Devendra Kumar Budakoti
The debate over Indian parenting came to my mind again while reading about an incident involving a child’s behaviour on a flight in Canada on August 6. The child reportedly refused to sit down and fasten his seat belt. As a result, the flight was delayed, eventually cancelled, and rescheduled for the following day.
The incident raises an important question: what does such behaviour tell us about the consequences of gentle parenting in modern societies? It also raises questions about the psychology of the other passengers. As reported, the parents apparently did not intervene; arguing that it was the child’s individual right to refuse to wear a seat belt.
Does a child have an unrestricted individual right to misbehave when that behaviour affects the safety and convenience of others? More importantly, why could no one on the flight communicate with the child or the parents in a persuasive yet authoritative manner? This is not merely a question of positive or gentle parenting; it also reflects a growing sense of social indifference.
In traditional Indian society, disciplining children was never considered the sole responsibility of parents. Kith and kin, teachers, elders and even members of the wider community played a role in shaping a child’s behaviour. Elders could reprimand children for inappropriate conduct, particularly in public spaces. Although there have been instances where elders themselves have been attacked by unruly youngsters for objecting to bad behaviour, such incidents have also made people increasingly reluctant to intervene.
A similar debate emerged during the recent Jantar Mantar protest, when abusive language used during the protest attracted widespread condemnation on social media. Many people also questioned the parenting of those who used such language.
The concept of gentle parenting gained prominence in the West during the 1950s with Dr. Benjamin Spock’s The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care. Spock advocated a softer and more understanding approach towards children, discouraging rigid and authoritarian parenting and rejecting corporal punishment. Psychologist Caroline Goldman, in her book Go To Your Room, argues for setting firm boundaries when children misbehave. She suggests that gentle parenting has produced a generation of parents who may be uncertain about when, why and how to set limits. She identifies certain behaviours that should not be permitted, including excessive complaining and making too much noise. Her views, however, have also attracted criticism from those who regard time-outs as a form of psychological violence and believe that such methods may encourage parents to mistreat children. Many Indians may find Goldman’s argument familiar. Several generations of Indians have personally experienced, or witnessed, children being reprimanded or physically punished by parents, relatives, teachers, village elders and other members of the community.
Traditionally, Indian society exercised a form of informal social regulation. A child’s inappropriate behaviour could bring embarrassment not only to the child but also to the family. Social reputation acted as an additional mechanism of discipline, both in private and in public life. Children certainly deserve respect, dignity and freedom from physical punishment. But gentle parenting should not be confused with the absence of boundaries, discipline or parental responsibility.
Behaviour justified in the name of individual rights can sometimes develop into a family or public nuisance, as the flight incident illustrates. If inappropriate behaviour is not addressed during childhood, it may become increasingly difficult to control later and can eventually contribute to conflicts, violence, abuse and wider social disorder.
Individual rights are important, but they cannot exist in isolation. Every right also carries a responsibility towards others. The real challenge before parents and society is to teach children where individual freedom begins and where it must give way to the safety, dignity and rights of others.
Perhaps the lesson is not that India maintains its authoritarian parenting, but that it should preserve the best of its traditional community-based social responsibility while embracing the positive aspects of modern parenting. Children need affection, respect and freedom—but they also need boundaries, accountability and an understanding that their actions affect others. We need patenting which produces citizens who know their rights as well as duties.
–The Author is a sociologist and an alumnus of JNU New Delhi. His research is quoted in the books of Nobel Laureate Prof. Amartya Sen,
