2008/9/27 Ingrid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Thank you for your persistence.
>
> On begging and the stratagems adopted to maximise income:
> All the more reason, IMO, to support the kind of work that addresses
> poverty, displacement, access to education and sustainable livelihoods
> at its roots in rural and slum communities.
> Too much philanthropy, again IMO, in its quest for 'tangible benefits'
> and donor well-being ends up addressing symptoms rather than causes.



P.S. Coincidentally, I received this today:



Chasms between Children



A child was talking of how he lost his home and ended up on the streets. He
was travelling with his parents in a crowded train when he was very young.
He got off the compartment at a station, and the train left with his mother
and father. He never found his parents again. For most of his childhood
years, he grew up on railway platforms with other homeless children as his
only family, earning his food through selling water bottles or picking rags,
battling sexual abuse and police batons, seeking solace in drugs and the
comradeship of his street friends.



A teenaged girl his age was listening intently to him. Her parents were
wealthy, and she studied in one of the most privileged schools in Delhi's
capital region. She recounted, as the boy spoke of his life, that she once
also got lost and was separated from her parents. She recalled her enormous
fear and helplessness at that time. Her good fortune was that her parents
found her. As the two children spoke, they wondered what life would have
been for both of them had fate dealt differently in those short moments: if
the boy's parents had found him and the girl's had not. The boy would have
been raised in the security and love of his home, and the girl would have
faced an even worse destiny on the streets. They closed their eyes for a
while to imagine what life would have been had they lived this different
existence, and the girl said to her own astonishment, 'I would have been
hungry, and one of the first things I would have done would have been to
steal food'.



For five days this September, we brought teenaged children from The Shriram
School, an elite school with excellent academic accomplishments in Gurgaon,
together with children of Ummeed, an ashram near Gurgoan where we are
raising children who were formerly homeless and on the streets. The purpose
was to try to open a dialogue between children who were of exceptional
affluence, and those who were the most deprived in the city, children who
survive without adult protection on the mean and rough streets of the
metropolis. We hoped that the conversations would lead to mutual
understanding, empathy and maybe even – if nurtured over time – to
friendships across vast chasms of class. This is why the five day
interaction was optimistically called Dosti or Friendship, and marked the
start of a series of interactions that we hope will continue over coming
year.



The initial response of both sets of children was expectedly saddled with
awkward trepidation. Many of the Ummeed children - remarkably brave
otherwise - initially hid behind their lockers or near the walls of the
ashram, refusing to join the interactions, worried about how they would be
treated, embarrassed by their clothes and their rough speech. The Shriram
children had their own fears, of how they could possibly relate to the
expected coarseness of street-smart children who grew up without parents and
education.



The initial dialogues in small mixed groups of children were about their
joys and hates; and their dreams. It took only a morning together for many
of them to discover how much was common between them: they all loved
cricket, films, songs, and were quickly debating their favourite cricketers
and actors. They also discovered profound differences, but on unexpected
lines. The Shriram children often included 'studies' among their pet hates,
but for the children of Ummeed, education was almost unanimously chosen as
their most precious acquisition. Many boys were unlettered when they joined
Ummeed a year ago, and they have studied hard and surprised most people by
recently even qualifying recently for entry into a formal middle school.
Reflecting together on this difference, the Shriram children recognised that
they took education for granted as it came to them so easily, whereas for
the Ummeed teenagers, it was invaluable precisely because they were always
barred from it.



Most Ummeed children were clear about what they wanted to do as they grew
up: several, for instance, saw computer hardware as a profession with a
future, as four of their colleagues have already completed a course in
hardware engineering from a private polytechnic since they joined the
ashram. A sizeable number chose social work and teaching, because they
wanted to save other street children from the lives they were forced to
lead. The Shriram children were usually more relaxed and less focussed about
their futures: some saw university education overseas followed by inheriting
their fathers' business as an assured path, some spoke of fashion and
jewellery design, or architecture, or professional golf or football. Many
children from Shriram said they had not even thought about their futures.



Next the children were broken into pairs, and encouraged to share the
details of their lives. The children from the streets described to
unbelieving children who grew up in protected homes, what life was actually
like on the streets. They were stunned by the grit and strength of these
children: they would have found it terrifying to sleep a single night alone
on the sidewalk of a highway. But there is pain in homes of privilege as
well, and some children shared a little of their loneliness and anguish
because they felt that their parents had little time for them, or of fathers
who were too harsh; they said they had not spoken of some of these things to
even their closest friends from school. I was touched by a fragment of a
conversation in which a former street boy was counselling a child who was
distressed at his father's treatment of him. 'Be patient with your father',
the child from Ummeed was saying to his new found friend. 'Try to understand
things from his point of view'. He had seen too many hot-headed children on
the streets who had not been so patient, and instead chosen to harsh world
of the streets.



The Ummeed children do most of their work themselves: they cook their own
food, clean their rooms and toilets, even build additions to their ashram.
The children from Shriram were encouraged to share in this work, helping
rebuild a fallen boundary, plaster their walls, or plant vegetables. They
delighted at the blisters that they got on their hands and earth-soiled
clothes, as the Ummeed children laughed, 'They have never had to labour in
their lives: that is why they are enjoying it so much'.  They also trounced
them in kabaddi and cricket, and showed off their superior skills in martial
arts and wrestling.



The next day they discussed the world around them: caste, communalism,
gender and class inequalities. The discussions made us acutely aware of the
limitations of education of privilege. Most Shriram children did not even
know who dalits were. Many had not heard of the practice of untouchability.
A few claimed that caste was a system 'that prevailed only in ancient
times'. The Ummeed children hotly contested this, and described how caste
discrimination thrived in the villages from which many of them had run away.
The discussions on 'reservations' went on expected lines, the Shriram
children echoing the fierce opposition that they would have heard from their
parents. Some children said, 'Let "them' get education, but after that they
must compete on merit'. We asked if disadvantaged children could even dream
of accessing the kind of education that they take for granted. Should not
children who are poor or discriminated find admission to their school, to
study shoulder to shoulder with them? We were bemused by how few thought
this was a good idea: separate evening schools for 'them' were all right,
but not sharing the same classroom in which they themselves studied.



Observers were struck by the discussions on social issues, in which the
Ummeed children easily scored over the Shriram children in their knowledge
of the world, and their sense of justice. It made us reflect on the many
divergences between education and literacy: one set of children were nowhere
as comparably literate, yet they seemed to know more about the world and
life



The children from Shriram closed their eyes again to imagine being born to a
family which was shunned, in the periphery of the village, deprived of
minimal needs, their mother cleaning toilets and getting scraps of jhootan
or left-overs as their only meal, being humiliated and seated separately in
school. Or the life of a begrimed child begging at traffic lights, or
picking rags to make a living, or growing up in a one-roomed slum tenement
with ten other residents and no place to study.



Education is organised in our country on the tacit premise that children of
privilege need an education that sharpens their minds, whereas the poor need
to learn mainly how to use their hands better. We believe that, on the
contrary, a true education must prepare every child, rich or poor, to work
with both their heads and their hands, but also always with their hearts.



The physical distance between the children of Shriram and the children of
Ummeed may have been sometimes less than a kilometre, as children sleep on
pavements outside the gated colonies of their affluent homes. But this
distance is so profound that most people cannot traverse it in a lifetime.
Our children were able to cross briefly this abyss that separated them.
Together they learnt lessons about love and loss, about privilege and
denial, about fear and courage, about egalitarian compassion, and above all
our universal shared humanity. And on parting, some Shriram children shared
mobile phone numbers, welcomed the Ummeed children to their school or
promised to return to the ashram. At least a few did seem to have become
friends.



Harsh Mander

> --
> 'Optimists refuse to acknowledge reality. Idealists remind us that it isn't
> fixed.' -Susan Neiman
>

Reply via email to