modified 1992)
states that “corporal punishment will be firmly excluded from the educational systems.7”
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CRC General Comment No. 8, 2006:The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment
and Other Cruel or Degrading Forms of Punishment (Arts. 19; 28, Para. 2; and 37, inter alia), 2 March 2007, CRC/C/GC/8, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/460bc7772.html
3
CRC/C/15/Add.228, Concluding observations on second report, Paras 44 and 45, 26 February 2004.
4
Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645; M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 756.
5
National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, 2008, Protection of Children against Corporal Punishment in Schools and Institutions:
Summary Discussions by the Working Group on Corporal Punishment, p.14, available at http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/Reports/Protection_of_Children_
against_Corporal_Punishment_in_Schools_and_Institutions_December_2008.pdf
6
NPA, 2005. Article 7(f).
7
NPE, 1986 (modified 1992), S. 5.2.
2
6
Introduction
The Supreme Court banned acts of corporal punishment on children on 1 December 2000 when it
directed the State to ensure “that children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and
they receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear8”.In the year 2009, the
Parliament of India made elementary education a fundamental right for every child of this country. The
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 states in Chapter IV, titled Responsibilities
of Schools and Teachers, under:
Clause 17: Prohibition of physical punishment and mental harassment to the child–
(1) No child shall be subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be liable to disciplinary action under
the service rules applicable to such person.
This prohibition is an important step forward – it reinforces and enshrines in law the growing consensus
against corporal punishment in schools. However, the provision does not criminalise corporal punishment;
it does not resolve contradictory provisions in criminal law in favour of an absolute ban. Nor does it lay
down a standardised penalty for corporal punishment that should be incorporated in service rules to
punish corporal punishment. In practice, this could mean corporal punishment is penalised very lightly,
which would have little deterrent effect, given how widely it is accepted as a method of discipline.
The Global Initiative to End Corporal Punishment9 recommends that respecting a legal ban on corporal
punishment should become a contractual condition, so that teachers and others who continue to use
corporal punishment risk losing their jobs. In cases in which teachers and others, after warning, continue
to use corporal punishment, prosecution should be incorporated as a legitimate and necessary response.
Contradicting Commitments
In contrast with the growing policy consensus, Indian law pulls in conflicting directions on corporal
punishment. A number of legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code can be used to prosecute someone
who inflicts corporal punishment on a child in school or a custodial institution. These include, inter alia:
• Section 305: Abetment of suicide committed by a child
• Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt
• Section 325: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
• Section 326: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means
• Section 352: Assault or use of criminal force otherwise than a grave provocation
• Section 354: Outraging the modesty of a woman
• Section 506: Criminal intimidation
• Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 200010 is the only statute that criminalises acts
that may cause a child mental or physical suffering. Section 23 of the JJ Act, 2000 states as follows:
“Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or
wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected
in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.”
LRI, UNICEF, Progress on Banning Corporal Punishment in India, available at http://www.unicef.org/india/banningcorporalpunishment.pdf
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
10
Amended in 2006.
8
9
7
It is important to note, however, that the interpretation of this Section has not been tested in the higher
courts yet11, though India’s international human rights obligations as well as domestic policy guidance
would point towards expansive interpretation of Section 23. It is also important to note that Section 23
is punishable with a maximum of six months’ imprisonment. Clearly, when a child is seriously harmed as a
result of corporal punishment, the appropriate provisions of the IPC dealing with such harm would need
to be used. In addition, judgments by a few High Courts ban corporal punishment in schools, or question
long-standing justifications for corporal punishment.
However, Sections 88 and 89 of the Indian Penal Code provide immunity to a person inflicting corporal
punishment on a child if such punishment is inflicted “in good faith for the child’s benefit”. While Section 88
exempts from punishment any act that is not intended to cause death, as long as it is done in good faith for
someone’s benefit and the “beneficiary” has consented explicitly or implicitly to the act, Section 89 is the
equivalent of Section 88 for a child under 12 or a person who is mentally disabled. It renders immune an
adult who is the guardian of a child under 12, or acts with the express or implied consent of the guardian,
or has lawful charge of a child, who inflicts harm short of intentional or reckless murder, attempted murder
or grievous injury on a child under 12 “in good faith for the child’s benefit”.
Clearly, Sections 88 and 89 are incompatible with the Constitutional rights to life, equality before the law,
and education.They are also incompatible with India’s obligations under the Child Rights Convention, which
protects children from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. It is also worth emphasising
that freedom from torture is an absolute right that cannot be qualified, as some rights, such as freedom
of expression, can be. In light of the above, Section 88 needs to be amended and Section 89 needs to
be repealed as a necessary step towards protecting children from violence outside the home. While
these provisions remain in force, they will undermine other legal provisions that may penalise corporal
punishment.
Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children can take place in
many settings, including within the home and family, in all forms of alternative care, schools and other
educational institutions, in situations of child labour, in the community and justice systems, as a sentence of
the courts and as a punishment within penal institutions. Table A summarises the extent to which corporal
punishment is legally regulated in India.
Table A: Extent to which corporal punishment is legally regulated in India
Home
Not prohibited
Education (preprimary to higher
education)
Prohibited
(6-14 years; Right of
Children to Free and
Compulsory
Education Bill, 2008)
Judicial punishment
Prohibited
(JJ Act, 2000)
Children’s homes
Prohibited
(JJ Act, 2000)
Day-care/
child-minding
institutions
Not prohibited
So, the juvenile justice regime does not allow corporal punishment as punishment for an offence or as a
disciplinary measure within children’s homes, and Parliament has legislated against corporal punishment in
schools without actually referring specifically to corporal punishment. But in no other context is corporal
punishment categorically banned.
8
11
Two appeals indicate that S. 23 has been used to prosecute allegations of sexual abuse in children’s homes or in police custody, but NOT
corporal punishment inflicted in the name of discipline. (Allan John Waters and Duncan Alexander Grant v. State of Maharashtra and Maharukh
Adenwala, Crl. A. Nos. 476, 603 and 681 of 2006, decided by the Bombay HC on 23 July 2008; State v. Rameez & Others, Crl. M.C. No. 12/2006,
decided by the Delhi HC on 6 April 2009).
Introduction
NCPCR
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) was set up in March 2007 as a
statutory body under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), an Act of
Parliament (December 2005). It was set up to protect, promote and defend child rights in the country.
One of the functions of the Commission as laid out in the Act is to ‘undertake and promote research in
the field of child rights’. It has carried out a review of laws and policies by constituting a working group,
comprising educationists, lawyers, social activists, doctors, bureaucrats, representatives of non-governmental
organisations and teachers’ unions, which submitted its Report on corporal punishment12 to the Ministry
of Women and Child Development. The Commission has also made the following recommendations:
• Reform laws to remove existing defence of corporal punishment under Sections 88 and 89 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) that provide immunity to a person causing ‘hurt’ to a child if the act is ‘done in good
faith’, especially against children under the age of 12 years
• The model rules for the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Bill must specify the following:
a) The process for dealing with allegations of corporal punishment;
b) In addition to disciplinary action, criminal proceedings to be equally available to deter the use
of punishment.
In August 2007, the NCPCR also wrote to all Chief Secretaries with detailed guidelines recommending
practical steps for the elimination of corporal punishment13 and these were reiterated in May 2009
(see Annexure I). In December 2007, the Human Resource Development Ministry also wrote to all Chief
Secretaries recommending that corporal punishment be prohibited in all schools under the jurisdiction
of the State Government as it “severely affects the human dignity of the child, thereby reducing his/her
self-esteem and self-confidence”14.
This study was undertaken by the NCPCR in the academic year 2009–2010. Its objectives were to:
• Study the scale and magnitude of corporal punishment in the everyday school experiences of
India’s children
• Study the types of violent punishment prevailing in Indian schools
• Analyse by age the distribution of different types of punishments among school children
• Analyse the differences, if any, between types of school
• Analyse the differences, if any, based on children’s gender
9
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Annual Report 2008-2009, available at
http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/annualreports/Annual%20Report%20-%202008%20-09%20English.pdf
13
National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, 2008, Protection of Children against Corporal Punishment in Schools and Institutions:
Summary discussions by the Working Group on Corporal Punishment, p.14, available at http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/Reports/Protection_of_Children_
against_Corporal_Punishment_in_Schools_and_Institutions_December_2008.pdf
14
Ibid.
12
Introduction
1
Methodology: A Challenge
The Procedure
This study was conceptualised in such a manner that it addressed children directly. The study bypassed
adults and studied children’s experiences through a direct interaction with them. In order to interact with
the children, a venue was chosen in a manner to ensure that it was not directly related to school or any
other institution of formal learning. The challenge was to be able to overcome the child’s inhibitions, and
access his/her apprehensions without evoking feelings of fear.
The study was primarily a survey of children’s experiences of corporal punishment in the school setting.
The emphasis was on real practices, their magnitude and prevalence. The main tool of data gathering was
a projective tool (described below).
Projective Tool to Evoke Children’s Responses
A tool was developed to interview children using a projective technique. It focused on the experiences of
children and their perspective rather than an adult’s. The tool was in the form of a pamphlet which carried
illustrations of children receiving various kinds of punishment. The children were expected to look at each
illustration and respond whether they had experienced the same or not. The illustrations in the projective
tool presented two kinds of punishments. The first category included those punishments in which pain is
inflicted by the direct action of a teacher and the second category included those punishments in which
the child’s body is used to inflict pain, that is, the child is asked to sit or stand in postures which result in
pain and suffering, referred to as posture punishments in this study.The punishments involving verbal abuse
were investigated by using abusive words in front of the children. In addition, a few questions were asked
about the frequency of punishment and the reasons for punishment. In Part II of the tool, children were
given an enlarged illustration in which an adult was inflicting some kind of physical pain on a child through
punishment. The child had to tell who the adult could be; and what the reason was in his/her judgment for
the punishment being given.
Approaching Children
The study followed an unusual method of getting children to talk on a topic which raises fear and a sense
of injury. In order to avoid the consequences of the child being identified as a whistle blower, the children
were not accessed at school or at home. Extreme caution was used by not reminding anybody other than
the child about the experience. In addition, care was taken to avoid any unpleasant interaction between the
child and the teacher, and between a particular child and his/her classmates.The children were interviewed
early in the morning, on their way to school and in the afternoon on their way home.The locations chosen
were: bus stop, rickshaw pick-up and drop points and the street between home and school. Every child was
11
shown a copy of the tool and asked to focus on each illustration and respond if he/she had experienced
the same. The interviewers recorded the responses given by the participating children.
Sampling
The sampling design used for this study was random sampling. It was a large sample to ensure balance
and reliability. No attempt was made to ‘select’ children from any particular group or school. The data was
collected by teacher-trainees and volunteers who knew how to interact with children so as to ensure
that the children did not feel threatened. A total of 6,632 children were interviewed across seven states:
Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.
Since random sampling was used, children belonging to diverse socio-economic settings and more
importantly to different types of schools are represented in the sample. This sample also represents
children of all ages ranging from 3 to 17 years (see Table 2.1). Boys and girls are represented adequately in
the sample (see Table 2.3). The data was collected between August 2009 and February 2010.
12
Data Analysis
2
Data Analysis
The findings of the study are presented in this chapter along with data tables. The practice of corporal
punishment emerges as an everyday reality for Indian children irrespective of their gender, location in the
country and the type of school they attend. It is apparent from the data that all types of Indian schools – private,
Central Government run or State Government run – use the body as a site to control a child’s mind,
thereby regulating his/her behaviour and learning.
This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section presents overall trends of the data and some
reflections on it. The second section presents details of children’s experiences of punishments in which
pain is inflicted directly by the actions of their teachers. The third section presents the data and trends of
punishments in which a child’s body is used to inflict pain through different postures. The fourth section
presents the details of verbal abuse – situations where children are abused or threatened using abusive
language. The fifth section presents an analysis of the second part of the tool in which children were asked
to project on to an illustration and make meaning of those illustrations. Information was gleaned from this
interaction and recorded.
Section I: Introducing the Sample
This section presents a general introduction to the sample of children who were interviewed for this study.
The profile of the sample has been constructed along three dimensions – age, type of school and gender.
Table 2.1: Age-wise distribution of the sample
Age group
No. of children
Percentage
3–5 yrs
107
1.6
6 –9 yrs
1897
28.6
10–14 yrs
4193
63.2
15–17 yrs
365
5.5
70
1.0
6632
100
Did not report age
Total
More than 90% participants (Table 2.1) are in the age-group 6-14 years studying in elementary grades
(see Table 2.2).
Table 2.3 gives the sex ratio of the sample. The number of girls is large enough to enable an interpolation
of gender-based insights. In India today, the number of children studying in privately run schools is less than
the number of children studying in the schools run by State Governments. The distribution of this random
sample as viewed across the three types of schools (schools run by State Governments, schools run by the
Central Government and private schools), reflects a similar trend (Table 2.4).
13
Table 2.2: Grade-wise distribution of the sample
Grade
No. of children
Percentage
Grade 1
414
6.2
Grade 2
536
8
Grade 3
789
11.8
Grade 4
996
15
Grade 5
1126
16.9
Grade 6
882
13.2
Grade 7
740
11.1
Grade 8
684
10.3
Grade 9 and above
413
6.2
52
0.007
6632
100
Did not report grade
Total (Grades 1 to 11)
Table 2.3: Sex-wise distribution of the sample
Sex
No. of children
Percentage
Boys
3556
53.6
Girls
2969
44.7
Did not report sex
Total
107
1.6
6632
100
Table 2.4: Type of school-wise distribution of the sample
Type of school
State Govt.
Central Govt.
Private
Did not report school type
Total
No. of children
Percentage
3567
53.7
857
12.9
1993
30.05
215
3.23
6632
100
Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 present the distribution of the sample as classified along four parameters. It is
important to reiterate that the study followed a random sampling method and the sample in the above
four categories is reflective of the trends that have been observed in reality as well. Out of the total of
6,632 children across seven states, only nine denied having received any kind of punishment. This means
that 6,623 children or 99.86% of children had experienced punishment of one kind or the other.
14
Table 2.5 and Figure 2.1 present the frequency with which children studying in different types of schools
acknowledged that they had experienced at least one kind of punishment. The table reveals that there
is not much difference between the experiences of girls and boys across different types of schools. The
probability of receiving punishment remains high, irrespective of the type of school. Respondents were also
asked to indicate a time frame for when they had received punishment. The data is comparable amongst
those who provided their time frames as ‘the day before’ and ‘the week before’. However, the frequency
with which children receive corporal punishment in Central Government schools rises significantly.
As many as 34.4% of boys studying in Central Government schools recalled being punished in the month
prior to the study. This is the highest frequency count, followed by the girls of Central Government
schools (28.8%) who reported having been subjected to punishment more than a month prior to the
Data Analysis
study. The third highest frequency count (27%) is of the boys studying in State Government schools who
were punished in the week when the data was collected. This challenges the popular notion that State
Government run schools are the most harsh when it comes to punishing children. The frequency counts
of private schools are not substantially different from other types of schools. This implies that Indian
children are at equal risk of being punished brutally, irrespective of whether the schools are managed by
a State Government, Central Government or private bodies.
Table 2.5: Frequency of punishment (%)
Frequency
Same day
In the same week
In the same month
More than
a month earlier
Sex
School type
State Govt.
Central Govt.
Private
Boys
14.4
11.5
16.5
Girls
13.7
12.3
13.3
Boys
27.5
15.4
18.8
Girls
22.9
13.7
18.1
Boys
18.9
34.6
20.0
Girls
16.2
24.7
20.1
Boys
11.0
15.4
11.1
Girls
11.6
28.8
11.2
15
Table 2.6 describes the possibility of different kinds of punishments that Indian children are likely to receive
in their schools. It includes all the three types of punishments, namely those in which pain is inflicted by the
teacher’s action, those in which pain is inflicted by using child’s body and verbal abuse.
Table 2.6: Rank-wise distribution of punishments as experienced by the respondents
Punishment
16
Value (%)
Rank
Type
Mental characteristics/Derisive adjectives
81.2
1
Verbal
Beaten by cane
75.0
2
Physical
Slapped on cheek
69.9
3
Physical
Hit on back
57.5
4
Physical
Ears getting boxed
57.4
5
Physical
Made to stand outside classroom
53.0
6
Posture
Beaten on hand by scale
51.0
7
Physical
Made to stand with hands up
42.7
8
Posture
Squatting (Murga banana)
41.4
9
Posture
Animal based
40.7
10
Verbal
Made to kneel down
38.8
11
Posture
Pinched
26.9
12
Physical
Getting hit on knuckles
23.6
13
Physical
Made to stand on bench
23.1
14
Posture
Hair pulled
21.6
15
Physical
Hands wringed
19.2
16
Physical
Not allowed to visit bathroom
17.9
17
Physical
Running rounds on playground
15.3
18
Physical
Made to stand on one leg
15.2
19
Posture
Relational abuse (Sexist)
14.5
20
Verbal
Fingers pressed with pencil in-between
12.0
21
Physical
Caste and community based
10.1
22
Verbal
Nose wringed
6.8
23
Physical
Girls’ hair getting knotted
2.8
24
Posture
Getting tied to chair/table
1.2
25
Physical
Threatening phrases
0.8
26
Verbal
Getting electric shocks
0.4
27
Physical
A rank-wise distribution of all types of punishments experienced as well as acknowledged by children is
given in Table 2.6. The table shows that the practice of abusing children verbally by attacking their psyche
occupies the top rank. As many as 81.2% children were subjected to outright rejection by being told that
they are not capable of learning. The punishments occupying the next four ranks are: getting beaten by a
cane, being slapped on the cheeks, being hit on the back and being boxed on the ears. Triangulation of the
three top-ranking punishments reveals that there are a very large number of children who have received
all the three kinds of punishments. Out of the five top-ranking punishments, four involve infliction of pain
by direct action of the teacher. Even the cruel practice of giving electric shocks has found a mention in the
data collected (see Figure 2.2).
In the analysis that follows, the data is cross-tabulated with age, gender and the type of school. For this, the
three different types of punishments have been considered separately.
Data Analysis
Section II: Direct Punishments
This section presents the major trends reflected in the data about punishments in which pain is inflicted
directly by the teacher. It can be seen from Tables 2.7 and 2.8 and Figure 2.3 that beating with a cane appears
to be a preferred method of controlling children in Indian schools. It needs to be pointed out here that the
cane is a weapon, whereas all other punishments in this category are meted out by the hands of an adult.
It points to a continuation of the tradition in which cane in hand was perceived as identifying a teacher. In
this tradition, the cane serves as a means to control children. The next two punishments – slapping on the
cheeks and beating on the back – appear as second preferences on a marginally lower scale. The top three
methods of regulating children’s conduct and performance are the cruellest in terms of the physical injury
and damage they cause to a child’s physical and mental health.
The spinal cord provides support and strength to the human body to lead a normal life. However, 57.5% of
Indian children run the risk of this vital part of their body being injured or weakened as a result of corporal
punishment. Other forms of punishment, such as boxing of ears, hitting on arms with a scale and pinching
the child are also popular. The physical pain caused by them is equally severe.
17
Table 2.7: Value and rank of direct punishment: teacher’s actions
Punishment
18
Value (%)
Rank
Beaten by cane
75.0
1
Slapped on cheek
69.9
2
Beaten on back
57.5
3
Ears getting boxed
57.4
4
51.0
5
Pinched
26.9
6
Getting hit on knuckles
23.6
7
Hair pulled
21.6
8
Hands wringed
19.2
9
Not allowed to visit bathroom
17.9
10
15.3
11
Fingers pressed with pencil in-between
12.0
12
Nose wringed
6.8
13
Getting tied to chair/table
1.2
14
Getting electric shocks
0.4
15
Table 2.8 deconstructs these cruel punishments. More than 65% of pre-primary and Grade I children have
already been beaten by a cane and almost 61% have been slapped on their cheeks. These early graders
have already experienced the bitter side of school life by being subjected to inhuman treatment. Since the
Data Analysis
data is not mutually exclusive, the respondents had experienced more than one of these most injurious
punishments. The practice of punishment in the preparatory school is no different from the primary or
middle schools in this respect.
The severity and frequency of punishments increases slightly in the higher age brackets. However, beating –
with hands, cane or scale – is a regular part of school life ( Figure 2.4).
Table 2.8: Age-wise distribution of top six direct punishments (%)
Beaten by
cane
Slapped on
cheek
Beaten on the
back
Ears getting
boxed
Beaten on
hand by scale
Pinched
3–5 yrs
65.4
60.7
50.5
59.8
37.4
29.9
6– 9 yrs
73.5
71.3
57.8
59.9
52.0
25.9
10–14 yrs
76.0
70.0
58.3
57.3
51.8
27.0
(3–17 yrs)
75.0
69.9
57.5
57.4
51.0
26.9
Age group
19
Contrary to the popular belief that girls are spared or are punished with less severe methods which do
not involve physical injury, Table 2.9 shows that Indian school-going girls are punished as severely as boys.
In fact, the difference for the most damaging practice, namely a slap on the cheek is less than 4%.
Table 2.9: Gender-wise distribution of top six direct punishments (%)
Sex
Beaten by
cane
Slapped on
cheek
Beaten on
back
Ears getting
boxed
Beaten on
hand by scale
Pinched
Boys
78.0
71.9
59.8
60.7
53.0
78.0
Girls
71.1
67.1
53.9
53.5
48.5
71.1
Tables 2.10 and 2.11 corroborate the findings presented in Table 2.5, i.e. similarity in experience of students
across different types of schools. Students in both privately-run schools and schools run by different
government agencies face a similar situation with respect to the five top-ranking punishments. The chance
of being subjected to physical methods of control is high in all types of schools. It appears that the
frequency of punishment is higher in private schools though certain kinds of punishment are given less.
Private schools consistently attempt to keep the child under control by using physical punishment. The
data in Table 2.10 also reveals that slapping children on the cheeks is a common method of control and
humiliation with 69.6% of children in State-run schools claiming to have been slapped on their cheeks as
against 69.7% in Central Government schools and 70.5% in private schools.
Across schools, there is a marginal difference in the use of cane and scale to hit children. It is in the practice
of hitting children on their backs in which State Government and central schools are way ahead of private
schools. Out of all the children studying in private schools, almost 50% acknowledged being hit on their
backs but this figure jumps by almost 30% when it comes to Central Government schools.The reasons for
this might be an interesting point of investigation in future studies.
Table 2.10: Type of school-wise distribution of top six direct punishments (%)
Beaten by
cane
Slapped on
cheek
Beaten on
back
Ears getting
boxed
Beaten on
hand by scale
Pinched
State Govt.
78.2
69.6
61.5
58.6
52.3
28.0
Central Govt.
78.9
69.7
64.5
48.7
51.3
27.0
Private
69.0
70.5
49.3
54.4
49.5
23.7
Type of School
20
As indicated by Table 2.11, private schools show little discrimination between boys and girls when it
comes to hitting them with hands, scale or cane. In the case of other kinds of punishment, such as being
asked to take rounds of the playground or not being allowed to use the toilet, girls are treated at par
with boys. This includes girls who are adolescents and may have attained puberty. The need to use the
toilet has an added dimension in the case of adolescent girls, arising out of distinct bodily processes.
However, schools seem to lack this sensitivity and often treat girls and boys in a similar way. This is true
of State Government and Central Government schools as well. In fact, state schools are stricter with
girls in this respect, with 16.2% girls and 15% boys reporting that they were stopped from using a toilet.
Central schools have shown slight leniency towards girls with 9.6% girls as against 12.8% boys reporting
that they were prohibited from using the toilet. While the difference is not much, it highlights the issue
of the body being used as a site of control and order. The data for these punishments is not mutually
exclusive and there is additional data that shows the existence of several more types of punishments in
this category.This implies an overwhelming use of children’s body by the school authorities to emphasise
norms of conduct and learning.
Data Analysis
Table 2.11: Gender and type of school wise distribution of direct punishments (%)
Punishment type
Sex
State Govt.
Central Govt.
Private
Pinched
Boys
28.7
29.5
23.9
Girls
27.0
24.7
22.8
Boys
19.5
26.9
12.3
Girls
23.9
30.1
20.1
Boys
81.7
84.6
71.0
Girls
74.0
74.0
66.3
Boys
54.5
44.9
50.4
Girls
49.6
58.9
48.4
Boys
61.9
55.1
56.0
Girls
54.8
41.1
52.0
Boys
63.8
71.8
51.8
Girls
58.4
57.5
44.9
Boys
13.9
11.5
17.3
Girls
13.6
9.6
19.9
Boys
71.7
76.9
71.9
Girls
66.7
63.0
68.2
Boys
15.0
12.8
19.9
Girls
16.2
9.6
18.8
Hair pulled
Beaten by cane
Ears getting boxed
Beaten on back
Slapped on cheek
Not allowed to use toilet
Hair pulling is the only punishment in which girls outnumber boys in all the three types of schools. Table 2.11
indicates that Central Government schools are harsher on certain counts, such as beating on the back. It
is natural to be curious about the reasons for giving such harsh treatment to small children so the children
in the study were asked to share reasons for being punished. Some of the reasons given by them are as
follows:
1. Academic Reasons
Homework na karne par (for not doing home-work)
Kaksha karya na karne par (for not doing class-work)
Copy kitaab na lane par (for not bringing notebooks and books to the class)
Question answer na sunaa pane par (for not being able to answer the questions)
Padhte samay kitaab par unglee na rakho to (for not placing finger on the text while reading)
Pen na lane par (for not bringing a pen)
Teacher se jyada sawal karne par (for asking too many questions)
Doosre subject ka kaam karne par (for doing work of other subjects)
2. Child-like Behaviour and Human Needs
Baat karne par (for talking)
Masti karne par (for having fun)
Chupke khana khane par (for secretly eating food)
Zyada samay toilet mein bitane par (for spending extra time in toilet)
21
Toilet jane ke liye permission mangne par (for seeking permission to go to toilet)
Bina period ke bahar khelne par (for playing outside if it is not games period)
Padhate samay baat karne par (for talking while studying)
Line tod kar pani peene ke liye jane par (for breaking the queue to go and drink water)
Class mein khada hone par (for standing in the class)
Kagaz ka hawaijahaz udane par (for throwing paper airplanes)
Prarthana se pahle khelne par (for playing before morning prayers)
Lunch time mein der se aane par (for coming late after lunch break)
Class ke bahar ghoomne se (for loitering around in the school)
Bina permission toilet jane par (for going to toilet without permission)
Recess mein blackboard par likhne par (for writing on the blackboard during recess)
Class mein khelne par (for playing in the class)
Class mein khada hone par (for standing in the class)
Dheema bolne par (for talking softly)
Desk ke charo ore ghoomne par (for circling around the desk )
Toilet jane ke naam par khelne par (for playing in the name of going to toilet)
Bahar se cheezein khareedne par (for buying things from vendors)
Teacher ke table par baithne par (for sitting at the teacher’s table)
Class mein so jane par (for sleeping in the class)
Teacher’s room ke bahar khelne par (for playing in front of the staff room)
Prayer mein aankh kholke khada hone par (for opening eyes during morning prayer)
Hasne par (for laughing)
3. Establishing Inconsequential Order in School
Uniform mein kamee rehne par (for not wearing proper uniform)
Bahut chhuttiyan karne par (for missing school on several days)
Teacher ka manga saman na lane par (for not taking things that teacher demands)
Chori karne par (for theft)
Lunch mein ghar bhaag jaane par (for going home during lunch)
School late aane par (for coming late to school)
Bina nahae aane par (for coming to school without taking a bath)
Prayer se late aane par (for reaching class late after morning assembly)
Teacher ko good morning na karne par (for not wishing the teacher good morning)
School se bhaag jaane par (for running away from the school)
Parents ko na bulane par (for not asking parents come to school)
22
Fees samay par na lane par (for not paying the fees on time)
Data Analysis
4. Arbitrary
Gusse se bina galtee ke bhee maartee hai (when she is angry she hits without any reason)
A cross tabulation of the three harshest punishments in this category has been done across age-groups.
Tables 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14 deconstruct the behavioural factors responsible for inflicting intense physical
pain, which must have been internalised by children as genuine reasons. The question in the tool had asked
children to provide reasons that they thought were behind the punishments.
Table 2.12: Age-wise distribution of slapping on cheeks correlated with reasons (%)
Age groups
Reasons
3–5 yrs
6–9 yrs
10–14 yrs
15–17 yrs
Did not report age
Academic reasons
59.8
66.4
67.1
61.6
71.4
Child-like behaviour and human needs
52.3
64.6
62.3
53.4
65.7
Establishing inconsequential order in school
37.4
34.6
39.3
41.6
34.3
9.3
2.2
3.5
4.1
1.4
Arbitrary or no apparent reason
Table 2.13: Age-wise distribution of beating on back correlated with reasons (%)
Age groups
Reasons
3–5 yrs
6–9 yrs
10–14 yrs
15–17 yrs
Did not report age
Academic reasons
47.7
54.6
56.1
47.9
54.3
43.9
52.7
52.6
42.7
47.1
29.9
27.5
32.8
32.9
24.3
10.3
2.0
2.1
1.1
0.0
Table 2.14: Age-wise distribution of beating by cane correlated with reasons (%)
Reasons
Age groups
3–5 yrs
6–9 yrs
10–14 yrs
15–17 yrs
Did not report age
Academic reasons
61.7
69.2
72.8
70.7
74.3
57.0
65.8
67.3
61.6
65.7
39.3
36.0
42.3
46.6
34.3
11.2
2.5
3.9
5.8
0.0
Tables 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14 show a consistent pattern across age groups. The youngest group, between the
ages of 3 and 5 years, often gets beaten because of substandard academic performance. Poor academic
performance is cited as one of the main reasons for receiving corporal punishment. But terms like ‘poor’
or ‘substandard’ are not enough to cover a variety of other issues that might exist. Many factors for nonperformance in academic areas are related to education only in a peripheral way. In reality, almost all the
reasons clubbed under this category also arise out of socio-economic factors, genuine academic struggles
and other limitations that prohibit the fulfilment of the work that a teacher demands.
These reasons accentuate the well-known character of Indian classrooms in which teachers demand
repeated reproduction of the information taught to children. Learning by rote is seen as the only way to
learn in and children who do not live up to this expectation suffer physical torture. The child’s inability to
bring stationery is seen as deliberate disobedience and not as linked to his/her family’s poverty.This data also
reveals that despite the implementation of two nation-wide programmes of universalisation of elementary
education, namely District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), provision
of basic material in schools is not taken up in a systematic manner.
23
These reasons cited earlier indicate a complete denial of an appropriate environment to Indian children in
the school setting. Children are expected to practice high levels of self-control. They should not express
feelings of hunger and thirst or demand to go to the toilet too often. Children are straight-jacketed in the
space of the school and ‘seriousness’ is the only appreciated virtue. The joys of childhood, such as making
an aeroplane from a sheet of paper, are considered problematic as they keep the child from being under
control. A child is not treated as a child in the classroom; he/she is an unruly body which needs constant
controlling. All these factors indicate that the teacher-student relationship is not governed by democratic
concerns or insights drawn from educational theory. The interaction is governed by the impulse of adults to
control young minds and bodies. The other factors include schools’ insistence on establishing order which
has no relation to the outside world. The schools function in a cocoon-like setting, removed from reality.
As institutions responsible for bringing about desired social change, they have neither an understanding of
their students’ life at home nor are they well-versed in child psychology and educational theory.
To summarise, these harsh methods of punishment – hitting with a scale, hand and cane – are used across
schools, without any discrimination on the basis of gender. The punishments, which involve severe injury
to the body, begin at an early age – almost as soon as school starts. Three-year old children in the sample
also reported having been subjected to these punishments.
In the next section, a similar analysis is presented about punishments which are meted out by using the
child’s body. Prima facie, these appear less dangerous, but they can be damaging because the source of
pain is not inflicted by an external agent. The child is likely to blame himself/herself in the event of such
punishments and feel helpless in addition to being a victim of physical pain and injury.
Section III: Posture Punishments
Several children standing outside the classroom or bent over in a squatting pose (also known as murga banna)
is a familiar sight. To increase the intensity of the punishment, children could also be asked to raise their
hands while standing or squatting in the sun. These punishments are frequently used by Indian teachers
in order to punish children for scoring poor marks in examinations and also for breaking rules of the
school. Table 2.15 ranks the preference with which posture-based punishments are meted out to children.
Children’s legs, arms, and hair are used to give them pain so that they behave in a ‘desirable’ way. In this
category, the top-ranking punishment is making children stand outside the classroom, followed by standing
with hands raised in the air, and squatting. (see Figure 2.5)
Table 2.15: Rank and value of posture-based punishments
Punishment
Value (%)
Rank
Made to stand outside classroom
53.0
1
Made to stand with hands up
42.7
2
Squatting (Murga banana)
41.4
3
Made to kneel down
38.8
4
Made to stand on bench
23.1
5
Made to stand on one leg
15.2
6
2.8
7
Hair getting knotted
24
Data Analysis
Table 2.16 synthesises the analysis done in Section I that revealed the early age at which a child’s body is
subject to regimentation. It begins as soon as children start going to school. The severity of punishment
exists irrespective of the age of the child. As many as 46.7% children in the age-group of 3–5 years reported
having stood outside the classroom. Posture-based punishments are given the maximum to the children
in age groups which correspond with elementary grades, with the highest frequency for the age group
10–14 years. These children are often made to stand outside the classroom when they are punished
(see Figure 2.6).
By analysing these punishments across age groups, it can be observed that the frequency of receiving these
punishments increases with age, making their futility apparent. If the punishments were truly successful as
deterrents, then the frequency would have reduced for older children whereas the reality is different. The
frequency of certain punishments is high throughout and implies a continuity of physical pain in the school
life of children.
Table 2.16: Age-wise experiences of punishments in which pain is inflicted in the form of postures (%)
Made to
stand outside
classroom
Made to
stand with
hands up
Squatting
(Murga
banana)
Made to
kneel down
Made to
stand on the
bench
Made to
stand on
one leg
Hair getting
knotted
3–5 yrs
46.7
36.4
33.6
42.1
18.7
25.2
7.5
6–9 yrs
46.8
41.2
41.6
35.8
23.0
14.7
2.5
Age group
10–14 yrs
54.9
44.0
41.8
40.5
23.7
15.6
2.9
Total
53.0
42.7
41.4
38.8
23.1
15.2
2.8
25
Contd.
Table 2.17 shows that the number of girls being subjected to posture-based punishments is almost the same
as the number of boys, except for squatting (Murga banana). There is no difference in the frequency of
punishment meted out to girls and boys when it comes to standing outside the classroom, standing with hands
up, standing on the bench, standing on one leg or kneeling down.When it comes to squatting, school-going girls
get some relief – a possible reason might be the wearing skirts as part of the school uniform (see Figure 2.7).
Table 2.17: Sex disaggregated experiences of posture punishments (%)
26
Sex
Made to
stand outside
classroom
Made to
stand with
hands up
Squatting
(Murga
banana)
Made to
kneel down
Made to
stand on the
bench
Made to
stand on one
leg
Hair getting
knotted
Boys
53.5
43.0
45.1
39.3
23.8
15.9
2.2
Girls
52.6
41.9
36.1
37.2
22.5
14.4
3.6
Total
53.0
42.7
41.4
38.8
23.1
15.2
2.8
Data Analysis
Table 2.18 presents details of posture-based punishments across types of schools. This table subverts the
notion that private schools are less harsh in giving out punishment to their students. The image of private
schools that emerges is that they are as insensitive as other types of schools. In fact, State Governmentrun schools appear better than both private and Central Government schools in this respect. For example,
57% children in private schools had stood outside their classrooms as compared to 50.8% of children
studying in State Government schools. Similarly, 48.7% children in Central Government schools admitted to
having been subjected to squatting as punishment as compared to 40.6% of children in State Government
schools. Even in the case of other punishments, such as standing with hands raised in the air, children in private
schools and central schools experience them much more than children in State Government schools.
Table 2.18: School type disaggregated experiences of posture punishments (%)
School type
Made to
stand outside
classroom
Made to
stand with
hands up
Squatting
(Murga
banana)
Made to
kneel down
Made to
stand on
the bench
Made to
stand on
one leg
Hair getting
knotted
State Govt.
50.8
38.7
40.6
40.4
20.3
15.4
2.4
Central Govt.
54.4
51.8
48.7
28.3
30.3
18.4
2.6
Private
57.2
52.4
41.2
29.0
29.2
12.4
2.1
Total
53.0
42.7
41.4
38.8
23.1
15.2
2.8
To summarise, it is found that both genders are treated at par while receiving posture-based punishments
and private schools and central schools use these punishments to a far greater extent than schools run by
the State Government.
The next section deals with the experiences of children when they are subjected to various forms of
verbal abuse.
Section IV: Verbal Abuse
At the outset it is important to share with the reader that the study had given only ten commonly used
abusive terms in the tool.They did not involve caste-based abuses or any abuses that could be said to have
sexist undertones. However, in response to the eleventh item – ‘any other’ – the respondents provided
a long list of abusive words that they have been exposed to. These abusive words were categorised into
five categories on the basis of the intention behind the words.
A few of the abusive words children reported during the study are as follows:
Mental Characteristics
Pagal, Idiot, Nalayak, Kamchor, Bewakoof, Fool, Besharam, Mandbuddhi, Ulti Khopdi, Badtameez, Jaahil, Buddhu,
Nikammo, Foolish No.1, Chudail, Anaadi, Akal Band, Beakal, Andha, Dheeth, Bimari, Awaara.
Caste and Community Based
Badjaat, Kanjar, Aadiwasi, Bhikhari, Ashuddh, Paapee, Bihari,Tum kachre se aate ho.
Relational Abuse
Haraamee, Haramkhor, Sala, Kameena, Teri maa naache hai and other words which are derogatory towards
women.
27
The study points out that as a result of being exposed to such language, the school often proves to be a
source of learning for abusive terms. Several children reported that their teachers use abusive words which
have a derogatory reference to the women of their family. If the children are exposed to these abuses at
an early age and the exposure is constant, they are bound to pick up these words. Caste-based abuses
which have been banned for more than a decade, but it is found that they continue to be used in the school
setting in some form or the other.
Table 2.19: Value and rank of verbal abuse (%)
Punishment
Value (%)
Rank
Mental characteristics/Derisive adjectives
81.2
1
Animal based
41.7
2
14.5
3
10.1
4
0.8
5
Threatening phrases
It can be seen from Table 2.19 and Figure 2.8 that Indian children mostly are abused for having apparently
‘below par’ mental characteristics.Table 2.20 shows that as many as 82.2% of children in the age group 3–5
years admitted to being abused by their teachers for not possessing a sound mind. In all other categories of
verbal abuses, the youngest children seem to suffer the most. They are not even spared from sexist abuses
though they may not even comprehend them (see Figure 2.9).
Table 2.20: Age-wise punishment inflicted by verbal abuse (%)
Age group
28
Mental
characteristics/
Derisive adjectives
Animal based
Relational abuse
(Sexist)
Caste and
community
based
Threatening
phrases
3–5 yrs
82.2
54.2
23.4
11.2
0.5
6–9 yrs
75.3
39.8
14.3
9.4
0.4
10–14 yrs
83.8
41.4
14.4
10.5
1.0
Total (3–17 yrs)
81.2
40.7
14.5
10.1
0.8
Data Analysis
Table 2.21: Sex-wise punishment inflicted by verbal abuse (%)
Sex
Mental
characteristics/
Derisive adjectives
Animal-based
Relational abuse
(Sexist)
Caste and
community
based
Threatening
phrases
Boys
81.6
44.8
15.4
9.0
0.8
Girls
81.1
36.1
13.4
11.6
0.8
Total
81.2
40.7
14.5
10.1
0.8
Table 2.21 presents a description of the experiences of boys and girls when it comes to being abused
verbally. Except for animal-based abuses, there is parity between the percentages of school-going boys and
girls who acknowledged being abused by different forms of derogatory language. The notion that girls are
spared from harsh language is fallacious because this study shows that even amongst the children who are
at the receiving end of sexist abuses, the percentage of girls is only marginally less than boys. At school,
they are considered as incapable and as unruly as boys.
Table 2.22: Punishment inflicted by verbal abuse disaggregated by school type (%)
Mental
characteristics/
Derisive adjectives
Animal based
Relational abuse
(Sexist)
Caste and
community
based
Threatening
phrases
State Govt.
80.4
44.0
15.5
11.8
0.9
Central Govt.
71.1
17.1
11.8
15.8
2.0
Private
83.9
34.9
10.6
7.6
0.8
Total
81.2
40.7
14.5
10.1
0.8
Type of school
Table 2.22 shows that the practice of abusing children verbally is common in all types of schools. In
private schools the emphasis is more on the apparently ‘below par’ mental characteristics of children – as
reported by close to 83.9% of children. Although sexist abuses prevail across all the three categories of
29
schools, children in State Government-run schools reported the maximum frequency in the use of these
words at 15.5%. The Central Government schools also subject their children to such abuses (71.1%) even
though their data looks better than that of other schools.
Table 2.23: Punishment inflicted by verbal abuse disaggregated by sex and school type (%)
Punishment type
Sex
School type
State Govt.
Central Govt.
Private
Govt. aided school
81.1
70.5
83.6
100.0
Mental characteristics/
Derisive adjectives
Boys
Girls
79.7
72.6
84.8
50.0
Animal based
Boys
48.4
14.1
38.5
0.0
Girls
39.2
19.2
30.4
0.0
Boys
10.2
11.5
7.1
25.0
Girls
13.7
20.5
8.3
0.0
Threatening adverbial phrases
Boys
1.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
Girls
0.8
4.1
1.0
0.0
Boys
16.9
10.3
10.2
0.0
Girls
13.9
12.3
11.6
0.0
Table 2.23 corroborates the trends that were discussed earlier:
(1) Girls are verbally abused on a par with boys
(2) The type of school does not make any difference to this experience
The notion that the privately-managed schools have better qualified staff and therefore they are less
likely to be cruel to children has been proven to be a misconception by this empirical study. There is little
difference in children’s words, their expressions and their feelings whether they study in a private school
or in a government school. The denial of their childhood is equally intense and pervasive.
Section V: Projective Tool
There was a section in the tool in which two enlarged illustrations were presented to the children who
participated in the study. Both the illustrations depicted a child getting hit by an adult. The children were
asked to imagine who the adult in the illustration could be and what could be the reason behind hitting
the child? The children responded candidly. Their answers reveal the fear that children experience in the
company of adults and this fear is internalised at a very young age. For children, adults can be abusive
whether at home or at school. The institution does not matter. A majority of children (53%) thought that
the adult in the illustration was a parent and 4% thought that it was a grandparent or relative that the child
must have disobeyed.The children have internalised the idea of pleasing the adults all the time and in every
setting. As many as 43% children thought the adult was a teacher and that the teacher was upset because
the child had not done well in the exams or had not completed her homework.
30
This implies that children have internalised the idea that abuse inflicted by teachers is justified because they
think about our well-being and prepare us to face difficulties in life like exams. However, the overall image
of the adult world from a child’s perspective which can be extrapolated from this study is of a harsh and
cruel world. In verbal as well as physical communication, adults present an inharmonious world to children
in which kindness has limited role to play.
Data Analysis
Lkk{kkRdkj
Rkkjh[k ----------------------------------
txg ----------------------------------
1- mez 2- fyax
3- Ldwy dk izdkj 4- d{kk
5- D;k Ldwy esa rqEgkjh fiVkbZ gksrh gS\
6- fiNyh ckj rqEgkjh fiVkbZ dc gqbZ Fkh\
7- bu esa ls dkSu&dkSu lh lt+k rqeus Hkqxrh gS\
fpdksVh dkVuk
NM+h ls ekjuk
cky [khp¡uk
maxfy;ksa ds xêksa esa isafly
Q¡lkdj nckuk
31
gkFk ij QqVs ls ekjuk
est+ ls ck¡/kuk
dku ejksM+uk
ck¡g ejksM+uk
32
ihB ij ekjuk
eSnku ds pDdj yxokuk
Data Analysis
ukd ejksM+uk
xky ij FkIiM+ ekjuk
maxfy;ksa ds xêksa ij ekjuk
“kkSpky; u tkus nsuk
33
fctyh dk djaV yxkuk
8- rqedks Ldwy esa buesa ls dkSu&dkSu lh ltk,¡ feyrh jgrh gSa\
nks yM+fd;ksa dh pksVh ck¡/kuk
d{kk ds ckgj [kM+k dj nsuk
eqxkZ cukuk
gkFk Åij djds [kM+k djuk
est+ ij [kM+k djuk
34
,d iSj ij [kM+k djuk
?kqVuksa ds cy [kM+k djuk
Data Analysis
9- D;k rqEgkjh d{kk ds lHkh cPpksa dks ltk feyrh gS ;k dqN [kkl cPpksa dks\
10-mu cPpksa dks ltk D;ksa feyrh gS\
Û gkseodZ u djus ij
Û d{kkdk;Z u djus ij
Û ijh{kk esa uEcj de vkus ij
Û “kksj epkus ij
Û ;wuhQkeZ esa deh jgus ij
Û f”k{kd ds loky ds Bhd mRrj u nsus ij
Û dksbZ vU; dkj.k
11- ,d g¶rs esa rqedks fdruh ckj ltk feyrh gS\
12- rqEgkjs v/;kid buesa ls dkSu ls “kCnksa dk mi;ksx rqEgkjs lgikfB;ksa ds fy, djrs gSa&
Û ikxy
Û mYyw
Û bMh;V
Û dkepksj
Û ukyk;d
Û cntkr
Û gjkeh
Û mYyw ds iV~Bs
Û dksbZ vU; “kCn
35
Data Analysis
3
Conclusion
There were 6632 children who participated in this study across seven states, namely Delhi, Madhya Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. These children were studying in three
types of schools, namely private, Central Government schools and schools run by State Governments.The
findings of the study indicate a high prevalence of physical as well as verbal abuse. There were only nine
children who had not experienced even a single punishment in any of the categories.The main conclusions
that can be drawn from the study are:
3.1 The experience of punishment and abuse begins at an early age
The study reveals that the introduction of all the three kinds of punishment – verbal abuse, direct infliction
of pain by the teacher and posture punishments – begin as soon as the children start their schooling, that
is, at the pre-primary stage. These three methods are used not just to create fear in the children’s minds
at an early age, but are also used on a regular basis to maintain control through terror tactics. Even the
preparatory schools socialise and nurture the child in a culture of fear. The four most common forms of
punishment are being beaten by cane, being hit on the back, getting boxed on the ears and being slapped
on the cheek. The youngest children in the school system also suffer the severity of these four forms of
punishment. This shows that the popular notion that the severity of punishment is less for younger kids
is not true. As soon as the institution of the school is introduced in their life, the reality of punishment
unfolds, remaining consistent till the end. Although the instances are few, there are children in this age
group who had experienced getting electric shocks in the school.The punishments in which pain is inflicted
through a child’s own body are also used with equal severity for the youngest children in the schoolsystem – 46.7% of 3–5 year olds had been made to stand outside their classroom and this percentage is
consistent for older groups of children as well. The 3–5 year age group is made to kneel down and squat
on the floor as much as older children are.Thus, there is hardly any differentiation or leniency observed for
younger children. However, what makes the overall scenario for this age-group worrisome is the fact that
they constitute a highly abused group in terms of the way they are punished by words. Derisive adjectives
had been used for 82.2% of 3–5 year old children which is marginally less than 83.8% of the oldest group
consisting of 10–14 year olds. For abusive words that liken the children to animals, the youngest age-group
again tops the chart with almost 54.2% of children in this age-group reporting that they had been subjected
to abusive language that likened them to animals or attributed them with animal-like qualities.
This implies that the school is not just a violent place for the youngest age group, but it is also detrimental
to a child’s development. It is the school itself which is telling them that they are not capable of learning
even though it is the school’s job to develop their capacities and skills. At such a young age, when the child’s
capacity to differentiate between reality and perceptions is limited, the internalisation of such derision is
deep as well as strong. Even before the school develops their potential, it declares them incapable and also
conveys to them that the school is not available as a support institution. The school comes across as a
detached institution – impatient in imparting the right skills for development to young children.The loss of
dignity takes place very early in a child’s school career.
37
3.2 The body is used as a site to instil discipline
It is apparent from the data that the dominant aspect of the school experience for all children is the
regimenting of their bodies. Their bodies are used as a device to train them to conform, and it is as an
unforgettable experience. A child’s hair is pulled, ears are boxed, nose twisted, cheeks pinched and slapped,
back and shoulders are pinched and hit, fingers and knuckles are crushed, hands are wrung and strained by
stretching, food is denied, legs are hit and injured by overstraining them, feet are tortured by overstrain,
abdomen is kept tense by not letting them use the toilet and the body gets electric shocks. The school
thus emerges as an institution which uses the child’s body as a prime site of interaction and it seems that
no part of the body is spared. It comes as little surprise then that newspaper reports often highlight cases
in which a child’s ear drum gets damaged due to the intensity of the teacher’s slap.
The analysis done in the previous chapter highlights the extent of bodily abuse that the children have to
undergo on a daily basis within the space of the school. The overall picture is very tense from the child’s
perspective.What is worth noting here is that in the case of several punishments, it is the child’s own body
which is used to inflict pain.The action of giving pain to oneself on the demand of somebody else is a gross
misuse of a child’s powerlessness.The sense of helplessness must be acute for children when they are made
to cooperate and inflict pain upon themselves. This practice leads to a feeling of disgust towards oneself
when person inflicting pain is the victim herself/himself. These punishments may appear less severe than
direct hitting, but their psychological impact is equally worrisome. It shows that the school does not trust
its own ability to teach academic regularity and other skills required for learning and punishes children
from the very beginning. Physical pain becomes a constant experience for school-going children.
3.3 The type of school is irrelevant with regard to the nature of punishment
being meted out
It is commonly believed that schools run by the State Government give more punishment as compared to
private and Central Government schools. This study negates this belief in a big way. The chance of a child
getting any of these punishments is equally high in all kinds of schools. It has also been noticed that there is
a consistency in the preference for particular punishments across different types of schools. Being hit with
a cane is marginally less in private schools as compared to others, but they make their students run rounds
of the playgrounds much more than other schools do. Private schools hit their students’ knuckles more
than other schools. They are the same as Central Government schools when it comes to giving electric
shocks to children – 0.6% of children in private schools and 0.7% of children in Central Government
schools have experienced electric shocks. In the case of State Government schools, 0.1% of children have
been given electric shocks.This implies that any object or facility available in the school serves as an object
of torture for children. Private schools are also stricter when it comes to prohibiting children from using
the toilet. However, the differences are marginal and schools are consistent in giving preference to hitting
with a cane, slapping and hitting on the back.
Similarly, there is no difference between schools when it comes to abusing them verbally by using derisive
adjectives about children’s capabilities and abusive words that liken children to animals. It is therefore a
false belief that private schools are more sophisticated in their dealings with children.
38
The findings reveal that irrespective of the type of management, schools are not democratic institutions.
They resort to violent and abusive means to regulate the time that children spend in their premises.
The difference in management does not get translated into difference in interaction with children. The
perceptions about children and the beliefs about controlling them physically to teach them are equally
Conclusion
prevalent in all kinds of schools. The reason is obvious and easy to understand – the pre-service teacher
training institutes from where teachers go to these different kinds of schools are the same. It is in the
teacher-training institutes that the weak foundation of cognitive psychology and educational theory is
laid. This unfolds in the same manner, whether the trained person teaches in a private or a governmentrun school. The schools are different in their appearance, infrastructure and fee structure, but children’s
experience is same.
3.4 Girls are not spared
Another popular belief is that the girls are not hit as much as boys. The present study proves this to be
false. A child’s chances of getting hit, verbally abused and physically tortured are not altered by the gender
of the child. Girls suffer as much as boys do – the difference, if any, is marginal and gets evened out in
the overall picture. If girls are caned slightly less than boys, their hair is pulled much more than boys’. The
incidence of slapping, being hit with a cane or on the back is high even for girls. Their bodies are not seen
as weak when it comes to receiving punishments. As a student, the child loses the potential of any leniency
based on gender and is viewed as equally eligible to receive all kinds of punishments. Girls are abused
with equal intensity with sexist abuses, caste- and community-based abuses and derisive adjectives. This
implies that the words which are commonly associated with men to vent their aggression are very much
a part of the school-going girls’ socialisation process. The tendency of society to use female body parts to
abuse people is just as prevalent inside the school and girls are subjected to it at an early age. The school
boundary does not act as a barrier from any of society’s demeaning practices.
3.5 Reasons for punishments
The majority of children get penalised for academic reasons, i.e. for not doing a task, for not bringing books
and notebooks, for scoring low marks in the exams and for not being able to perform well – 93.3% of the
children suffered direct physical violence from their teachers for any of the above-mentioned reasons. The
second dominant reason for punishment is child-like behaviour.The child is hit when he/she wants to drink
water, eat food when hungry, jump or scream to express happiness or talk to another child. The school
does not want children to behave like children while learning. Children are expected to leave their ageappropriate traits at home and behave in a restricted, guarded, scared and controlled manner at school –
86.2% children were hit because they showed child-like tendencies in school (for example, if they could not
control their hunger and thirst or if they needed to answer the call of nature at a time when the teacher
had given some work or was teaching or was just present in the class). No less than 50.8% children had
been abused physically because they did not comply with the rules of their school – they had tried to write
on the backboard, felt bored during morning assembly, could not close their eyes for long during morning
prayer, did not wear complete uniform and could not stand in the harsh sun. Some of them had reported
late by a few minutes in the morning. All this disturbs the order in the school for which children are
punished physically as well as abused verbally. Democratic means of maintaining law, order and control are
premised on values of rationality and the reliance on painful methods for controlling children goes against
the grain. The schools are unable to create an ethos of rational argument in establishing order which is a
must for learning. The schools are also not able to distinguish between the needs of adults and children,
who need constructive bodily engagement in their growing years. Children need to play, run, jump and do
all kinds of things in the school whereas what dominates school experience for most Indian children is
physical punishment.
39
3.6 School as a reflection of society
The study indicates that there is continuity between home and school in the ways by which adults control
children. When shown the tool, 53% of children thought that it was a parent and 43% thought that it was
a teacher. The overwhelming majority gave the reason that the child had not followed the instructions of
the adult and that must have annoyed him/her. This implies that the behaviour of the school-teacher is
consistent with that of the parents. The image of the teacher that emerges from this study is that he/she
reacts instinctively and is not able to overcome the perception that adults in Indian society in general have
towards children.
40
Articles on
Corporal Punishment
Addressing the widespread acceptance or tolerance
of corporal punishment of children and eliminating it,
in the family, schools and other settings, is not only an
obligation of State parties under the Convention. It is
also a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms
of violence in societies.
Committee on the Rights of the Child,
General Comment No. 8
Towards a Culture of Non-violence in
All Institutions
– Prof. Shantha Sinha
Chairperson, NCPCR
1. Background
Gross acts of punishment to children in both private and government schools have come to light through
newspapers, media, public hearings and complaints that the National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights (NCPCR) has received since its inception in 2007. Most children are subject to violence such as
slapping, caning, kneeling down, standing on bench, making rounds in the school compound and many such
‘routine’ acts in the name of discipline. If the child is poor, from a scheduled caste community, or a girl, she
is likely to face such ‘routine’ acts more often.
One can very well imagine how, when subject to insult and humiliation, children would react and what
must be happening in their minds. Some have been able to brave the insults and pursue education
regardless of violence. There are, at the same time, several instances where children have become martyrs
to corporal punishment. Some have even committed suicide. In Kolkata, a class VIII boy was caned and
punished repeatedly and he committed suicide. In Uttar Pradesh, a girl of class VIII who was also from the
scheduled caste community was punished and asked to clean latrines Unable to bear the insult and caste
discrimination she too committed suicide. The Commission has heard innumerable cases of suicide of
children on being subject to insinuating and often unreasonable remarks by school teachers. In the year
2008 it was reported that there were 98 suicides of children in Tamil Nadu alone as a consequence of
corporal punishment.
Undoubtedly, insults, humiliation and acts of violence, both emotional and physical have an impact on
children and their levels of confidence and self-esteem and militate against the freedom and dignity of a
child. In addition, physical assault can adversely impact the health of children harming their growth and well
being. Children drop out of school thereby jeopardising their right to education. More generally, fear of
being punished makes children less willing and unable to ask questions or challenge what they are taught,
and so detracts from the quality of education.
The study conducted by the Commission showed that out of the total of 6,632 children/respondents
across seven states, only nine denied having received any kind of punishment. This indicates that 6,623
i.e. 99.86% of children reported experiencing one or the other kind of punishment. As many as 81.2% children
were subject to outward rejection by being told that they are not capable of learning. The punishments
occupying the next four ranks were: getting beaten by a cane, being slapped on the cheeks, being hit on the
back and ears getting boxed. These four punishments do not lag behind much in terms of their occurrence.
Out of the total, 75% reported that they had been hit by a cane and 69% had been slapped on their cheeks.
Even the cruel practice of giving electric shocks found a mention in the data collected.
Such punishment sometimes leaves visible marks, as in physical injury, swelling or bleeding. However, little
gets known of the mental anguish a child goes through unless it manifests in a suicide or death.
43
2. Corporal Punishment–Social Acceptance
Corporal punishment is not an isolated instance but a manifestation of a culture of violence and insensitivity
to children and their rights. It goes unnoticed as it has a general social acceptance. Many are unmindful
and oblivious to the harrowing experiences of violence and insults children have faced and thus would not
even acknowledge that corporal punishment is a serious issue requiring action.
Embedded in this atmosphere of condoning violence on children, parents too believe that punishment of
children is indispensable and often use similar methods to discipline children. When they come to know that
their children are not being treated well in school, they do not bring it up with the school teacher and the
school authorities as it is considered normal to be punished. At times they understand that the child needs
a hearing from the school teacher and the school authorities but are unable to dialogue with the teacher
out of fear that the child would be further victimised. Since a child spends at least six hours a day in school,
perhaps more time in the school than at home, parents feel vulnerable and choose to remain silent.
As professionals, school teachers are equipped to see the futility of common sense that corporal punishment
is a pedagogic tool for disciplining children. They are fully aware that fear stifles the process of learning and
that it is wrong to hit or insult children. They have been given skills to engage with children in a creative
manner, while appreciating that each child is unique and has her own pace and style of acquiring knowledge.
Yet, they flout professional ethics and perpetrate violence on children.
There is an indifference of the education system as a whole that includes the school teachers, principals,
management and the education bureaucracy, which is unwilling to transcend the pervasive societal
atmosphere that regards children as less than equals and does not see punishment as a violation of
human rights.
Children just do not like being insulted and beaten up. In their wisdom they have decided that the world
of adults would not understand and can do little to help them out of such humiliation. Therefore they
remain silent due to fear and submit to violence without questioning. They are deeply hurt and unless it
becomes unbearable, they do not tell. They sometimes show signals of deep hurt in their behaviour but
this goes unnoticed, perpetuating further violence on them. They are so much a part of values and norms
that our society especially we as adults have created that they feel this is what growing up is all about and
there is no point in complaining. Even when they do, it is likely that they are not heard and the incidence
of physical or emotional hurt is trivialised.
3. Corporal Punishment and Law
Corporal punishment can be classified as physical punishment, emotional harassment and hurt caused
by discrimination – due to gender, caste, illness, disability, learning difficulties and so on. The NCPCR
considers that ‘all forms of corporal punishment are a fundamental breach of human rights’. A slap is as
detrimental to the child’s right as grievous injury. Indeed there are no gradations since it must be seen
that condoning so called ‘small acts’ actually leads to gross violations1. Thus even acts that many consider
‘mild’ – constitute corporal punishment – there isn’t a threshold below which physical force against a child
is acceptable.
44
In theory, corporal punishment is covered by all the provisions under Indian law that punish perpetrators
of physical harm. Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life, which has been interpreted
to include the right to education for children under 14, and the right to dignity2. Article 14 of the
Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Although Article 15(3)
1
2
http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/Guidelines/Guidelines_on_Corporal_Punishment_to_Chief_Secretaries.pdf
Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993)1 SCC 645; M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, (1996)6 SCC 756.
of the Constitution allows the State to make special provisions for children and protect them as a class
from physical abuse to which they are particularly vulnerable this has seldom caught the attention of
policy makers.
The Directive Principles of State Policy are not justiciable rights, yet, several of the provisions are indicative
of the value that the Constitution makers placed for protection of children. Article 39(e) directs the State
to work progressively to ensure that “the tender age of children are not abused”. Article 39(f) directs
the State to work progressively to ensure that “children are given opportunities and facilities to develop
in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected
against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.”
However in practice we have seen that while abuse directed against an adult would be criminally prosecuted
as it violates Article 14 or Article 21, similar abuse against children is tolerated.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJA)3 is an important statute that
criminalises acts that may cause a child mental or physical suffering. Section 23 of the JJA, 2000 states
as follows:
‘‘Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or
wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected
in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.’’
Section 23 covers the actions of anyone who has “actual charge or control over” a child. While Section 23 is
likely to be applied most often to personnel in childcare institutions regulated by the JJA, it arguably applies to
cruelty by anyone in a position of authority over a child, which would include parents, guardians, teachers and
employers. Although it does not use the words “corporal punishment”, it is framed so as to cover the range
of actions that constitute corporal punishment. It is also important to note that Section 23 is punishable
with a maximum of six months imprisonment. In practice, there is no evidence of the implementation of this
provision.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (RTE Act) provides that no child shall
be subject to “physical punishment or mental harassment” in schools4. Those officials that contravene this
provision shall be liable for disciplinary action under service rules applicable to them.
This prohibition under the RTE Act is an important step forward – it reinforces and enshrines in law the
growing consensus against corporal punishment in schools. However, the provision does not criminalise
corporal punishment; it does not resolve contradictory provisions in criminal law in favour of an absolute
ban. Nor does it lay down a standardised penalty for corporal punishment that should be incorporated
in service rules to punish teachers and the school management for inflicting corporal punishment. In
practice, this could mean corporal punishment is penalised very lightly, which would have little deterrent
effect given how widely it is accepted as a method of discipline.
India signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which includes the Right to Protection, 1989 (CRC)
in 1992. It is bound by its obligations under the CRC to ensure that “no child shall be subjected to torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”[Article 37(a)] and this is complemented
and extended by Article 19, which requires States to “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social
and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse,
neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of
parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”.
3
4
Amended in 2006.
Clause 17.
45
Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention refers to school discipline and requires State parties to “take
all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with
the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.”
Under the CRC, India has a clear, immediate, binding obligation to ban all violence against children.
4. Schools and Culture of Non-violence
Often school teachers express helplessness when confronted with a recalcitrant child who is impossible
and cannot be managed and so has to be punished. Teachers also often mention that without disciplining
children, it is difficult to have any meaningful transaction in the classroom. Government school teachers
often justify violence as they find the work conditions undoubtedly adverse. There are overcrowded
classes, not enough textbooks, first-generation learners etc. But children are not responsible for all these
problems that teachers face in performing their duties. The teacher must take up these issues through
their unions with the education system. It is incorrect to victimise the children who are the weakest in
the system who can never provide answers to structural deficiencies. Besides, this is not to say that there
is no violence or corporal punishment on children in well-to-do schools.
The current debate has substituted the practice of ‘positive discipline’ of children in the place of corporal
punishment. Although the elements of positive discipline emphasise interaction with children, respecting
them and not punishing them, it is still within the bounds of a structure of authority of the teacher and the
child. There is an undercurrent of acceptance that children need to be disciplined and told how to behave.
This again positions the teacher and the child in an unequal relationship. It is important that the vocabulary
used in this context changes to express equality in relationship. Thus, a more apt concept is the use of
‘positive engagement’ of the teacher with the children.
In this sense school teachers must know that their professional rights as teachers are linked to children’s
rights in schools. One reinforces the other. The teachers would gain authority to bargain for better
conditions of work and to be respected as teachers only if they are in a position to show that no matter
what, children would be seen as equal partners and it is only in a school that the process of learning
is enhanced along with children having an access to all other rights. Thus the school teachers and the
principal are not in any adversarial position vis-a-vis the children and their parents and therefore they need
to welcome any feedback from the child, or a meeting with the parents and not be defensive. Further, since
teachers are in a position of trust and with complete knowledge of the child’s moods, sense of security
and insecurity, learning pace and behaviour, they should recognise when the child is seeking attention and
be quick to discuss the matter with the child in confidence. If it is a problem of a child being abused at
home, the teacher should be supportive of the child and in a position to look for remedies rather than
blaming the parents. Thus from a position of power and authority the school teacher should play a role of
the mentor and a guide.
5. What must be done?
46
The RTE Act as we have seen clearly outlaws corporal punishment. The rules for implementation of the Act
will have to incorporate the procedures under criminal law to severely punish the perpetrators of violence
which would be the school teachers as well as the school principal and the management if they have not
taken adequate steps to prevent violence on children and create a culture of non-violence in schools.
Once a strong law is in place, it should be applicable to all other institutions where children are located
as in the case of juvenile homes, hostels for children, and so on. According to Peter Newell, “Eliminating
corporal punishment requires both clear and explicit law reform and sustained public and parent education–
Peter Newell, ‘The Global Progress towards the Human Rights imperative to eliminate and prohibit all forms of Corporal Punishment’, Speech
delivered on 4 February 2009, New Delhi, www.ncpcr.gov.in
5
about children’s rights and the law…. Law reform requires the removal of any authorisations of corporal
punishment or defences of it which exist in any laws, or in common (case) law…. If all authorisations and
defences are removed, then the criminal law on assault should protect children as it protects adults from
assault in all settings of their lives, whether or not the assault is disguised as discipline. 5”
A law banning corporal punishment in all settings (family, institutional and non-institutional) is necessary
and to be effective requires active participation of all of us, parents, civil society, and the schools, teachers,
education administration at all levels as well as all those responsible for management equally. There have
to be multiple interventions beginning with a public campaign against all forms of violence on children.
This must build an atmosphere where children, parents and child defenders alike gain confidence to speak
up against the practice of corporal punishment. It is in this context that the directions of the National
Commission for Protection of Child Rights regard participation of children to speak against corporal
punishment and bring it to the notice of the authorities as important. While building the atmosphere
through campaigns children should get the courage to make complaints and not accept punishment as a
‘normal’ activity of the school. Further every school, including hostels, JJ Homes, shelter homes and other
public institutions meant for children must have a forum where children can express their views. Such
institutions could take the help of an NGO for facilitating such an exercise. A box where children can drop
their complaints, even if anonymous, has to be provided for in each school.
The Commission has also indicated that there has to be a monthly meeting of the School Management
Committees (SMC) to review complaints and take action. The SMCs are to be encouraged to act
immediately on any complaints made by children without postponement of the issue and wait for a more
grave injury to be caused. In other words the SMCs need not use their discretion to decide on the
grievousness of the complaint.
Considering the fact that the school principal has a huge responsibility in ensuring that child rights are
mainstreamed in the manner in which the school is run; the school management including the school
principal must take equal responsibility for ensuring that corporal punishment is not practiced in schools.
They must make every effort to see that the culture of violence on children is replaced with a culture of
non-violence and positive engagement of the teacher with children. To prevent assault on children all the
above set of practices are to be monitored by the education department as they are finally responsible for
monitoring the schools.
Further in case of severe violence resulting in hospitalisation or death of a child, the Commission has
directed that that there have to be criminal proceedings against the school teacher and the management
and immediate suspension of the teacher concerned, pending departmental enquiry. The expenses towards
health have to be met by the school/education department, and the child has to be supported through
scholarship, fee waiver and other school charges by the Government until completion of school education.
In case of suicide there has to be booking of charges of aid and abetment to suicide on the concerned
school teacher and the child who attempts to commit suicide shall be given counselling and all support to
live a normal life.
6. End Corporal Punishment
In a way, ending corporal punishment is part of the history of unfolding of values that emphasise core
humanistic principles of equality, freedom and justice and rights of individuals. The answer to the violence
on children is a culture of empathy and non-violence that should govern the relationship between adults
and children.
47
This is indeed a challenge. Practicing non-violence as the highest form of culture begins with seeing
children as equals. It is necessary for adults to behave with them in a manner that they are not subject to
violence and hurt of any kind. In a way, fostering such a culture will develop adults as responsible adults
who would in turn be vigilant and question those that are breaking the norms of respecting childhood
and in doing so, inculcate the values of non-violence in children; adults cannot preach non-violence when
perpetrating violence.
The world of adults must acquire the unique capabilities to pay special attention to have children’s opinions
heard and respect the dignity and rights of every child in every circumstance. What is required therefore
is to build skills of school teachers, care givers and adults at large to engage with children as equals, listen
to them and address their concerns in a manner that does not hurt or humiliate them.
48
Articles
The Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit and
Eliminate All Corporal Punishment of Children
– Peter Newell
Coordinator, Global Initiative to End all Corporal Punishment of Children
Children have identified corporal punishment as the most common form of violence they face in their every
day lives. This is not a special problem in South Asia or in India. It is a universal, global problem. Violent and
humiliating punishment is still the daily experience of children in most countries of the world.
Children – including young children – are increasingly speaking out themselves – in Asia and elsewhere –
about the hurt caused to them by the acceptance and legality of this violence disguised as discipline, by
their parents and teachers – by people they want to love and respect. The major 2007 national study on
Child Abuse and other research shows the scale of this deliberate violence across India.
What do we mean by corporal punishment? The obvious reference is the definition provided by the
Committee on the Rights of the Child in its General Comment No. 8 on the child’s right to protection
from all corporal punishment; I quote: “The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ punishment as any
punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort,
however light…”. Most involves hitting children, with the hand or with an implement – a whip, stick, belt,
shoe, wooden spoon, and so on… The Committee goes on to list many other ways adults have devised
to hurt children deliberately. And it concludes: “In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is
invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also cruel
and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment which
belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”
What does it mean to prohibit all corporal punishment? All States have criminal laws on assault which
protect people from being hit and hurt deliberately: India’s Penal Code. But when it comes to children,
in most countries the law still draws a protective circle not around the child victim, but around the adult
perpetrator. So prohibiting all corporal punishment requires the removal of all justifications and defences
of ‘reasonable’ punishment or ‘lawful’ correction, so that children have the same protection as adults from
assault – whether or not it is disguised as discipline.
In India, the question of whether there is still a defence or justification for corporal punishment – by
teachers or parents – is confused, with at least one court decision – in Gujarat in 2008 – strongly denying
that any defence exists. India’s just-released report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child suggests,
on page 81, that Sections 88 and 89 of the Penal Code do prevent the law recognising corporal punishment
as an offence. It also states that the Prevention of Offences against Children Bill, which was then being
drafted by the Ministry, would cover corporal punishment as an offence: I think that can be taken as a clear
Government commitment to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family.
The purpose of this law must be to transform attitudes and practice, to move parents on from violent
punishment to positive forms of discipline that work, not to punish more parents. So it needs to deliver a
very clear and explicit message, that it is no more lawful or acceptable to hit or deliberately hurt a child,
than to hit anyone else.
49
This transformation demands a foundation of clear, unconfused law.
This is not an issue on which compromise is useful or acceptable. We do not compromise in condemning
and prohibiting all violence against women or elderly people – so why children?
Some suggest that law reform to ban corporal punishment, especially in the home, should wait and
only follow a change in social attitudes. Nobody would make that argument now in relation to violence
against women – that we should wait to prohibit domestic violence against women until we have achieved
change in men’s lives and attitudes, universal anger management courses, full employment and so on. It
is equally unacceptable to wait for children. In any case, while the law states that it is OK to hit children
or hurt them deliberately, attempts at promoting non-violent parenting and teaching are going to be
hopelessly undermined.
Of course, law reform on its own will achieve little; it has to be linked to comprehensive awarenessraising and education about the law and children’s rights to protection, and about the dangers of corporal
punishment, together with promotion of positive, non-violent relationships. And I will say more about that
process and government engagement in it later.
Prohibition is an immediate human rights obligation. In all of the 32 countries which have achieved a
complete ban on corporal punishment, majority public and parent opinion was against the ban, often
massively so, when it was enacted. In these states, politicians and parliamentarians have been persuaded to
act, as they often have to act on social issues, on the basis of their human rights obligations and professional
opinion, ahead of public opinion. The law should surely be seen first and foremost as an educational tool;
a preventive tool.
So where have we got to globally on this issue? The scale of deliberate punitive violence against children,
in their homes and families and also in many countries in alternative care, schools and penal systems – has
only become visible quite recently. That is a big step forward, because once visible, it becomes very difficult
to defend hitting and hurting children deliberately.
With visibility has come recognition, across regions and systems, that the legality and social acceptance
of corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment of children are human rights
violations, condemned now by international and regional human rights monitoring bodies. The Convention
on the Rights of the Child has been ratified almost universally, by 193 states including all in South Asia.
The Convention requires States to protect children from ‘all forms of physical and mental violence’
and as the Committee on the Rights of the Child emphasises in its General Comment: “There is no
ambiguity: ‘all forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalised violence
against children. Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of
violence and States must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to
eliminate them”.
50
The Committee has recommended prohibition of all corporal punishment to more than 160 States globally,
including all in South Asia – to India in 2000 and again in 2004. Other United Nations human rights Treaty
Bodies now consistently echo the Committee on the Rights of the Child, including the Committee Against
Torture. Also when States’ overall human rights record is examined in the new Universal Periodic Review
process in the Human Rights Council in Geneva, there have been constant recommendations to ban all
corporal punishment of children. India will come up for review again in 2012 and I am confident that this
issue will be pursued, because the process looks in particular at recommendations from Treaty Bodies like
the Committee on the Rights of the Child which have not led to action.
The Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit and Eliminate All Corporal Punishment of Children
Regional human rights systems, in the Americas and in Africa have also condemned all corporal punishment
and recommended prohibition.
In 2008, the Council of Europe became the first major inter-governmental organisation to launch an explicit
campaign for prohibition across its 47 member-states. And I was glad to hear that a few days ago the Governing
Body of the South Asia Initiative to End all Violence against Children, a project of SAARC, which comprises
government and civil society representatives and two child representatives from the eight states, agreed as a
priority to launch a regional campaign for prohibition and elimination of all corporal punishment.
The harmful impact of corporal punishment on children is well-researched now, with more than 100 studies
reviewing its developmental outcomes. Their findings are strikingly consistent. Corporal punishment
is associated with higher levels of aggression and antisocial behaviour in children, and this association
continues into adulthood. There are no research findings demonstrating that physical punishment leads
to positive long-term outcomes; all findings reveal negative effects on children’s development. In arguing
for prohibition of violence against women, we would not look for research into its effects … it would be
insulting to women. And it is equally insulting to children to suggest we have to prove harm in order to
condemn this deliberate violence. It is a human rights violation: full stop.
We really do not need more research, although research into children’s real experiences remains valuable
for advocacy.
Why is challenging and ending corporal punishment so important, given the extreme breaches of children’s
rights and the extreme forms of violence that children in India and so many States are still facing? We are
not just challenging a particular form of violence – though it is the most common form of violence against
children. As the Committee on the Rights of the Child asserts in its General Comment, ending it is an
essential strategy for ending all forms of violence against children: the idea that breaching a child’s human
dignity and physical integrity is acceptable, or even as some still suggest ‘in their best interests’, makes every
other sort of extreme abuse, including sexual exploitation, more likely and easier. No State can pretend
that it has an effective child protection system while its laws and social attitudes still authorise and accept
violent punishment of children. Ending all legalised violence against children is the only safe foundation for
child protection.
Each year, corporal punishment kills significant numbers of children in all regions and seriously injures
many thousands more, including babies and small children in their homes. But beyond the obvious child
protection context for outlawing it, the acceptance and legality of this daily punitive violence is highly
symbolic of children’s low status in our societies, as possessions, not people.
Just as challenging routine domestic violence has been a fundamental part of women’s emancipation and
protection, so it is with children. When we challenge all corporal punishment, however light, we are pursuing
children’s equal right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. This is as fundamental as
anything can be to improving children’s status and gaining recognition and respect for children as rights
holders alongside the rest of us.
When we use parallels with the campaign to end violence against women, people respond: “But children
are different”. And of course they are different: the babies and small children, whom research suggests
are the victims of most corporal punishment in the home, are different in that they are very small and
very fragile. Children’s vulnerability, their developmental status, their dependence on adults and the huge
difficulties they in particular face in seeking protection for themselves: all these differences suggest that
they should have more, not less legal and other protection.
51
This is a transformative issue for children. Attitudes to children can be changed and violence against children
rapidly reduced if India can quickly make prohibition – including in the family – explicit. And also link law
reform to using all the points of contact with families and children to transmit the basic messages about
the law and children’s rights to protection, about the dangers of corporal punishment and the principles
of positive, non-violent relationships with children – they are not very complicated. Most parents, once
they are given space and time to think and talk, know what works in encouraging acceptable behaviour and
responsibility in their children. When I speak about building this educational process into all the State’s
contacts with parents and children, I always suggest that birth registration could be a moment to transmit
very basic and simple messages about children’s rights – including the right not to be hit. There are antenatal and post-natal contacts, all sorts of contacts by all elements of the health service; immunisation – and
one could perhaps use the slogan that immunising your child against violence means not hitting them and
not transmitting the message that you see violence as a way of sorting out conflicts…. Other contacts in
the pre-school sector, at school entry, in the school curriculum for future parents – and so on.
It is essential of course to emphasise that the first aim of banning corporal punishment in the family is
educational, not punitive, to move parents on from violent discipline. Prosecuting and sentencing more
parents, sending them to prison or fining them, will not help children. So there needs to be a clear
emphasis, either in the law itself or in guidance to all those involved, that charging and prosecuting parents
should only be pursued when it is judged necessary to protect a child from significant harm, and to be in
the best interests of the victim child. The Committee on the Rights of the Child provides detailed guidance
on this in its General Comment No. 8.
Globally, there is real progress and the context has been the developed human rights consensus. The
UN Secretary-General’s study on violence against children, led by Professor Paulo Pinheiro, highlighted
prohibition of all corporal punishment as a key recommendation. The Secretary-General’s Special
Representative on violence against children, Marta Santos Pais, has adopted prohibition of all violence –
including all punitive violence – as a key priority within her mandate as global advocate.
The human rights consensus and the follow-up to the UN Study is leading to accelerating law reform: across
the world. Thirty-two States have implemented a complete ban on all corporal punishment, including in
the family. This now includes five States in Africa. Brazil is poised to be the first large State, with 69 million
children, to achieve this reform, hopefully before the end of this year. If India with its 420 million children
follows quickly, it will dwarf that achievement and transform the global statistics.
A significant majority of States globally–120–have achieved a ban in schools. It has been prohibited as a
disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in 113 states. But at least 42 States – including some
in South Asia but not India – still authorise the sentencing of child offenders (in some cases as young as 8) to
corporal punishment – caning, whipping or flogging. And in alternative care settings of all kinds, just 37 States
have achieved clear prohibition; India has prohibited in care and penal institutions for young people but not,
I believe, in some other forms of care.
What are the challenges? The biggest challenge everywhere is that for most people, most of us, this issue
has a strong and often painful personal dimension: most adults were hit by their parents in their childhood.
Most parents have hit their own growing children. We do not like to think badly of our parents, or of our
own parenting, and that makes it much more difficult to move on to see this issue as one of equality and
human rights.
52
People often respond to me, in Asia and in all other regions: “But corporal punishment is part of our
culture” – as if it wasn’t part of the culture of my country. The UK in its colonial past did much to promote
The Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit and Eliminate All Corporal Punishment of Children
the use of corporal punishment, in the context of slavery and armed occupation, in the development
of school and penal systems for young people and in some missionary teaching. The traditional English
common law defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ has existed in the laws of more than 70 States worldwide,
including a number in South Asia. It’s a deeply shaming legacy.
Another challenge, in my country and many others, is that some adults believe their religion gives them
a right or even a duty to use corporal punishment. The international human rights instruments uphold
the right to freedom of religious belief. But belief cannot lead to practices which breach others’ rights,
including their right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. Violence of any kind cannot
be dignified or justified by reference to religion; increasingly this is accepted in relation to violence against
women, and it must be accepted in relation to children. Now, respected leaders of all faiths, including
Christianity and Islam, are increasingly speaking out against all violence against children, and supporting the
prohibition and elimination of all corporal punishment.
We should not be modest in asserting the huge potential of achieving this change in attitudes to and
treatment of children, not simply for children but for the development of more peaceful, non-violent
human societies.
Each year, India celebrates the International Day of Non-violence and the commitment to non-violence
of the Father of the Nation. It is surely appropriate that India should move quickly now to fulfill its
commitment to ending legalised punitive violence against children, leading this region.
All that is needed is a short Bill to confirm explicitly that there is no defence or justification for violence
against children disguised as discipline or punishment. Simultaneously, there could be a review of all
the existing channels that could be used, relatively cheaply, to begin the task of transforming attitudes
and practice. And this simple law reform would also enable clear enforcement on the ban on corporal
punishment in schools in the Right to Education Act, and in institutions and all forms of care.
Children, like adults, would then carry with them clear protection against being hit or deliberately hurt,
wherever they are and whoever the perpetrator. As the Indian Constitution asserts, and the Government
has accepted, children deserve nothing less.
peter@endcorporalpunishment.org
53
Articles
Corporal Punishment in Schools will Prove Tenacious
– Krishna Kumar
Professor, Central Institute of Education, Delhi University
Seeing a child being smacked or caned is a uniquely sad sight. As the child stands receiving the force of a
teacher’s arm, the child looks helpless and scared. The sadness it evokes in an adult bystander’s mind is
unique because it carries a certain amount of guilt that any adult must feel while seeing a child getting hit
or after hitting a child oneself. The guilt has to do with the realisation that a child is helpless on account
of being a child. If the child is being hit at home, the onlooker’s guilt is compounded by the sense of
helplessness caused by the awareness that the parents have legitimate authority over the child; hence, an
outsider – even a relative – cannot claim the right to interfere. When a child is being hit in a classroom,
the presence of an adult onlooker is highly unlikely. When a teacher is meting out corporal punishment,
the other children are the only witnesses. In cases where a child is being hit by the principal in his office,
an assenting parent or a visitor may be present. Principals who are used to hitting children overcome the
hesitation to hit in the presence of an audience early in their career. The act becomes part of their aura.
But, even in a general sense, no matter how cruel the idea of hitting a child might seem to an onlooker,
the fact is that it is a socially sanctioned form of violence.
The term ‘corporal punishment’ suggests a formal procedure, and this is precisely what the phenomenon
routinely witnessed in our schools is quite often not. If you happen to be around when a child is being thrashed,
you would think that you are looking at something that has erupted quite casually and spontaneously, and
not something formally or procedurally planned. Nor is it always ‘punishment’, for the cause may not be
apparent or substantial to a third person’s eye. Both the speed and the manner of its occurrence hint at
the routine character of the phenomenon. That is perhaps the most important thing about the practice of
corporal punishment in schools: it does not constitute an event. Rather, it is part of the school’s culture
and daily life. It is a ritual in which teachers and children participate – by means of their contrasting role – as
a matter of routine. This is one reason why the State’s intention to outlaw corporal punishment with the
help of the act governing children’s Right to Education (RTE) has faced cynical surprise and lip-service in
the first year of its promulgation. Both reactions point towards a bleak future. If we wish to shape the
future in accordance with the RTE’s bright vision, let us reflect on the phenomenon and recognise its depth
and power as a cultural practice.
Cultural Sanction
When a teacher hits a child during a lesson, he is apparently guided by the belief that this act is neither
outrageous nor unexpected. Those of us who do not teach in a school find the idea of children being
beaten up totally unacceptable because we assume that it is morally odious in an obvious sense. This
feeling is sharper if we happen to be people who support RTE in its resolve to ban corporal punishment
in schools. If we are the kind of people who are engaged in any form of activism in the field of education,
children’s rights, or related social issues, our response to corporal punishment is likely to be even more
predictably negative. For us to make sense of why such a practice exists at all, it is necessary to start with
55
the awareness that we are outsiders to the existential world of the teacher. As outsiders, we may not find
it easy to grasp the nature of the social sanction that corporal punishment enjoys, nor can we perceive the
circumstances under which it occurs. When a teacher metes out corporal punishment in any form to a
child, he or she has every reason to believe that the action enjoys social approval. We must acknowledge
that in making this assumption the teacher is right. This, to my mind, is the correct starting point for people
like ‘us’ who feel outraged by the prevalence of corporal punishment and who want to understand why
it exists.
The punitive aspect of the violence involved in corporal punishment is not always visible or evident.
Quite often, it is simply a punishment in advance for anticipated behaviour. In such cases, it manifests as
a kind of reflex on the part of an authority figure who knows what is coming and prevents it at the first
instance of the appearance of the unwanted behaviour. For an illustration, imagine the recess bell in a boys’
school, students rushing down the staircase, and the principal or a senior teacher climbing up. If corporal
punishment is an established practice in this school, it is highly likely that the principal will hit or slap some
of the boys as they come close to colliding with him or with each other. In such a case, he can be seen as
using his physical force simply as a means of reinforcing his socially sanctioned moral authority. Such an act
has every chance of imposing a temporary order.
In other cases, corporal punishment can serve as a sharp reaction to a behaviour the children do not
consider as obnoxious as the teacher does. Ways of talking or giving a quick answer fall in this category.
Teachers often find the language used by children inappropriate and offensive. They have limited awareness
of the fact that children’s language reflects what they hear at home, in the neighbourhood and on television.
Instead of setting an alternative example, many a teacher might well react hurtfully, by means of abusive words
or a slap. These reactive forms of corporal punishments are quite different from those used on occasions
when a child has actually done something the teacher finds unacceptable, or has not done what the teacher
expects and wants. Reactive anger or violence, once initiated by one or more teachers serving in a school,
gets embedded in the school’s ethos and acquires a momentum of its own, unlike corporal punishment
given for specific reasons. This last category is what is normally recognised as corporal punishment, both
by its supporters and critics. The other two forms remain invisible and unrecognised. Equally unrecognised
remain the circumstances under which different forms of corporal punishment manifest.
Evil or Ritual?
56
It has been customary to label certain common practices which seem undesirable or odious from a
modernist perspective as social evils. Quite a few well-entrenched practices have been thus labelled away
over the last century. Child marriage is one such practice, and though it is well known that it affects the lives
of girls quite differently from how it affects the lives of boys, it has been classified in the broad category of
social evils and its own title – i.e. child marriage – does not distinguish between boys and girls. Anyone with
a passing acquaintance with the phenomenon knows that early marriage has dire consequences that are
exclusive to girls. By naming it a social evil, the State has historically conveyed its lack of adequate capacity
to eradicate it. Child marriage was legally banned over 80 years ago, and the legislation banning it has been
renewed more than once, but the practice continues. Apparently, those who practice it do not regard it a
social evil. Practices like child marriage did not disappear as a result of negative labelling. Female infanticide
was banned more than a century ago, and it seemed as if the ban had worked, but the practice has come
back in its modern version of female foeticide. These annals of the so-called social evils remind us that the
gap between society and State runs wide in our country, and the State’s will does not necessarily prevail,
and certainly not easily when it deals with a socially sanctioned evil practice.
The social sanction that the practice of punishing children corporally receives arises from old and culturally
approved concepts of learning and growth during childhood. The idea that a child is tender and passing
through a formative phase of life is not incompatible with the view that he or she needs to be moulded
by determined hands. It is a common belief that children know nothing or very little and, therefore, they
depend on adults to learn everything, including language. Moreover, it is also a common perception that
when they learn, their ability to learn is tenuous and, therefore, they tend to make mistakes. It follows that
adult supervision and frequent intervention are required to prevent incorrect learning and mistakes. The
intervention required can take any number of forms, including the use of force which the child may have
no capacity to resist. Indeed, the child’s resistance in this context would only prove the necessity of the
intervention and the importance of repeated interventions involving force. We must remember that the
social philosophy we are attempting to discuss here is grounded in the belief that the child has no agency
or intrinsic desire to learn. External influence is believed to be crucial for shaping the child’s trajectory
of growth and learning. Past infancy, a strict regime, steeped in a punitive environment, is regarded as a
positive input for ensuring rapid progress in the right direction.
Counter-theorising, about the harmful effects of pampering or display of affection is also widely prevalent.
It is mainly mothers who are believed to be liable to spoil the child, especially the son, by showing too much
emotional attachment. The balancing, corrective role is supposed to be played by the father. The teacher
who takes charge of the child at school does so in place of the father and, thereby, performs the role of
a father outside the family setting. Before we discuss how women teachers enter this role, let us recall
the nature of a father’s role in the child’s life as defined by tradition. It draws its character from what it is
not, namely the mother’s role. If motherliness stands for affection and attachment, the father’s role stands
for detached concern. His ability to provide a counterbalancing factor with reference to the mother’s
expected role depends on his being unemotional, even harsh. He establishes the objectivity of his positive
concern for the child’s welfare by being frank in his criticism and his preparedness to take tough measures
when the child does not seem to benefit from verbal criticism. The teacher is precisely in this role at
school where the father cannot attend to the child’s needs. Traditionally, down the centuries, teachers of
the young child have been men.
The idea of teaching has evolved, literally, as an activity that forms a lesson for the child – something the
child cannot easily forget. The term shiksha, though now used in a positive sense in Hindi, continues to
have this connotation when used figuratively. The father’s capacity to teach the child a lesson when needed
is supposed to be emulated by a worthy teacher at school. Many Indian languages have sayings like this
one in Hindi: ‘the flesh belongs to the family, the bones to the teacher’. Many biographies of men who
attained success offer instances of harsh physical punishment given by a teacher. If memories of this kind
are tinged with resentment or anger, it is certainly not expressed. Teachers’ harshness is supposed to be
tolerated, even appreciated by the student, and not just by his parents and the community. If a teacher does
not exercise his right to thrash the child, he is often perceived as being too mild to be a good teacher into
whose hands the child could be entrusted.
The association between the role of a father and that of a teacher has not been disturbed in any marked
way by the recent policy to increase the intake of women in school teaching. This need not surprise us,
first, because a role is independent of a person. A woman performing a role whose cultural identity is
associated with that of a male cannot, on her own, alter it. Rather, she is likely to aim at success in that role
by acting or behaving in the manner in which social expectations define it. Hence, a number of incidents
in which children are given harsh corporal punishment occur in a class taught by a woman teacher. The
second reason why we need not be surprised by the use of corporal punishment by women teachers is
that their own social identity is usually shaped by patriarchy, in the sense that they receive recognition as
57
effective or successful teachers when they conform to the role-behaviour associated with men. Strictness
is an important aspect of such behaviour. A strict teacher is one who does not tolerate any disturbance in
the class or deviance from the behaviour children are expected to exhibit in the presence of a teacher. If
a woman teacher were to show tolerance of the kind of behaviour that a male teacher would not tolerate,
she will invite the perception that she is a poor substitute, someone who is ‘womanly’ rather than merely
a good teacher. She is caught between two stereotypes: that of an effective teacher, and that of a woman.
Teacher’s Reality and Training
Apart from the social sanction that corporal punishment derives from tradition, it also acquires a certain
degree of reinforcement from the space where it occurs. Where teachers spend their working time each
day is not a simple space from the point of view of analysing the circumstances under which corporal
punishment occurs as a routine. Physically, one might say, the site looks like any other constructed space,
but it is quite different if you look at it standing in the shoes of an Indian teacher. Historically, teachers of
the young have remained a neglected category of India’s professional workforce. Indeed, the use of the term
‘professional’ for school teaching in India may itself be contestable. The training which precedes a person’s
induction into teaching is both brief and weak in terms of its academic rigour. The kind of preparedness the
one-year training under B.Ed. or the two-year training under D.Ed. provides looks both inconsequential and
irrelevant to face the real world of teaching at a school. The routine of five to six periods a day, requiring
interaction with several different classes which have a pupil-teacher ratio of anywhere from 1:40 to:90 looks
altogether incompatible with the pedagogic methods taught during training and lofty ideas like addressing
individual differences and age-specific characteristics. As for the infrastructure, schools of different types
vary, but a great number of schools carry an unkempt, eroded look which makes a contribution towards
maintaining a negative, punitive ethos. And then, the impact of parental pressure on teachers and children
to focus narrowly on tests and examinations makes teachers get accustomed to ignoring the larger aims
of education. Principals, in particular, are vulnerable to social and systemic pressures to perform. Private
schools may differ little from Kendriya Vidyalayas in this respect. Both explicitly demand high performance
by their children in public examinations, and the principals of both types of schools expect teachers to
ensure this demand is fulfilled. This kind of narrow focus and the pressure it generates pushes teachers
towards getting children to perform. All aspects of performance, from homework to test and examination
results, create space for the use of corporal punishment. The teacher’s position in this larger scenario
is that of a subservient accomplice. When teachers take recourse to hitting children or punishing them
physically in some other way, they act on behalf of a society and a system which does not appreciate the
everyday challenge faced by the teachers. Occupying a low position in the social ladder and struggling with
the contradictory demands of their job, many teachers are chronically dissatisfied, unhappy and angry.
It is no surprise that they often unleash their anger on the powerless children they teach. It makes
things convenient that this venting of a teacher’s anger on a child’s cheeks or back enjoys social sanction
explicated earlier in this essay.
Can Training Help?
58
Some of the analysis presented above forms the backdrop of the National Curriculum Framework–2005.
A lot of changes in the curriculum and textbooks have been brought about over the recent years to alter the
burdensome nature of classroom life. These changes would make a far greater impact than they have if they
had been followed up and backed by reforms in teacher training. These reforms were indeed planned by the
National Council of Teacher Education, but no real progress has been made so far. Indeed, the situation in
teacher education is getting worse, with more than 80 per cent of the training institutions now operating
in the private and unabashedly commercial sector. A vast majority of them are much too rudimentary and
crude as institutions to be able to incorporate any substantial component in their curriculum aimed at
encouraging self-reflection and critical thinking about an issue like corporal punishment. Such a component
would have to address the social sanction that the practice of corporal punishment enjoys. It would also
have to integrate pedagogical training with an analysis of stress that the system and society place upon the
children and teachers. This kind of academically enriched curriculum of teacher training is so rare in our
country that I can safely point at just one programme which offers it. I am referring to the Bachelor of
Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) course of Delhi University. Among B.Ed. programmes, one cannot think
of a parallel example yet.
Conclusion
In this essay I have argued that the practice of corporal punishment in schools will prove difficult to curb
though it has been banned under RTE. Banning it may mean very little or at best merely a beginning for
a prolonged systemic and social struggle. Its systemic roots lie in the poor quality of the training India’s
teachers receive and their low status as professionals. The pressure they are under to drive children hard
towards high scores in tests and examinations often results in situations which involve physical punishment.
Such punishment has social and cultural sanction under which the teacher is expected to discipline the
child with the help of harsh measures. While improvement in training and working conditions of teachers
call for systemic reforms, the social sanction that corporal punishment enjoys needs to be addressed by
awareness-building cultural campaigns aimed at establishing children’s right to dignity and affection as a
common value.
59
Articles
– Karin Hulshof
UNICEF Representative for India
The importance of children growing up in a nurturing environment, devoid of even so much as the threat
of humiliation and violence cannot be overstated. For this, the abolishment of corporal punishment is a
necessary precondition. Much of a child’s character building takes place in schools, making the learning
environment critical to giving every child the opportunity to learn with dignity and without fear.
The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights has been at the forefront of the movement to
abolish corporal punishment for children in India. These guidelines against corporal punishment in schools
are another step in helping children grow and learn in a safe and healthy environment and protecting them
from violence. With the Right to Education, India has made the prohibition of physical punishment and
mental harassment to children in schools a legal obligation. UNICEF hopes that these guidelines will help
move policy to practice, thereby transforming the daily reality of hundreds of millions of children in schools
and at home.
The statistics on the practice of corporal punishment are sobering. According to the Ministry of Women
and Child Development’s study on corporal punishment (2007), 65 per cent of school going children
reported facing corporal punishment. That translates into two out of three children who have been victims
of corporal punishment.
Over the years, we have heard countless voices from such children across the country – telling us how
corporal punishment affects them. Stories of how such practices, like those revealed in this NCPCR study,
rob children of their dignity, crush their self-esteem, sap their curiosity, cause sadness, anger and aggression.
Corporal punishment both interferes with children’s desire and ability to learn, while also often pushing
them to drop out of school.
Not only are the effects of this dangerous because every child that drops out of school is one child less
that receives an education, but because it can also have long-lasting effects on more than one generation.
Children who experience these forms of violence are more likely to use similar methods on their own
children. This needs to change. The reality is that as long as the current situation persists, where two out
of three children are still subjected to corporal punishment in their daily lives, the Right to Education and
its aim of providing at least eight years of child-friendly education to each and every child, cannot and will
not be realised.
As the custodian of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF strongly believes that any, and all,
forms of violence against children is neither justifiable nor acceptable. The Convention on the Rights of the
Child, to which the Government of India is a signatory, is clear. It requires States to protect children from
“all forms of physical or mental violence” while in the care of parents or others (Article 19). It requires
discipline in schools to be “administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity” (Article 28).
Children everywhere must never be subjected to “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment” (Article 37).
61
The Committee on the Rights of the Child is no less unambiguous in its interpretation of this. It requires
the prohibition in law of all corporal punishment in all settings – the family, schools, all forms of alternative
care and juvenile justice settings.
The Right to Education Act explicitly bans corporal punishment in schools, and 18 states also have specific
laws banning the same. Legislation alone though is insufficient when you factor in the reality that very few
children are in a position to take recourse to legal provisions. And in addition to legal provisions, one also
needs redressal mechanisms. Who can a child turn to when subjected to corporal punishment? There
need to be mechanisms and at the very least – someone a child can comfortably and take into confidence
within the school.
The majority of incidents of corporal punishment go unreported and children continue to suffer in silence.
We need to do more. We need to help change the mindset of parents, teachers and children themselves
so that punishment is no longer a socially accepted norm for inculcating discipline. We need to challenge
the existing perception that sees punishment as the only means to discipline children. This implies bringing
about a change in adult perspectives, and exploring alternative strategies with the active participation
of children.
UNICEF is frequently asked if ending corporal punishment will mean chaos in classrooms. To this we
say “No”. In fact, corporal punishment is a barrier to children’s access to school and to their learning.
Evidence both globally and in India shows that in schools that encourage a child’s creativity and respects
their dignity, where the environment stimulates and taps the natural curiosity of a child – discipline is
intrinsic. We call this a child-friendly school.
In a child-friendly classroom, active teaching methods are used to engage children. Teachers smile and
laugh with children and evidence tells us that this improves children’s learning outcomes significantly.
Furthermore, both the school and the community play an active role in ensuring that children’s environment is safe and healthy.
So how do we make classrooms and homes more child-friendly? For a start, we need to leverage these
guidelines to offer alternatives to corporal punishment. One such alternative is positive discipline
techniques that promote positive behaviour in children. While punishment is meant to control a child’s
behaviour, discipline is meant to develop a child’s behaviour, teaching them the foundations for positive
conduct that will last a lifetime. We can teach a child self-control and confidence by focusing on
what it is we want the child to learn. Instead of resorting to punishment that focuses on the problem,
we need to focus on the solution. Simply put, using positive discipline techniques to help children
understand their own behaviour, take the initiative, be responsible for their choices, and respect
themselves and others.
62
What does positive discipline look like in practice? We can take an example from a consultation organised
by the Government of Bihar and UNICEF in 2010. A consultation where we heard real life stories and
voices from the field and from them, how to do things differently. tOn the first day of school, a Class 1
teacher, Mr. Kumar went to face 60 children in his overcrowded classroom. The children were all new to
school, so the first few days were challenging. Mr. Kumar explained that his students often talked while
he was talking. Many, especially the first-generation school-goers, were not able to follow lessons, so they
became frustrated and distracted. The children would copy from each other’s books and some would lose
interest and make drawings on the walls or desks.
The studies on corporal punishment indicate that many teachers facing this situation would use measures
such as pulling the hair of students, insulting them by telling them they are stupid, or caning. Mr. Kumar had
observed during his teacher internship, that such violent measures were counterproductive. They pushed
children to drop out, prevented them from learning and created violence both inside and outside the school.
So instead, Mr. Kumar took a positive discipline approach. In the initial days, he helped children democratically
set up rules and consequences for bad behaviour. When required, he set disciplinary measures that would
help children learn to change. For example, instructing children to clean the drawing off the furniture after
school. He also set up group work with mixed-level groups of children so that faster learners could help
slower learners. A weekly class leader was selected based on good behaviour, and a space set up in the
courtyard where children would go if they had a disagreement to work out a solution.
In a few short weeks, Mr. Kumar saw his Class 1 students transformed. Their learning improved steadily. By
fostering democratic participation, his students developed a sense of empowerment and helped each other
control their behaviour. His classroom became more inclusive, one where children developed a greater
sense of empathy for others, even those from different backgrounds. The children became more helpful to
the teacher and peers, and Mr. Kumar’s job became easier. Even parents noticed a positive change in their
children. During a Village Education Committee meeting, they started discussing how ending corporal
punishment was improving their children’s experience of school and made a commitment to try the
positive discipline techniques at home. The child cabinet in Mr. Kumar’s school made posters, songs, and
theatre sketches to promote these messages in the community.
Mr. Kumar’s classroom and community is not difficult to replicate. UNICEF sees many of these positive
practices in schools and communities across India. We also understand that there is no one-size fits all
solution to this problem. What we need is a multi-pronged approach that addresses corporal punishment in
homes, institutions and schools; and strategies that address attitudes, law reform, institutional mechanisms
and improve monitoring. These guidelines provide us with the framework, mechanisms and actions to
make Mr. Kumar’s Class 1 into the norm. They give options on how to address the variety of challenges
teachers might face in different situations. The guidelines indicate how to actively ensure that children’s
voices and participation guide the collective decision-making that will bring the positive and urgent changes
required to end to all forms of violence towards them. Ending corporal punishment is not just the right of
all children in India, it is our legal obligation.
UNICEF is committed to working with the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights,
Ministry of Human Resource Development and other partners to create a climate where there is ‘zero
tolerance’ for corporal punishment. We will continue to advocate for educational environments free from
all forms of physical and humiliating punishment. Provide teachers like Mr. Kumar with the necessary capacity
and tools to create child-friendly environments. UNICEF will also support states to amend or adopt new
legislation and policies harmonised with these guidelines and strengthen monitoring and redressal systems.
We will continue to provide technical assistance to make sure that quality education reforms take into
account positive discipline techniques and strategies. In our campaigns to promote the Right to Education,
we will work to build stronger school-community linkages to help school management committees, child
cabinets and youth groups address corporal punishment in schools and homes.
For this, these guidelines must be disseminated far and wide. Strong partnerships with media can continue
to report incidents of corporal punishment, while also promote protective behaviours and practices.
Media can help bring to public attention to the violence children experience and help spread awareness
on children’s right to protection.
63
We must look for every opportunity to raise awareness with parents, teachers, governments, media and
other key stakeholders. We must create a movement against corporal punishment. These guidelines
are a clear road map to more child-friendly schools, safer communities and a more peaceful and
developed society.
Each and every one of us has a role to play in building a world fit for children: a world where violence has
no place and children can learn and grow with dignity and respect. It is not only the right thing to do, but
also the smart thing do, and most importantly – it is our children’s birthright.
64
– Poonam Batra
Professor, Central Institute of Education, University of Delhi
Schooling to Discipline
Within the Indian context, two distinct yet related strands of the idea of schooling co-exist. The first
is to do with the building of character and morals as the most important goal of education. There is
much lament about degrading values amongst children, poor upbringing and the neglect of traditional
values in education. The second is the obsession with high academic performance in an outcome-based
educational framework. Both these are sought to be met by making ‘discipline’ the centre of all school
activity. Learning to concentrate, learning to perform in examinations and learning to behave in desirable
ways are acknowledged to be the key means of achieving these goals. This finds immediate endorsement
from the parent community in a society where education of quality for the masses remains a mystified
phenomenon. The education of most Indian children thus assumes moralistic overtones, with the aim to
reform children through harsh discipline. The NCPCR study indicates how children assuredly believe that
physical punishment is for their own good.
The paradox is in the co-existence of a relatively progressive educational discourse that advocates for the
‘agency’ of the child in her own learning as through curriculum frameworks (NCF, 2005) and RTE (2009)
regulations; and the preposterous practice of ‘silencing’ children.
The idea of ‘disciplining children’ can also be said to stem from deep-rooted folk conceptions about
children and their relationship with adults. The cultural practices associated with child rearing and
educating children permeate schooling practices across the country. The hegemonic relationship between
adults and children is a case in point. This is often manifest in either a culture of patronage towards the
young or control through power and the firm belief that education is about learning by rote. Both these
have cultural sanction.
The dictionary definition of corporal punishment relates to physical beating and whipping, usually using a
cane. It is no surprise that for most children interviewed in the NCPCR study, enduring the cane has been
the most commonly encountered experience – it serves the purpose of threatening and beating children
in order to discipline and control them. It is also not surprising that for most, the ubiquitous image of the
teacher is one with a crane in his/her hand. Similar findings have been reported in other studies as well1.
The intimate relationship between corporal punishment and discipline is not simply a social convention;
it finds legitimacy via definitional assertions in dictionaries as well. ‘To discipline’ is often stated to mean
‘to punish’. The English Thesaurus2 places ‘discipline’ amongst a long list of synonyms of the word, ‘punish’.
Accordingly, to punish means to chastise, to penalise, to castigate, to reprove, to rebuke, to reprimand and
to discipline!
Plan International, 2006.
See Thesaurus version available in MS Word.
1
2
65
The idea of punishment is also related to popular conceptions of childhood and education. Clichéd popular
thinking related to children such as ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’, ‘children are empty vessels’, ‘children
need to be moulded’ persists in the thinking of contemporary educators, often serving as guiding principles
of entrenched school practices.
Schools in India are identified as the main site where corporal punishment has assumed endemic proportions.
Authoritative relationships between teachers and children, legitimised by the existing system of education
are an extension of the adult hegemony over the child. Teachers and heads of schools work together to
discipline children with the aim to cultivate desirable behaviour, inculcate morals and values and ensure
academic performance – the widely practiced aims of schooling. This has parental sanction as well3.
The Global Initiative movement launched in 2001 under the aegis of the UN Convention on Child Rights
noted that most adults, care givers and education officials across several countries view corporal punishment
as a necessary part of the upbringing of children and their education4. Corporal punishment has wide
acceptance as a practice against children in India as well. Research has revealed how homes are as much sites
of extreme forms of physical punishment as the school5. While teachers openly accept that children cannot
be disciplined without punishment, children too tend to accept it as a way of life. They often justify it as a
parent’s or the teacher’s right to correct them.
Disciplining or Engendering Violence
Corporal punishment, a phenomenon rooted in socio-cultural realities is internalised by both, the
perpetrator and the victim. It has, as a result, assumed the power of perpetuating itself as a way of life.
Corporal punishment therefore needs to be seen as a social practice of extreme discrimination against
children as abhorrent as the prevalent practice of child abuse and domestic violence; more so, because it
has adult and systemic sanction.
There is no running away from the fact that corporal punishment amounts to the psychological
maltreatment of children. It could therefore be more appropriately categorised as child abuse. Advocates
of corporal punishment however, continue to argue that it provides an immediate response to indiscipline.
Research on the other hand reveals the disastrous long-term consequences of corporal punishment.
Studies have demonstrated how corporal punishment leads to negative physical, psychological and
educational outcomes. Some of these are: aggressive and destructive behaviour, increased disruptive
classroom behaviour, vandalism, poor scholastic achievement, poor attention span, increased drop-out
rate, school avoidance and school phobia, low self-esteem, anxiety, somatic complaints, depression, suicide
and even retaliation against teachers (Poole et al., 1991). Other research has demonstrated associations
between corporal punishment of children and maladaptive behaviour patterns such as aggression and
delinquency (Knox 2010).
66
It is indeed paradoxical that the advocates of corporal punishment seek to correct behaviours that are a
direct consequence of aggressive ways of dealing with them. In a simple argument, Strauss (1996) asserts
that the more children are hit, the more anger they report as adults, the more they hit their own children
when they are parents and the more likely they are to approve of hitting. Simons & Wurtele (2010) also
argue that when adults use corporal punishment it teaches their children that hitting is an acceptable
means of dealing with conflict. The vicious circle is complete when children too start accepting corporal
punishment as a way of life. This is where we are as a society, caught in this vicious cycle.
Parents often tell teachers to hit children when they do not study or obey. Here is a common example from some parts of the Hindi belt in
India: ‘haad-maas apka, haddi hamari hai’, giving sanction to hit children.
4
Save the Children, 2003.
5
Plan International, 2006; NCPCR, 2012.
3
If we truly want to recreate schools as safe and nurturing spaces for children to grow and learn, we will
need to challenge the very idea of corporal punishment as a corrective measure. This can only be achieved
with the active collaboration of teachers who are currently the most direct link that sustains the use of
corporal punishment in homes and schools. In order to do so, it may be useful to understand why teachers
have become symbols of such harsh discipline.
A Good Teacher Means Being in Control
The culture of punishing (read disciplining) children is closely associated with the reified image of the
teacher as one who ought to be ‘in control’ in order to be an effective teacher. This idea of control
manifests in the popular conception of education which is to ‘socialise’ children in ‘desirable ways’ of
‘sitting’ in a formal class, ‘behaving’ in school, ‘following instructions’ ‘obeying’ authority (teachers), talking
only when asked to and finishing tasks on time. A close look at the reasons for getting punished as
identified by children of the NCPCR study bears testimony to this argument. The reasons for punishing
children fall into two broad categories: (a) behaviours that disrupt teachers’ ‘control’ inside and outside
the classroom. Examples include sitting at the teacher’s table, writing on the blackboard, not obeying given
instructions or following methods of learning; (b) behaviours that upset the established order and rituals
of the school. Examples include arriving late to school, wearing improper/dirty uniform, not greeting the
teachers and ignoring their demands. Not doing their homework or classwork; forgetting to get books
and other materials to school can also be seen as disrupting the ‘order’ of the school. Giving expression
to basic physical needs, spontaneous acts of sharing jokes and laughing, running around open spaces and
inventing games to ease the oppression of a routinised classroom strangely also evoke anger and physical
reactions amongst teachers.
The study also reveals that while physical punishment is widely practiced, extreme forms of verbal
reprimand is the most prevalent form of humiliating children. This includes the use of derisive adjectives
to call out children from different castes and communities, sexist ways of addressing them and denigrating
them through excessive verbal abuse.
The prevailing culture of schools as reflected in children’s responses is indicative of how children are
perceived by teachers and the attitudes they hold about the children they teach. Though rooted in their
socio-cultural experiences these can be seen to be extended through the training they receive while
preparing to be teachers. Most teacher training programmes for instance, inculcate the belief that silence
is a virtue as it signifies a well managed class. The focus is therefore on how to maintain order in class
and how to keep children in ‘control’. Even classroom furniture wherever available, is designed to restrict
children’s movement in class in order to keep them ‘in control’.
Teacher training programmes also foster the belief that the most important differences between children
are individual in nature, such as being less intelligent or smarter than others. This assumes great significance
for teachers who are desperately in search of reference points against which to evaluate children. This
then becomes the only notion of diversity that teachers seem to gather. Each child in class is evaluated in
reference to the ‘ideal textbook’ child that teachers are supposedly familiar with. In this frame teachers
learn to be judgmental about children and their learning. Children are labelled as intelligent, dumb or slow
learners. What ‘real’ children are and how their diverse contexts affect their development and learning is
not a concern of those who prepare teachers. The texts teachers study during their training also does not
engage them with these concerns.
67
School teachers thus develop a universalistic understanding of children which has little bearing with the
realities they encounter. They never learn to relate to children and connect with them as persons. To
fulfil their inexorable role of evaluating children and keeping them in control, teachers look for anchors in
their own experiences which are usually steeped in a culture of stereotypes and prejudices. The unequal
power relationships between adults and children thus become the culture of the everyday classroom.
Often teachers’ sense of helplessness results in taking their frustrations out on powerless children. As a
14 year old child remarked, “Teachers do not know what to say or do, therefore they beat or threaten to
beat.” Children internalise cues of authority from school and at home at an early age and begin to legitimise
violence towards the powerless as a way of life.
Invoking the Teacher to Combat Corporal Punishment
Corporal punishment is thus tied to the larger context and concern of the prevalence of violence in society
and the popular constructs of childhood and education that dominate processes of schooling. It would
therefore be important to bring Teacher Education Institutes into the fold of institutionalised mechanisms
to combat this social menace. This would involve addressing teachers through both the pre-service and
in-service teacher education programmes.
To begin with, all teacher development programmes6 need to have a mandatory provision to integrate
the study of children, their development and learning in varying contexts. The current courses focus on
models of instruction and learning theories rather than the developing child. A clear shift therefore needs
to be made from the current focus on courses of educational psychology to courses on childhood and how
children think and learn. The child needs to be at the centre of processes of pedagogic communication
that seeks to ensure learning. Teachers need to engage with children in real contexts, rather than learn to
mouth abstract, universalistic, textbook constructions of ‘who a child is?’ This would help teachers view
and understand children as rooted in diverse contexts thus enabling them to relate to them, evoking sensitivity
to children’s ways of thinking and perceiving. This in turn would help teachers to discern and question
popular notions and assumptions about children and education, including their own.
Authentic understanding of how children think and learn; why children fail or are unable to perform on
school tasks can only happen if teachers learn to listen to children. These need to become the subject and
process of teacher preparation. In traditional teacher training the dominant pattern is to leave the onus
of learning to children. The current system absolves the teacher of any responsibilities towards children’s
learning. This orientation can change only when teachers are also provided opportunities to engage with
questions and concerns of classroom practice. Listening to children will help teachers understand them
and feel less angry with the mistakes they make.
68
A major divide between the socio-economic and cultural background of teachers and children in most
State schools is a key factor in perpetuating the problem of corporal punishment. It would be strategic to
develop and disseminate short films/video clips on the vulnerability of children and the responsibility of
adults. Class monitors often substitute teachers in maintaining discipline by threatening and often resorting
to physical beating. This has particularly led to a process of legitimising violence amongst children, while
absolving the teacher. The system of monitors in classes, chosen from among the students needs to be a
major focus of discussion with the aim to completely abolish the ‘use’ of monitors to punish children by
beating them. Specific mechanisms can be evolved with teachers to actively discourage violence amongst
children in school settings. Introducing the concept of a ‘home room’ (zero period) period everyday and a
‘home room teacher’ who encourages children to share and express their experiences and feelings openly
can help give voice to children.
6
The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCTE, 2009) has several suggestions on how to redesign the education of teachers.
Involving the Community
The strategy should be to appeal to parents urging them to start thinking about the deleterious effects of
physical punishment and their role in combating it. Teachers can be organised to become lead ambassadors
in this effort of creating a public discourse. This would help teachers to take ownership and responsibility
for bringing about a change in school cultures.
Simultaneous mechanisms of redressal need to be made available for children in and around schools.
Dedicated time on select TV channels can be allocated for the reporting of such investigated cases. This
will act as a society-watch mechanism that deters teachers and other adults from indulging in the physical
beating of children. Such mechanisms can be suitably linked to available academic research institutions,
non-governmental organisations and university departments of education, social sciences, social work and
women’s studies that can maintain a dossier of cases with critical reflections and commentary. Documents
of this kind can be disseminated for use by researchers as well as for purposes of teacher development
through pre-service and in-service programmes.
It is important to examine the problem of corporal punishment within the larger context of violence and
child abuse that plagues current Indian society and human civilisation. Blurring of boundaries between
crime and terrorism; between terror and the struggle for freedom; between the struggle for human dignity
and the politicisation of identities have manifest more blatantly than ever before. The most vulnerable
in a society plagued with legitimised violence, are children … whose stifled voices desperately need to
be heard. The NCPCR study is a systematic attempt to bring substantial evidence to the argument that
violence against school children in the name of disciplining them is a crime that strips children of the basic
dignity of life accorded to them by the law of the land in which they are born.
69
References
Government of India, GoI, 2009, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,The Gazette of India,
27 August 2009, New Delhi.
Knox M, 2010, On Hitting Children: a review of corporal punishment in the United States Journal of Pediatric
Health Care, 24 (2), pp. 103-7.
NCERT, 2005, National Curriculum Framework, 2005, NCERT: New Delhi.
NCTE, 2009, National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education: towards a professional and humane teacher,
NCTE: New Delhi.
Plan International, 2006, Impact of Corporal Punishment on School Children: a research study, Plan International:
New Delhi.
Poole SR, MC Ushkow, PR, Nader et al., 1991,. ‘The Role of the Pediatrician in Abolishing Corporal Punishment in
Schools, Pediatrics, 88 (1)’, pp. 162–7.
Save the Children, 2003, Hitting People is Wrong – and Children are People Too, ‘Global Initiative to End All Corporal
Punishment of Children,’ Save the Children, Russell Press: England, Revised Edn.
Simons DA and SK Wurtele, 2010, Relationships between Parents’ Use of Corporal Punishment and their Children’s
Endorsement of Spanking and Hitting Other Children, Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, (9), pp. 639-46.
Straus MA, 1996, ‘Spanking and the Making of a Violent Society, Pediatrics, 98(4), pp. 837-842.
70

Corporal Punishment

Transcription

Similar documents

Spanking and Disciplining Children

Dehumanization in “The Shawshank Redemption”

Criminology and Penology by John Lewis Gillin

DOTACJE UNIJNE

Corporal Frank Gordon (M.M.) Best

Pooya Interview in English Translation

Rudolf Dreikurs Inspiring Classroom Behavior Strategies

Eucharistic Miracles and Saints

July - Ring of Fire HOG