Vulnerable children

Beta, give uncle a kiss: Are Indian parents giving children mixed signals about consent?

Before learning about good touch and bad touch, children should be able to refuse uninvited touching.

When high-profile, wealthy and well-travelled men like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey are able to water down sexual abuse by insisting they are too unschooled in recognising consent, we must wonder about serial criminal behaviour being presented as a genuine mistake and how best to prevent it.

How early should parents begin speaking to their children about consent? It’s obvious that talking about good touch and bad touch is a beginning, and yet it is inadequate to end the conversation there. Between those two polarities exists the slightly greyer area of uninvited touch – a subject we seldom broach with children, since it forces us to examine whether we can genuinely treat children as people with agency over their own bodies. It’s far easier to behave as though our children and their bodies belong to us, until they’re old enough to declare otherwise.

Give uncle a kiss

What is uninvited touch? We’ve all experienced it or seen it happen. An uninvited touch is the elephant in the room every time we push reluctant children to embrace newly arrived relatives, or hug the children of friends, even though they might hide from our touch. For most Indian children, the inability to show physical affection on demand is considered an emotional stutter or a hurdle to overcome, rather than an act of choice. It marks a child out, almost as though it were a character slur, of being a shy introvert.

Part of this is cultural, stemming from the shared understanding that it takes a village to raise a child, and that children are somehow the property of their family. Chrisann Creado, psychologist and professional development specialist, has extensive experience working with children in classroom situations, and said that parents and caregivers of collectivist societies like ours need to be sensitised about how to encourage children to “build boundaries for themselves and respect boundaries in others”. Creado also added that the question of when touch is appropriate is not easily resolved.

“Appropriateness becomes a function of what society thinks is desirable or what the culture permits along with the comfort levels of parents,” she said. “Very rarely do we stop to think that children themselves may not be comfortable with such gestures of affection.”

Consent 101

Meghna Chaudhury, co-founder of the Irrelevant Project, refers to this in her picture book titled Don’t Pull My Cheeks. The Irrelevant Project is part of an experimental learning module at Ashoka University’s Young India Fellowship, that brings feminist stories to children through picture books and classroom initiatives. The books are themed around body image issues, homosexuality, gender, sexual abuse, critical thinking and consent.

Chaudhury recalled how her interactions with children left her with the feeling that many of them were uncomfortable with a forced physical display of affection, and were left confused in a world where they were taught that adults are always right. This, she said, was her inspiration to write Don’t Pull My Cheeks.

The story is a first-person account by Bibloo, whose escalating encounters with the cheek-pulling Jon uncle, are an education in how to stick up for one’s self. Bibloo categorically states: “If you feel like pulling my cheeks because they are round, then don’t… From the time I remember, I don’t like my cheeks being pulled. It hurts!... But most importantly, I do not like ANYONE touching me without asking me first.”

The story and its illustrations keep from fetishising Bibloo’s cuteness, so that the story is firmly about his experience and not his appearance. Pranita Kocharekar, the illustrator of Don’t Pull My Cheeks, said keeping Bibloo’s appearance ordinary was a conscious decision,

“We wanted to make sure the child is as relatable as possible,” she said. Jon uncle’s affectionate cheek-pulling is all on him – Bibloo does not have obviously large cheeks, and the story is told from his point of view alone.

Bibloo also seeks help from his mother, whom he sees as a facilitator to his sense of agency and bodily autonomy. The story may be meant for kids, but ends with a note addressed to the child’s parent or caregiver, explaining its premise.

Why bother?

Books and projects that teach children about consent highlight the fact is that it’s time parents began thinking about this issue, and treating it as an important preliminary conversation to the larger discussion about sex and sexuality education with teenagers.

It’s easy to overlook the importance of such a conversation, or avoid it altogether because it feels awkward. But our behaviour as parents is hard-wired through memory and familiarity, into the kinds of adults our children will be. We cook as our parents did, our children will remember the food they ate at our tables. The skewed gender politics children see around them on the street and at school will leave their mark, but so will what they absorb at home. We must reconsider the way we encourage children to respect their feelings and those of others, when it comes to touch.

To blithely raise children to believe that grown-ups are always right, and then force them to accept uninvited touching is to sow the seeds of confusion. What happens when a generation grows up muddled about demanding and surrendering affection, is being played out around us every day.

Karishma Attari is the author of I See You and Don’t Look Down. She reviews books and runs a workshop series titled Shakespeare for Dummies.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.

Play

In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.

Play

Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.

Play

The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.

Play

The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.