Sunday, June 20, 2010

Pampering Children

I am at home currently with my nephew (Tumi, aged 5) and 2 young cousins (Kabir and Nihar, aged 4 and 10). All have been much pampered all their lives and are quite a trouble to their parents when it comes to get anything done such as meals, bath, getting ready or whatever. And these children will do all this from me without any pampering – with some love and some discipline, and they are behaving themselves. It is not a show off; I want to make a point here. There is another one, Prahald, Anand’s son (Anand is my sole Indian colleague in Bintulu). He too really likes me (… apparently more than his parents).

What am I doing different from all the really nice mothers of these children? Probably I am thinking and observing before dealing with these gold of our future.

Master (Shri P. Rajagopalachari) has once said that a combination of loving (pampering) mother and disciplining father is best for a child’s growth. Two of the three fathers above, in my view, are quite wise, and deal quite similarly with the children as I do, but the fact is that a child spends a lot of time with the mother (and other relatives who are not behind in pampering) and thus their behaviour is shaped such. One further disadvantage of this is that when all the pampering is showered and the child still doesn’t agree to say have a proper meal, it is often followed by anger.

One of the general laws of human relationships is that the more one goes after the other, the further the other runs from the one. Adult relationships and friendship actually start on a note where attention begets attraction. This does change later though in many cases. But in a mother-child relationship, the love of a mother for the child is complete, and worse enough the child knows it. The child thus knows that it can escape or run the mother around to its demand or satisfaction. This isn’t to say that the child doesn’t love the mother. But a child’s id (refer Freud’s theory on development of I in a person) is strong and thus it wants a lot.

My elder sister is good with children and she used to, many years ago, use the rule of the opposites. She used to give or suggest the opposite to the child to get the right thing done. It is quite effective in a way, but my way is different.

My way is to let know the child that obedience and discipline are necessary, and then leave it free. This isn’t applicable to children below 3 years who aren’t very capable of conveying messages or heavily depend on right input of food. But once that demand is slackened, experimentation with child’s psychology is possible, and for me at least, has given good results. I know that I don’t have a mother’s heart – I can keep a child crying for a while for not acknowledging / conforming to its demand or leave it hungry (say skip a meal) if it says it is not hungry or doesn’t want to eat. But it works wonders – at least it has in the above cases.

Understanding the child is the key. One difference between a child and an adult is that the former doesn’t hold an impression for long. Its memory is strong but it doesn’t hold and impression for long. You divert its attention indirectly and it will mostly forget what it was earlier crying for. The other thing is to leave it free.

All of the mothers above stuff their children with a fix amount of food and will slacken only in extreme cases. The child will deny – the mother will pamper – the child will run away – the mother will run after – the child will play fool – eventually he will get a shout or slap – then it will cry – then it will be further pampered – stories will flow – and finally it will gulp down or eat the food. The aim is achieved, but not too nicely. It can be optimized and made less noisy or emotional.

Take example of my friend Hakim’s father on the other hand. He and his sister were particular about not eating this and that. Result – they won’t get their dinner for the day. Very soon, they started eating everything. It is not that their father didn’t love them. As Master says, love is there behind the discipline. And it is not love, if it cannot discipline. In his talks in Europe in early 90’s, he openly spoke about the inability of European parents to keep their children away from drugs in name of their freedom.

At a deeper level, it is fear behind the apparent pampering. Fear is there at two levels – genuine fear of something happening to child (say if it doesn’t eat properly) and an inappropriate fear of losing their love or attention, or worse, receiving rebuke from them. I know mothers hold their child the dearest, and hence the latter is also not completely wrong or inappropriate. But instead of permitting this fear to decide their actions, they should think about the long-term consequences of their actions. Take example of drugs – a few slaps or two days inside a locked room may be much better than leaving the child run free on drugs. I have said ‘may be’ because such actions might also have serious psychological repercussions. Every child is different and hence understanding is the key.

On a side note, I would also like to suggest that we should give children minimum impressions of what is right and wrong and maximum freedom in terms of what they can do or not. When I am walking with Prahalad on the nice roads of Sanctuary Villa in Bintulu (Malaysia), I let him do what he wants but keep an eye and the right distance from him to make sure he doesn’t come close to danger. Sometimes his mother is feeding him the same dosa that Anand and I are eating. But he comes to Anand and me with his million dollar smile and eats from our hands. His mother, given up, says, “I am feeding you the same thing.” And Anand replies, “He doesn’t want to eat dosa. He wants to eat what Kumar is giving him.”

In end, I concede that I am not a father yet and handing children for a few hours or days may not be the same as handling them on a daily basis. I think they will behave just the same will this type of dealing, whether for days, months or years. One more thing – man’s and woman’s psychological construct is different and hence the same cannot be expected from both.

The creator knows why things are the way they are. So mothers, if you read this – please don’t be offended. Just try a few tips that have worked for me and feedback if it worked for you or not.

Chokher Bali

Chokher Bali – best translated as “A grain of sand” according to the translator is one of the first novels from Rabindranath Tagore. The reason I picked up this novel was to see how Tagore writes (badly forgot all his poems; and then poems and novels aren’t same). In addition, I was impressed with Rituparno Ghosh’s Raincoat and he has also directed Chokher Bali.

I haven’t watched Chokher Bali yet, but its story is in stark contrast with Raincoat. Raincoat was a slow moving story where the end literally completes the movie’s story. Chokher Bali on the other hand is a non-stop drama.

Chokher Bali revolves around six characters:

1. Rajalakshmi: A widow mother who has spoiled her son.

2. Mahendra: The spoiled son, who thinks everyone is there to fulfill his wishes (or as my dad jokes: “When anyone is born, God whispers in his/her ears: you are my best creation.”).

3. Aunty: Mahendra’s aunty – widow as well, a devout and peaceful lady.

4. Behari: Mahendra’s best friend – a very practical and skillful person.

5. Asha: Mahendra’s wife – an orphan wed to Mahendra at the age of 14-15; good at heart but hollow at mind and worldly dealings.

6. Binodini: The life of the novel – a widow, but a very intelligent, quick-witted, bold and beautiful woman. She knows (most of) her powers!

The novel starts a bit low in the sense that Tagore presents a lot of background information at the outset without weaving a story and then coming to central characters and events. However, that is understandable, because the novel was originally written as serialized articles for a Bengal journal and you probably wouldn’t want confuse people too much in beginning otherwise their interest will wane! But after 40 pages or so, he starts to pull strings and weave the web.

The incomplete story in short is thus: Mahendra and his mother are very dear to each other. Mahendra is married to Asha and their magical honeymoon life begins. The boy forgets the mother after marriage (as it normally happens!). The desolate mother goes for a retreat where she meets Binodini. Mahendra was once proposed to marry Binodini, but he declines her because he wasn’t interested in marriage at that time. Binodini becomes a widow as her husband dies prematurely. Mother brings Binodini back home. Binodini and Asha become friends. Mahendra is drawn towards Binodini due to her beauty, wit and charm (plus her efforts). Binodini likes and wants this, but she is really attracted towards Behari as he is good at heart and is a very practical person. Aunty comes and disappears from the scene as a source of peace or consolation.

Lot of drama goes around these people and there is a lot of to-and-fro from one situation to another and back to the same situation. However, nothing looks futile because, for instance, the time that Mahendra takes to advance towards Binodini, her ways of keeping distance while charming Mahendra at the same time, the confusion of letters, the faith in husband and many such events are so natural of that time (100 years ago!).

The novel’s real USP is Tagore’s portrayal of people’s emotions and thoughts and their analysis. He proves himself true to his self-portrait I had seen in Kolkata – a wise old man who knows everything. Some of the very practical and basic nuances of life he explains by means of the story are:

1. How differences and formalities are forgotten at times of misery. On the other hand, how friends and well-wishers are ignored when joy is in bounty.

2. How everyone thinks and justifies he is right.

3. How those who don’t learn things early have to learn it later in life (usually the hard way).

4. How veils of illusions are shattered by shock of reality, and even then, how strong illusions still maintain their place in our life.

5. Patience bears its own fruits and right actions lead to right consequences.

6. How the mood can colour the weather and circumstances (e.g. how a good weather may feel sulky because I am sulky). The other way around is also true, of course.

7. Natural surrender of woman to man and God, which by the way is much misused by man.

All characters in the novel are very realistic, except may be that of Mahendra, who is shown to be too loose and much too dependent on others. However, all probabilities are probable according to the Maxwell bell curve! Binodini’s character is very strong with her extreme goodness and stark darkness shown at different times. In fact, she convinces me even more that women folk can never be understood or predicted. Behari’s character emerges out the strongest at the end and he really gives a fight to the classical Rhet Butler from Gone with the Wind (my favourite character to date after Mahabharata’s Lord Krishna).

The ending is also superb – joyful and sorrowful at the same time; this is really where Tagore really stands out. It has always been difficult for me to accept sad endings and this too made me a bit sad (I was VERY sad after reading Gone with the Wind). However, for the first time, I understood that things cannot be just undone by joining hands once again and living happily forever (dream). The tangles that are created by too much involvement / indulgence are to be best undone in separation. For probably the first time, I have accepted the harsh, sad end of Gone with the Wind.

An enjoyable, fast reading novel with many things to learn about life, how people think and do. And yes, I do look forward to watch the movie.