No, this is not yet another piece on Budhia Singh—whether he should have been allowed to run 65 kilometres. Nor is this a part of the debate surrounding his coach and his motives. Not because I don't
have an opinion on the issue. Indeed, like everyone else, I do. This piece is more to do with the questions that a story like Budhia's pose. It's about young children and their journey to success and fame, and the role that all of us play in it.
The world has, forever, known child prodigies—Mozart, Beethoven, Ramanujan, Jodie Foster, Lata Mangeshkar, Zakir Hussain, Nadia Comaneci, to name a few. Do the lives of all these stars raise the same questions? Perhaps yes, because the core issue remains the same—how much push and how soon?
What makes a child prodigy a potential star? Clearly, these are children who are special. But given today's hunger for visual gratification, ability and talent are not enough. A musician must possess an X-factor, as must a sportsperson or a designer. At times this X-factor comes not with looks and clothes, but with age, rather the lack of it. A child who performs beyond his or her age pulls at our heartstrings and fascinates us—like Budhia.
But fame is effervescent. Ensuring continuous visibility is, therefore, imperative, especially if money has to flow. Not only must child prodigies catch the public eye, they must remain there. Hence, package them and turn them into stars. If we don't, they might meet the fate of Sanka Raviteja who, at nine, won the Asian Youth Chess Championship and brought home the silver from the World Youth Chess Championships, 2004, in Greece. He has since faded from public and official memory. His parents are still trying to pay off the debts they incurred to take him to Greece.
It's a vicious cycle. News is created as are newsmakers— they have to be, if
TRP ratings have to soar and newspapers have to retain and increase readership. As audience and readers, we're force-fed on news and newsmakers and grow addicted to them. The more addicted we become, the more we seek. And while we watch others, there creeps upon us the latent desire to be like 'them'. If as adults we cannot be there, we try vicariously, through our children and protégés.
Television shows such as India's Child Genius: The Search for India's Smartest Kid tell us that visibility and fame are within our kid's reach. No wonder parents and coaches push their wards into daredevil sporting events or reality shows like
Boogie Woogie where they dress and perform like adults, and for which they must suffer endless hours of arduous practice. Ramanujan did not need a show like this. Nor did Zakir Hussain's name need to be texted on mobile phones for him to be acknowledged a prodigy.
The other big message being beamed is that there is no space for the ordinary, the average. Those who cannot be seen or heard are losers. And who wants to be a loser? So, as adults we push, as children, we strive. Budhia's coach, Biranchi Das, is but a product of our times. If he and Budhia are to be famous and rich, he realises, they must be visible. Budhia's X-factor, his age, has to be packaged and sold.
Had Budhia been made to work in a glass factory or in a zari loom, we would have immediately labelled it child labour. But it's not a term we would use to describe Budhia running a marathon (although he was bought for Rs 800), or what other young and talented kids are doing to make news everyday—riding motorcycles well before they are eligible for a licence, practising dance and music for hours. Or working as child stars. Accompanied by their parents, they move from studio to studio, shoot several shifts and, in between, try to complete their homework, in cars or on location. Take seven-year-old Shreya Sharma, 'famous' on the small screen as Sneha in Star Plus'
Kasauti Zindagi Kay. "Even after spending maximum time shooting, she is brilliant in studies and stands first in her class," says her proud mother.
No doubt talented children must be encouraged. As adults, we owe it to them. But there is only a thin, almost invisible line that separates encouragement from pushing, and pushing from exploitation. Maybe the fault also lies in our limited understanding of child labour, reflected in the child labour law, which bans employment only in hazardous occupations. Perhaps Budhia's case will force us to take a fresh look at the law. Clearly, no child must be made to perform any act harmful to him or her, physically or psychologically, and unsuitable to his or her age.
That notwithstanding, Budhia's case represents the malaise that has set into our society, a malaise in which all of us play a role as adults, as readers, as audience, as media. Because we all love a star! Time we examined the Biranchi within each of us.
(The writer works with HAQ: Centre for Child Rights.)
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT