Corporal Punishment - Eledu.net

EliminatingCorporalPunishmentin SchoolsNational Commission for Protectionof Child Rights (NCPCR)

Children do not lose their human rights by virtue of passingthrough the school gates…Education must be provided ina way that respects the inherent dignity of the child...thatrespects the strict limits on discipline...and promotes nonviolencein school.UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,General Comment 1

ContentsAcknowledgementsiCorporal Punishment: Everyday reality of India’s Children 1Articles on Corporal Punishment 41Towards a Culture of Non-violence in All Institutions 43The Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit and EliminateAll Corporal Punishment of Children 49Banning is Just the BeginningCorporal Punishment in Schools will Prove Tenacious 55Every Child has a Right to Learn with Dignity 61Teachers and Corporal Punishment 65Annexures 71

AcknowledgmentsThe Commission thanks all the eminent contributors to this volume.The Commission acknowledges the support it received from the Ministry of Women andChild Development (MWCD) and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),Government of India in carrying out its mandate in protecting children’s rights.Our profound thanks to Dr Latika Gupta who conceptualized the study on “CorporalPunishment: Everyday Reality of India’s Children” and also executed it with passion as theProject Investigator. We are grateful to Prof Krishna Kumar for his deep interest in thisstudy on corporal punishment which was conducted under his guidance.We cannot thank Mr Peter Newell enough for associating himself with the Commission,sharpening its perspectives on corporal punishment and giving his expert advice despite heavydemands on his time, as part of his global commitment to end all corporal punishment.Our special thanks to Ms Karin Hulshof who has unstintingly supported the implementationof the right to education in the country and offered the services of UNICEF at all times tofulfil the mandate of protecting child rights.We thank Prof Poonam Batra for her valuable input to the volume. The contribution ofMs Karuna Bishnoi, Child Rights Specialist (Social Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation),UNICEF (India Country Office) to the work of the Commission in bringing about thisvolume is laudable. We thank her for her involvement at every stage in the Commission’sendeavour to stop corporal punishment in schools, institutions and all settings includingthe family.We acknowledge the contribution of all our colleagues in the Commission includingMs Gunjan Wadhwa (Consultant, NCPCR) who have worked relentlessly on this volume.The prevalence of corporal punishment in schools and all other settings as a social normgoes on unquestioningly causing untold harm to children. We hope that this documentcontributes towards elimination of corporal punishment completely.i

No violence against children is justifiable and all violenceagainst children is preventable.Prof. Paulo Pinheiro,Independent Expertwho led the UN Secretary General’sStudy on Violence against Children

Introduction 51. Methodology 112. Data Analysis 13Section I: Introducing the Sample 13Section II: Direct Punishments 17Section III: Posture Punishments 24Section IV: Verbal Abuse 27Section V: Projective Tool 303. Conclusions 37

IntroductionIntroductionCorporal or physical punishment involves the use of some degree of physical force to punish or disciplinechildren. It is acknowledged to be the most common form of violence experienced by children in allregions of the world.The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the monitoring Treaty Body for the UN Convention on theRights of the Child, defines corporal or physical punishment in its landmark General Comment No. 8 as“any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort,however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slapping’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with animplement – a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking,shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, forcing children to stayin uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouthsout with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corporal punishmentis invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also crueland degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment whichbelittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”In India, large-scale interview studies have found corporal punishment to be commonly used both in thehome and in schools 1 .Since the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted two decades ago, the scale and extentof corporal punishment and its damaging impact on children has become more visible. And with increasedvisibility has come recognition that this is a violation of the human rights of children. The Convention,acceded to by India in 1992, and by 193 States worldwide, requires the State to protect the child from“all forms of physical and mental violence” (Article 19); from “torture and other cruel or degradingpunishment or treatment” (Article 37); and to ensure “that school discipline is administered in a mannerconsistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention”.The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the highest authority for interpretation of the Convention,emphasises States’ immediate obligation to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and other formsof cruel or degrading treatment. Issuing its 2006 General Comment on the right of the child to protectionfrom violent punishment, the Committee explains that its purpose is “to highlight the obligation of allStates parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel ordegrading forms of punishment of children and to outline the legislative and other awareness-raising andeducational measures that States must take”.The Committee reiterates States’ obligations to prohibit and eliminate corporal punishment in all settingsof children’s lives: “Article 37 of the Convention requires States to ensure that ‘no child shall be subjectedto torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. This is complemented andextended by Article 19, which requires States to ‘take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and51Kacker, L., S. Varadan & P. Kumar, 2007, Study on Child Abuse: India, 2007, New Delhi: Ministry of Women and Child Development,Government of India.

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schoolseducational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse,neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care ofparent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child’. There is no ambiguity: ‘allforms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children.Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and Statesmust take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate them. 2 ”In its examination of States’ reports on progress towards implementing the Convention, the Committeehas recommended prohibition of corporal punishment to more than 160 States, including India in 2000 andagain in 2004. The Committee’s concluding observations on India’s second report state: “The Committeenotes the decision of the New Delhi High Court of December 2000 regarding prohibition of corporalpunishment in the schools under its jurisdiction, but remains concerned that corporal punishment is notprohibited in the schools of other States, in the family, nor in other institutions for children, and remainsacceptable in society.“The Committee strongly recommends that the State party prohibit corporal punishment in the family,in schools and other institutions and undertake education campaigns to educate families, teachers andother professionals working with and/or for children on alternative ways of disciplining children.” 3In 2006, the report of the UN Secretary-General’s Study on violence against children was submitted tothe UN General Assembly. Among its key recommendations was that all States should urgently prohibit allforms of violence against children, including all corporal punishment.In the context of the almost universal ratification of the CRC, repeated recommendations from theCommittee on the Rights of the Child and other UN Treaty Bodies and follow-up to the UNSG’s Study,there is now rapidly accelerating global progress. By October 2011, 31 States had achieved a completeban on corporal punishment in all settings, including the home. A substantial majority of States (120) hasbanned all corporal punishment in schools (for details of progress, see www.endcorporalpunishment.org).In 2009 India enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act which explicitlyprohibited physical punishment and mental harassment in schools in its Section 17 (this protects childrenaged between 6 and 14 – the current limits of compulsory education).A Legal Perspective in IndiaArticle 21 of the Constitution protecting the ‘Right to Life’ is the first point of reference here. It has beeninterpreted to include the right to education for children under 14, and the right to dignity 4 . Article 21Aprovides that the State “shall provide free and compulsory education” to children within this age group.It thus moves universal primary education from an aspirational Directive Principles of State Policy toa Constitutional obligation that Central and State Governments are duty-bound to deliver. The ChildRights’ Charter (2003) of India specifically states that: “All children have a right to be protected againstneglect, maltreatment, injury, trafficking, sexual and physical abuse of all kinds, corporal punishment, torture,exploitation, violence and degrading treatment.” 5 Prohibition and elimination of corporal punishment inschools is identified as a priority in the National Plan of Action for Children (2005) 6 and in the report onchild protection in the National Plan for 2007–2012. The National Policy on Education (1986, modified 1992)states that “corporal punishment will be firmly excluded from the educational systems. 7 ”62UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CRC General Comment No. 8, 2006: The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishmentand Other Cruel or Degrading Forms of Punishment (Arts. 19; 28, Para. 2; and 37, inter alia), 2 March 2007, CRC/C/GC/8, available at:http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/460bc7772.html3CRC/C/15/Add.228, Concluding observations on second report, Paras 44 and 45, 26 February 2004.4Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645; M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 756.5National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, 2008, Protection of Children against Corporal Punishment in Schools and Institutions:Summary Discussions by the Working Group on Corporal Punishment, p.14, available at http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/Reports/Protection_of_Children_against_Corporal_Punishment_in_Schools_and_Institutions_December_2008.pdf6NPA, 2005. Article 7(f).7NPE, 1986 (modified 1992), S. 5.2.

IntroductionThe Supreme Court banned acts of corporal punishment on children on 1 December 2000 when itdirected the State to ensure “that children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools andthey receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear 8 ”.In the year 2009, theParliament of India made elementary education a fundamental right for every child of this country. TheRight of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 states in Chapter IV, titled Responsibilitiesof Schools and Teachers, under:Clause 17: Prohibition of physical punishment and mental harassment to the child–(1) No child shall be subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment.(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be liable to disciplinary action underthe service rules applicable to such person.This prohibition is an important step forward – it reinforces and enshrines in law the growing consensusagainst corporal punishment in schools. However, the provision does not criminalise corporal punishment;it does not resolve contradictory provisions in criminal law in favour of an absolute ban. Nor does it laydown a standardised penalty for corporal punishment that should be incorporated in service rules topunish corporal punishment. In practice, this could mean corporal punishment is penalised very lightly,which would have little deterrent effect, given how widely it is accepted as a method of discipline.The Global Initiative to End Corporal Punishment 9 recommends that respecting a legal ban on corporalpunishment should become a contractual condition, so that teachers and others who continue to usecorporal punishment risk losing their jobs. In cases in which teachers and others, after warning, continueto use corporal punishment, prosecution should be incorporated as a legitimate and necessary response.Contradicting CommitmentsIn contrast with the growing policy consensus, Indian law pulls in conflicting directions on corporalpunishment. A number of legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code can be used to prosecute someonewho inflicts corporal punishment on a child in school or a custodial institution. These include, inter alia:• Section 305: Abetment of suicide committed by a child• Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt• Section 325: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt• Section 326: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means• Section 352: Assault or use of criminal force otherwise than a grave provocation• Section 354: Outraging the modesty of a woman• Section 506: Criminal intimidation• Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a womanThe Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 10 is the only statute that criminalises actsthat may cause a child mental or physical suffering. Section 23 of the JJ Act, 2000 states as follows:“Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes orwilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglectedin a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.”78LRI, UNICEF, Progress on Banning Corporal Punishment in India, available at http://www.unicef.org/india/banningcorporalpunishment.pdf9http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/10Amended in 2006.

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsIt is important to note, however, that the interpretation of this Section has not been tested in the highercourts yet 11 , though India’s international human rights obligations as well as domestic policy guidancewould point towards expansive interpretation of Section 23. It is also important to note that Section 23is punishable with a maximum of six months’ imprisonment. Clearly, when a child is seriously harmed as aresult of corporal punishment, the appropriate provisions of the IPC dealing with such harm would needto be used. In addition, judgments by a few High Courts ban corporal punishment in schools, or questionlong-standing justifications for corporal punishment.However, Sections 88 and 89 of the Indian Penal Code provide immunity to a person inflicting corporalpunishment on a child if such punishment is inflicted “in good faith for the child’s benefit”. While Section 88exempts from punishment any act that is not intended to cause death, as long as it is done in good faith forsomeone’s benefit and the “beneficiary” has consented explicitly or implicitly to the act, Section 89 is theequivalent of Section 88 for a child under 12 or a person who is mentally disabled. It renders immune anadult who is the guardian of a child under 12, or acts with the express or implied consent of the guardian,or has lawful charge of a child, who inflicts harm short of intentional or reckless murder, attempted murderor grievous injury on a child under 12 “in good faith for the child’s benefit”.Clearly, Sections 88 and 89 are incompatible with the Constitutional rights to life, equality before the law,and education. They are also incompatible with India’s obligations under the Child Rights Convention, whichprotects children from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. It is also worth emphasisingthat freedom from torture is an absolute right that cannot be qualified, as some rights, such as freedomof expression, can be. In light of the above, Section 88 needs to be amended and Section 89 needs tobe repealed as a necessary step towards protecting children from violence outside the home. Whilethese provisions remain in force, they will undermine other legal provisions that may penalise corporalpunishment.Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children can take place inmany settings, including within the home and family, in all forms of alternative care, schools and othereducational institutions, in situations of child labour, in the community and justice systems, as a sentence ofthe courts and as a punishment within penal institutions. Table A summarises the extent to which corporalpunishment is legally regulated in India.HomeNot prohibitedTable A: Extent to which corporal punishment is legally regulated in IndiaEducation (preprimaryto highereducation)Prohibited(6-14 years; Right ofChildren to Free andCompulsoryEducation Bill, 2008)Judicial punishment Children’s homes Day-care/child-mindinginstitutionsProhibited(JJ Act, 2000)Prohibited(JJ Act, 2000)Not prohibitedSo, the juvenile justice regime does not allow corporal punishment as punishment for an offence or as adisciplinary measure within children’s homes, and Parliament has legislated against corporal punishment inschools without actually referring specifically to corporal punishment. But in no other context is corporalpunishment categorically banned.811Two appeals indicate that S. 23 has been used to prosecute allegations of sexual abuse in children’s homes or in police custody, but NOTcorporal punishment inflicted in the name of discipline. (Allan John Waters and Duncan Alexander Grant v. State of Maharashtra and MaharukhAdenwala, Crl. A. Nos. 476, 603 and 681 of 2006, decided by the Bombay HC on 23 July 2008; State v. Rameez & Others, Crl. M.C. No. 12/2006,decided by the Delhi HC on 6 April 2009).

IntroductionNCPCRThe National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) was set up in March 2007 as astatutory body under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), an Act ofParliament (December 2005). It was set up to protect, promote and defend child rights in the country.One of the functions of the Commission as laid out in the Act is to ‘undertake and promote research inthe field of child rights’. It has carried out a review of laws and policies by constituting a working group,comprising educationists, lawyers, social activists, doctors, bureaucrats, representatives of non-governmentalorganisations and teachers’ unions, which submitted its Report on corporal punishment 12 to the Ministryof Women and Child Development. The Commission has also made the following recommendations:• Reform laws to remove existing defence of corporal punishment under Sections 88 and 89 of the IndianPenal Code (IPC) that provide immunity to a person causing ‘hurt’ to a child if the act is ‘done in goodfaith’, especially against children under the age of 12 years• The model rules for the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Bill must specify the following:a) The process for dealing with allegations of corporal punishment;b) In addition to disciplinary action, criminal proceedings to be equally available to deter the useof punishment.In August 2007, the NCPCR also wrote to all Chief Secretaries with detailed guidelines recommendingpractical steps for the elimination of corporal punishment 13 and these were reiterated in May 2009(see Annexure I). In December 2007, the Human Resource Development Ministry also wrote to all ChiefSecretaries recommending that corporal punishment be prohibited in all schools under the jurisdictionof the State Government as it “severely affects the human dignity of the child, thereby reducing his/herself-esteem and self-confidence” 14 .This study was undertaken by the NCPCR in the academic year 2009–2010. Its objectives were to:• Study the scale and magnitude of corporal punishment in the everyday school experiences ofIndia’s children• Study the types of violent punishment prevailing in Indian schools• Analyse by age the distribution of different types of punishments among school children• Analyse the differences, if any, between types of school• Analyse the differences, if any, based on children’s gender12National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Annual Report 2008-2009, available athttp://www.ncpcr.gov.in/annualreports/Annual%20Report%20-%202008%20-09%20English.pdf13National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, 2008, Protection of Children against Corporal Punishment in Schools and Institutions:Summary discussions by the Working Group on Corporal Punishment, p.14, available at http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/Reports/Protection_of_Children_against_Corporal_Punishment_in_Schools_and_Institutions_December_2008.pdf14Ibid.9

Introduction1 Methodology: A ChallengeThe ProcedureThis study was conceptualised in such a manner that it addressed children directly. The study bypassedadults and studied children’s experiences through a direct interaction with them. In order to interact withthe children, a venue was chosen in a manner to ensure that it was not directly related to school or anyother institution of formal learning. The challenge was to be able to overcome the child’s inhibitions, andaccess his/her apprehensions without evoking feelings of fear.The study was primarily a survey of children’s experiences of corporal punishment in the school setting.The emphasis was on real practices, their magnitude and prevalence. The main tool of data gathering wasa projective tool (described below).Projective Tool to Evoke Children’s ResponsesA tool was developed to interview children using a projective technique. It focused on the experiences ofchildren and their perspective rather than an adult’s. The tool was in the form of a pamphlet which carriedillustrations of children receiving various kinds of punishment. The children were expected to look at eachillustration and respond whether they had experienced the same or not. The illustrations in the projectivetool presented two kinds of punishments. The first category included those punishments in which pain isinflicted by the direct action of a teacher and the second category included those punishments in whichthe child’s body is used to inflict pain, that is, the child is asked to sit or stand in postures which result inpain and suffering, referred to as posture punishments in this study. The punishments involving verbal abusewere investigated by using abusive words in front of the children. In addition, a few questions were askedabout the frequency of punishment and the reasons for punishment. In Part II of the tool, children weregiven an enlarged illustration in which an adult was inflicting some kind of physical pain on a child throughpunishment. The child had to tell who the adult could be; and what the reason was in his/her judgment forthe punishment being given.Approaching ChildrenThe study followed an unusual method of getting children to talk on a topic which raises fear and a senseof injury. In order to avoid the consequences of the child being identified as a whistle blower, the childrenwere not accessed at school or at home. Extreme caution was used by not reminding anybody other thanthe child about the experience. In addition, care was taken to avoid any unpleasant interaction between thechild and the teacher, and between a particular child and his/her classmates. The children were interviewedearly in the morning, on their way to school and in the afternoon on their way home. The locations chosenwere: bus stop, rickshaw pick-up and drop points and the street between home and school. Every child was11

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schoolsshown a copy of the tool and asked to focus on each illustration and respond if he/she had experiencedthe same. The interviewers recorded the responses given by the participating children.SamplingThe sampling design used for this study was random sampling. It was a large sample to ensure balanceand reliability. No attempt was made to ‘select’ children from any particular group or school. The data wascollected by teacher-trainees and volunteers who knew how to interact with children so as to ensurethat the children did not feel threatened. A total of 6,632 children were interviewed across seven states:Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.Since random sampling was used, children belonging to diverse socio-economic settings and moreimportantly to different types of schools are represented in the sample. This sample also representschildren of all ages ranging from 3 to 17 years (see Table 2.1). Boys and girls are represented adequately inthe sample (see Table 2.3). The data was collected between August 2009 and February 2010.12

Data Analysis2 Data AnalysisThe findings of the study are presented in this chapter along with data tables. The practice of corporalpunishment emerges as an everyday reality for Indian children irrespective of their gender, location in thecountry and the type of school they attend. It is apparent from the data that all types of Indian schools – private,Central Government run or State Government run – use the body as a site to control a child’s mind,thereby regulating his/her behaviour and learning.This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section presents overall trends of the data and somereflections on it. The second section presents details of children’s experiences of punishments in whichpain is inflicted directly by the actions of their teachers. The third section presents the data and trends ofpunishments in which a child’s body is used to inflict pain through different postures. The fourth sectionpresents the details of verbal abuse – situations where children are abused or threatened using abusivelanguage. The fifth section presents an analysis of the second part of the tool in which children were askedto project on to an illustration and make meaning of those illustrations. Information was gleaned from thisinteraction and recorded.Section I: Introducing the SampleThis section presents a general introduction to the sample of children who were interviewed for this study.The profile of the sample has been constructed along three dimensions – age, type of school and gender.Table 2.1: Age-wise distribution of the sampleAge group No. of children Percentage3–5 yrs 107 1.66 –9 yrs 1897 28.610–14 yrs 4193 63.215–17 yrs 365 5.5Did not report age 70 1.0Total 6632 100More than 90% participants (Table 2.1) are in the age-group 6-14 years studying in elementary grades(see Table 2.2).Table 2.3 gives the sex ratio of the sample. The number of girls is large enough to enable an interpolationof gender-based insights. In India today, the number of children studying in privately run schools is less thanthe number of children studying in the schools run by State Governments. The distribution of this randomsample as viewed across the three types of schools (schools run by State Governments, schools run by theCentral Government and private schools), reflects a similar trend (Table 2.4).13

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsTable 2.2: Grade-wise distribution of the sampleGrade No. of children PercentageGrade 1 414 6.2Grade 2 536 8Grade 3 789 11.8Grade 4 996 15Grade 5 1126 16.9Grade 6 882 13.2Grade 7 740 11.1Grade 8 684 10.3Grade 9 and above 413 6.2Did not report grade 52 0.007Total (Grades 1 to 11) 6632 100Table 2.3: Sex-wise distribution of the sampleSex No. of children PercentageBoys 3556 53.6Girls 2969 44.7Did not report sex 107 1.6Total 6632 100Table 2.4: Type of school-wise distribution of the sampleType of school No. of children PercentageState Govt. 3567 53.7Central Govt. 857 12.9Private 1993 30.05Did not report school type 215 3.23Total 6632 100Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 present the distribution of the sample as classified along four parameters. It isimportant to reiterate that the study followed a random sampling method and the sample in the abovefour categories is reflective of the trends that have been observed in reality as well. Out of the total of6,632 children across seven states, only nine denied having received any kind of punishment. This meansthat 6,623 children or 99.86% of children had experienced punishment of one kind or the other.14Table 2.5 and Figure 2.1 present the frequency with which children studying in different types of schoolsacknowledged that they had experienced at least one kind of punishment. The table reveals that thereis not much difference between the experiences of girls and boys across different types of schools. Theprobability of receiving punishment remains high, irrespective of the type of school. Respondents were alsoasked to indicate a time frame for when they had received punishment. The data is comparable amongstthose who provided their time frames as ‘the day before’ and ‘the week before’. However, the frequencywith which children receive corporal punishment in Central Government schools rises significantly.As many as 34.4% of boys studying in Central Government schools recalled being punished in the monthprior to the study. This is the highest frequency count, followed by the girls of Central Governmentschools (28.8%) who reported having been subjected to punishment more than a month prior to the

Data Analysisstudy. The third highest frequency count (27%) is of the boys studying in State Government schools whowere punished in the week when the data was collected. This challenges the popular notion that StateGovernment run schools are the most harsh when it comes to punishing children. The frequency countsof private schools are not substantially different from other types of schools. This implies that Indianchildren are at equal risk of being punished brutally, irrespective of whether the schools are managed bya State Government, Central Government or private bodies.FrequencySame dayIn the same weekIn the same monthMore thana month earlierTable 2.5: Frequency of punishment (%)SexSchool typeState Govt. Central Govt. PrivateBoys 14.4 11.5 16.5Girls 13.7 12.3 13.3Boys 27.5 15.4 18.8Girls 22.9 13.7 18.1Boys 18.9 34.6 20.0Girls 16.2 24.7 20.1Boys 11.0 15.4 11.1Girls 11.6 28.8 11.215

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsTable 2.6 describes the possibility of different kinds of punishments that Indian children are likely to receivein their schools. It includes all the three types of punishments, namely those in which pain is inflicted by theteacher’s action, those in which pain is inflicted by using child’s body and verbal abuse.Table 2.6: Rank-wise distribution of punishments as experienced by the respondentsPunishment Value (%) Rank TypeMental characteristics/Derisive adjectives 81.2 1 VerbalBeaten by cane 75.0 2 PhysicalSlapped on cheek 69.9 3 PhysicalHit on back 57.5 4 PhysicalEars getting boxed 57.4 5 PhysicalMade to stand outside classroom 53.0 6 PostureBeaten on hand by scale 51.0 7 PhysicalMade to stand with hands up 42.7 8 PostureSquatting (Murga banana) 41.4 9 PostureAnimal based 40.7 10 VerbalMade to kneel down 38.8 11 PosturePinched 26.9 12 PhysicalGetting hit on knuckles 23.6 13 PhysicalMade to stand on bench 23.1 14 PostureHair pulled 21.6 15 PhysicalHands wringed 19.2 16 PhysicalNot allowed to visit bathroom 17.9 17 PhysicalRunning rounds on playground 15.3 18 PhysicalMade to stand on one leg 15.2 19 PostureRelational abuse (Sexist) 14.5 20 VerbalFingers pressed with pencil in-between 12.0 21 PhysicalCaste and community based 10.1 22 VerbalNose wringed 6.8 23 PhysicalGirls’ hair getting knotted 2.8 24 PostureGetting tied to chair/table 1.2 25 PhysicalThreatening phrases 0.8 26 VerbalGetting electric shocks 0.4 27 Physical16A rank-wise distribution of all types of punishments experienced as well as acknowledged by children isgiven in Table 2.6. The table shows that the practice of abusing children verbally by attacking their psycheoccupies the top rank. As many as 81.2% children were subjected to outright rejection by being told thatthey are not capable of learning. The punishments occupying the next four ranks are: getting beaten by acane, being slapped on the cheeks, being hit on the back and being boxed on the ears. Triangulation of thethree top-ranking punishments reveals that there are a very large number of children who have receivedall the three kinds of punishments. Out of the five top-ranking punishments, four involve infliction of painby direct action of the teacher. Even the cruel practice of giving electric shocks has found a mention in thedata collected (see Figure 2.2).In the analysis that follows, the data is cross-tabulated with age, gender and the type of school. For this, thethree different types of punishments have been considered separately.

Data AnalysisSection II: Direct PunishmentsThis section presents the major trends reflected in the data about punishments in which pain is inflicteddirectly by the teacher. It can be seen from Tables 2.7 and 2.8 and Figure 2.3 that beating with a cane appearsto be a preferred method of controlling children in Indian schools. It needs to be pointed out here that thecane is a weapon, whereas all other punishments in this category are meted out by the hands of an adult.It points to a continuation of the tradition in which cane in hand was perceived as identifying a teacher. Inthis tradition, the cane serves as a means to control children. The next two punishments – slapping on thecheeks and beating on the back – appear as second preferences on a marginally lower scale. The top threemethods of regulating children’s conduct and performance are the cruellest in terms of the physical injuryand damage they cause to a child’s physical and mental health.The spinal cord provides support and strength to the human body to lead a normal life. However, 57.5% ofIndian children run the risk of this vital part of their body being injured or weakened as a result of corporalpunishment. Other forms of punishment, such as boxing of ears, hitting on arms with a scale and pinchingthe child are also popular. The physical pain caused by them is equally severe.17

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsTable 2.7: Value and rank of direct punishment: teacher’s actionsPunishment Value (%) RankBeaten by cane 75.0 1Slapped on cheek 69.9 2Beaten on back 57.5 3Ears getting boxed 57.4 4Beaten on hand by scale 51.0 5Pinched 26.9 6Getting hit on knuckles 23.6 7Hair pulled 21.6 8Hands wringed 19.2 9Not allowed to visit bathroom 17.9 10Running rounds on playground 15.3 11Fingers pressed with pencil in-between 12.0 12Nose wringed 6.8 13Getting tied to chair/table 1.2 14Getting electric shocks 0.4 1518Table 2.8 deconstructs these cruel punishments. More than 65% of pre-primary and Grade I children havealready been beaten by a cane and almost 61% have been slapped on their cheeks. These early gradershave already experienced the bitter side of school life by being subjected to inhuman treatment. Since the

Data Analysisdata is not mutually exclusive, the respondents had experienced more than one of these most injuriouspunishments. The practice of punishment in the preparatory school is no different from the primary ormiddle schools in this respect.The severity and frequency of punishments increases slightly in the higher age brackets. However, beating –with hands, cane or scale – is a regular part of school life ( Figure 2.4).Age groupTable 2.8: Age-wise distribution of top six direct punishments (%)Beaten bycaneSlapped oncheekBeaten on thebackEars gettingboxedBeaten onhand by scalePinched3–5 yrs 65.4 60.7 50.5 59.8 37.4 29.96– 9 yrs 73.5 71.3 57.8 59.9 52.0 25.910–14 yrs 76.0 70.0 58.3 57.3 51.8 27.0(3–17 yrs) 75.0 69.9 57.5 57.4 51.0 26.919

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsContrary to the popular belief that girls are spared or are punished with less severe methods which donot involve physical injury, Table 2.9 shows that Indian school-going girls are punished as severely as boys.In fact, the difference for the most damaging practice, namely a slap on the cheek is less than 4%.SexTable 2.9: Gender-wise distribution of top six direct punishments (%)Beaten bycaneSlapped oncheekBeaten onbackEars gettingboxedBeaten onhand by scalePinchedBoys 78.0 71.9 59.8 60.7 53.0 78.0Girls 71.1 67.1 53.9 53.5 48.5 71.1Tables 2.10 and 2.11 corroborate the findings presented in Table 2.5, i.e. similarity in experience of studentsacross different types of schools. Students in both privately-run schools and schools run by differentgovernment agencies face a similar situation with respect to the five top-ranking punishments. The chanceof being subjected to physical methods of control is high in all types of schools. It appears that thefrequency of punishment is higher in private schools though certain kinds of punishment are given less.Private schools consistently attempt to keep the child under control by using physical punishment. Thedata in Table 2.10 also reveals that slapping children on the cheeks is a common method of control andhumiliation with 69.6% of children in State-run schools claiming to have been slapped on their cheeks asagainst 69.7% in Central Government schools and 70.5% in private schools.Across schools, there is a marginal difference in the use of cane and scale to hit children. It is in the practiceof hitting children on their backs in which State Government and central schools are way ahead of privateschools. Out of all the children studying in private schools, almost 50% acknowledged being hit on theirbacks but this figure jumps by almost 30% when it comes to Central Government schools. The reasons forthis might be an interesting point of investigation in future studies.Type of SchoolTable 2.10: Type of school-wise distribution of top six direct punishments (%)Beaten bycaneSlapped oncheekBeaten onbackEars gettingboxedBeaten onhand by scalePinchedState Govt. 78.2 69.6 61.5 58.6 52.3 28.0Central Govt. 78.9 69.7 64.5 48.7 51.3 27.0Private 69.0 70.5 49.3 54.4 49.5 23.720As indicated by Table 2.11, private schools show little discrimination between boys and girls when itcomes to hitting them with hands, scale or cane. In the case of other kinds of punishment, such as beingasked to take rounds of the playground or not being allowed to use the toilet, girls are treated at parwith boys. This includes girls who are adolescents and may have attained puberty. The need to use thetoilet has an added dimension in the case of adolescent girls, arising out of distinct bodily processes.However, schools seem to lack this sensitivity and often treat girls and boys in a similar way. This is trueof State Government and Central Government schools as well. In fact, state schools are stricter withgirls in this respect, with 16.2% girls and 15% boys reporting that they were stopped from using a toilet.Central schools have shown slight leniency towards girls with 9.6% girls as against 12.8% boys reportingthat they were prohibited from using the toilet. While the difference is not much, it highlights the issueof the body being used as a site of control and order. The data for these punishments is not mutuallyexclusive and there is additional data that shows the existence of several more types of punishments inthis category. This implies an overwhelming use of children’s body by the school authorities to emphasisenorms of conduct and learning.

Data AnalysisTable 2.11: Gender and type of school wise distribution of direct punishments (%)Punishment type Sex State Govt. Central Govt. PrivatePinched Boys 28.7 29.5 23.9Girls 27.0 24.7 22.8Hair pulled Boys 19.5 26.9 12.3Girls 23.9 30.1 20.1Beaten by cane Boys 81.7 84.6 71.0Girls 74.0 74.0 66.3Beaten on hand by scale Boys 54.5 44.9 50.4Girls 49.6 58.9 48.4Ears getting boxed Boys 61.9 55.1 56.0Girls 54.8 41.1 52.0Beaten on back Boys 63.8 71.8 51.8Girls 58.4 57.5 44.9Running rounds on playground Boys 13.9 11.5 17.3Girls 13.6 9.6 19.9Slapped on cheek Boys 71.7 76.9 71.9Girls 66.7 63.0 68.2Not allowed to use toilet Boys 15.0 12.8 19.9Girls 16.2 9.6 18.8Hair pulling is the only punishment in which girls outnumber boys in all the three types of schools. Table 2.11indicates that Central Government schools are harsher on certain counts, such as beating on the back. Itis natural to be curious about the reasons for giving such harsh treatment to small children so the childrenin the study were asked to share reasons for being punished. Some of the reasons given by them are asfollows:1. Academic ReasonsHomework na karne par (for not doing home-work)Kaksha karya na karne par (for not doing class-work)Copy kitaab na lane par (for not bringing notebooks and books to the class)Question answer na sunaa pane par (for not being able to answer the questions)Padhte samay kitaab par unglee na rakho to (for not placing finger on the text while reading)Pen na lane par (for not bringing a pen)Teacher se jyada sawal karne par (for asking too many questions)Doosre subject ka kaam karne par (for doing work of other subjects)2. Child-like Behaviour and Human NeedsBaat karne par (for talking)Masti karne par (for having fun)Chupke khana khane par (for secretly eating food)Zyada samay toilet mein bitane par (for spending extra time in toilet)21

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsToilet jane ke liye permission mangne par (for seeking permission to go to toilet)Bina period ke bahar khelne par (for playing outside if it is not games period)Padhate samay baat karne par (for talking while studying)Line tod kar pani peene ke liye jane par (for breaking the queue to go and drink water)Class mein khada hone par (for standing in the class)Kagaz ka hawaijahaz udane par (for throwing paper airplanes)Prarthana se pahle khelne par (for playing before morning prayers)Lunch time mein der se aane par (for coming late after lunch break)Class ke bahar ghoomne se (for loitering around in the school)Bina permission toilet jane par (for going to toilet without permission)Recess mein blackboard par likhne par (for writing on the blackboard during recess)Class mein khelne par (for playing in the class)Class mein khada hone par (for standing in the class)Dheema bolne par (for talking softly)Desk ke charo ore ghoomne par (for circling around the desk )Toilet jane ke naam par khelne par (for playing in the name of going to toilet)Bahar se cheezein khareedne par (for buying things from vendors)Teacher ke table par baithne par (for sitting at the teacher’s table)Class mein so jane par (for sleeping in the class)Teacher’s room ke bahar khelne par (for playing in front of the staff room)Prayer mein aankh kholke khada hone par (for opening eyes during morning prayer)Hasne par (for laughing)3. Establishing Inconsequential Order in School22Uniform mein kamee rehne par (for not wearing proper uniform)Bahut chhuttiyan karne par (for missing school on several days)Teacher ka manga saman na lane par (for not taking things that teacher demands)Chori karne par (for theft)Lunch mein ghar bhaag jaane par (for going home during lunch)School late aane par (for coming late to school)Bina nahae aane par (for coming to school without taking a bath)Prayer se late aane par (for reaching class late after morning assembly)Teacher ko good morning na karne par (for not wishing the teacher good morning)School se bhaag jaane par (for running away from the school)Parents ko na bulane par (for not asking parents come to school)Fees samay par na lane par (for not paying the fees on time)

Data Analysis4. ArbitraryGusse se bina galtee ke bhee maartee hai (when she is angry she hits without any reason)A cross tabulation of the three harshest punishments in this category has been done across age-groups.Tables 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14 deconstruct the behavioural factors responsible for inflicting intense physicalpain, which must have been internalised by children as genuine reasons. The question in the tool had askedchildren to provide reasons that they thought were behind the punishments.ReasonsAge groups3–5 yrs 6–9 yrs 10–14 yrs 15–17 yrs Did not report ageAcademic reasons 59.8 66.4 67.1 61.6 71.4Child-like behaviour and human needs 52.3 64.6 62.3 53.4 65.7Establishing inconsequential order in school 37.4 34.6 39.3 41.6 34.3Arbitrary or no apparent reason 9.3 2.2 3.5 4.1 1.4ReasonsAge groups3–5 yrs 6–9 yrs 10–14 yrs 15–17 yrs Did not report ageAcademic reasons 47.7 54.6 56.1 47.9 54.3Child-like behaviour and human needs 43.9 52.7 52.6 42.7 47.1Establishing inconsequential order in school 29.9 27.5 32.8 32.9 24.3Arbitrary or no apparent reason 10.3 2.0 2.1 1.1 0.0ReasonsTable 2.12: Age-wise distribution of slapping on cheeks correlated with reasons (%)Table 2.13: Age-wise distribution of beating on back correlated with reasons (%)Table 2.14: Age-wise distribution of beating by cane correlated with reasons (%)Age groups3–5 yrs 6–9 yrs 10–14 yrs 15–17 yrs Did not report ageAcademic reasons 61.7 69.2 72.8 70.7 74.3Child-like behaviour and human needs 57.0 65.8 67.3 61.6 65.7Establishing inconsequential order in school 39.3 36.0 42.3 46.6 34.3Arbitrary or no apparent reason 11.2 2.5 3.9 5.8 0.0Tables 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14 show a consistent pattern across age groups. The youngest group, between theages of 3 and 5 years, often gets beaten because of substandard academic performance. Poor academicperformance is cited as one of the main reasons for receiving corporal punishment. But terms like ‘poor’or ‘substandard’ are not enough to cover a variety of other issues that might exist. Many factors for nonperformancein academic areas are related to education only in a peripheral way. In reality, almost all thereasons clubbed under this category also arise out of socio-economic factors, genuine academic strugglesand other limitations that prohibit the fulfilment of the work that a teacher demands.These reasons accentuate the well-known character of Indian classrooms in which teachers demandrepeated reproduction of the information taught to children. Learning by rote is seen as the only way tolearn in and children who do not live up to this expectation suffer physical torture. The child’s inability tobring stationery is seen as deliberate disobedience and not as linked to his/her family’s poverty. This data alsoreveals that despite the implementation of two nation-wide programmes of universalisation of elementaryeducation, namely District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), provisionof basic material in schools is not taken up in a systematic manner.23

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsThese reasons cited earlier indicate a complete denial of an appropriate environment to Indian children inthe school setting. Children are expected to practice high levels of self-control. They should not expressfeelings of hunger and thirst or demand to go to the toilet too often. Children are straight-jacketed in thespace of the school and ‘seriousness’ is the only appreciated virtue. The joys of childhood, such as makingan aeroplane from a sheet of paper, are considered problematic as they keep the child from being undercontrol. A child is not treated as a child in the classroom; he/she is an unruly body which needs constantcontrolling. All these factors indicate that the teacher-student relationship is not governed by democraticconcerns or insights drawn from educational theory. The interaction is governed by the impulse of adults tocontrol young minds and bodies. The other factors include schools’ insistence on establishing order whichhas no relation to the outside world. The schools function in a cocoon-like setting, removed from reality.As institutions responsible for bringing about desired social change, they have neither an understanding oftheir students’ life at home nor are they well-versed in child psychology and educational theory.To summarise, these harsh methods of punishment – hitting with a scale, hand and cane – are used acrossschools, without any discrimination on the basis of gender. The punishments, which involve severe injuryto the body, begin at an early age – almost as soon as school starts. Three-year old children in the samplealso reported having been subjected to these punishments.In the next section, a similar analysis is presented about punishments which are meted out by using thechild’s body. Prima facie, these appear less dangerous, but they can be damaging because the source ofpain is not inflicted by an external agent. The child is likely to blame himself/herself in the event of suchpunishments and feel helpless in addition to being a victim of physical pain and injury.Section III: Posture PunishmentsSeveral children standing outside the classroom or bent over in a squatting pose (also known as murga banna)is a familiar sight. To increase the intensity of the punishment, children could also be asked to raise theirhands while standing or squatting in the sun. These punishments are frequently used by Indian teachersin order to punish children for scoring poor marks in examinations and also for breaking rules of theschool. Table 2.15 ranks the preference with which posture-based punishments are meted out to children.Children’s legs, arms, and hair are used to give them pain so that they behave in a ‘desirable’ way. In thiscategory, the top-ranking punishment is making children stand outside the classroom, followed by standingwith hands raised in the air, and squatting. (see Figure 2.5)Table 2.15: Rank and value of posture-based punishmentsPunishment Value (%) RankMade to stand outside classroom 53.0 1Made to stand with hands up 42.7 2Squatting (Murga banana) 41.4 3Made to kneel down 38.8 4Made to stand on bench 23.1 5Made to stand on one leg 15.2 6Hair getting knotted 2.8 724

Data AnalysisTable 2.16 synthesises the analysis done in Section I that revealed the early age at which a child’s body issubject to regimentation. It begins as soon as children start going to school. The severity of punishmentexists irrespective of the age of the child. As many as 46.7% children in the age-group of 3–5 years reportedhaving stood outside the classroom. Posture-based punishments are given the maximum to the childrenin age groups which correspond with elementary grades, with the highest frequency for the age group10–14 years. These children are often made to stand outside the classroom when they are punished(see Figure 2.6).By analysing these punishments across age groups, it can be observed that the frequency of receiving thesepunishments increases with age, making their futility apparent. If the punishments were truly successful asdeterrents, then the frequency would have reduced for older children whereas the reality is different. Thefrequency of certain punishments is high throughout and implies a continuity of physical pain in the schoollife of children.Table 2.16: Age-wise experiences of punishments in which pain is inflicted in the form of postures (%)Age groupMade tostand outsideclassroomMade tostand withhands upSquatting(Murgabanana)Made tokneel downMade tostand on thebenchMade tostand onone legHair gettingknotted3–5 yrs 46.7 36.4 33.6 42.1 18.7 25.2 7.56–9 yrs 46.8 41.2 41.6 35.8 23.0 14.7 2.510–14 yrs 54.9 44.0 41.8 40.5 23.7 15.6 2.9Total 53.0 42.7 41.4 38.8 23.1 15.2 2.825Contd.

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsTable 2.17 shows that the number of girls being subjected to posture-based punishments is almost the sameas the number of boys, except for squatting (Murga banana). There is no difference in the frequency ofpunishment meted out to girls and boys when it comes to standing outside the classroom, standing with handsup, standing on the bench, standing on one leg or kneeling down. When it comes to squatting, school-going girlsget some relief – a possible reason might be the wearing skirts as part of the school uniform (see Figure 2.7).SexTable 2.17: Sex disaggregated experiences of posture punishments (%)Made tostand outsideclassroomMade tostand withhands upSquatting(Murgabanana)Made tokneel downMade tostand on thebenchMade tostand on onelegHair gettingknottedBoys 53.5 43.0 45.1 39.3 23.8 15.9 2.2Girls 52.6 41.9 36.1 37.2 22.5 14.4 3.6Total 53.0 42.7 41.4 38.8 23.1 15.2 2.826

Data AnalysisTable 2.18 presents details of posture-based punishments across types of schools. This table subverts thenotion that private schools are less harsh in giving out punishment to their students. The image of privateschools that emerges is that they are as insensitive as other types of schools. In fact, State Governmentrunschools appear better than both private and Central Government schools in this respect. For example,57% children in private schools had stood outside their classrooms as compared to 50.8% of childrenstudying in State Government schools. Similarly, 48.7% children in Central Government schools admitted tohaving been subjected to squatting as punishment as compared to 40.6% of children in State Governmentschools. Even in the case of other punishments, such as standing with hands raised in the air, children in privateschools and central schools experience them much more than children in State Government schools.School typeTable 2.18: School type disaggregated experiences of posture punishments (%)Made tostand outsideclassroomMade tostand withhands upSquatting(Murgabanana)Made tokneel downMade tostand onthe benchMade tostand onone legHair gettingknottedState Govt. 50.8 38.7 40.6 40.4 20.3 15.4 2.4Central Govt. 54.4 51.8 48.7 28.3 30.3 18.4 2.6Private 57.2 52.4 41.2 29.0 29.2 12.4 2.1Total 53.0 42.7 41.4 38.8 23.1 15.2 2.8To summarise, it is found that both genders are treated at par while receiving posture-based punishmentsand private schools and central schools use these punishments to a far greater extent than schools run bythe State Government.The next section deals with the experiences of children when they are subjected to various forms ofverbal abuse.Section IV: Verbal AbuseAt the outset it is important to share with the reader that the study had given only ten commonly usedabusive terms in the tool. They did not involve caste-based abuses or any abuses that could be said to havesexist undertones. However, in response to the eleventh item – ‘any other’ – the respondents provideda long list of abusive words that they have been exposed to. These abusive words were categorised intofive categories on the basis of the intention behind the words.A few of the abusive words children reported during the study are as follows:Mental CharacteristicsPagal, Idiot, Nalayak, Kamchor, Bewakoof, Fool, Besharam, Mandbuddhi, Ulti Khopdi, Badtameez, Jaahil, Buddhu,Nikammo, Foolish No.1, Chudail, Anaadi, Akal Band, Beakal, Andha, Dheeth, Bimari, Awaara.Caste and Community BasedBadjaat, Kanjar, Aadiwasi, Bhikhari, Ashuddh, Paapee, Bihari, Tum kachre se aate ho.Relational AbuseHaraamee, Haramkhor, Sala, Kameena, Teri maa naache hai and other words which are derogatory towardswomen.27

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsThe study points out that as a result of being exposed to such language, the school often proves to be asource of learning for abusive terms. Several children reported that their teachers use abusive words whichhave a derogatory reference to the women of their family. If the children are exposed to these abuses atan early age and the exposure is constant, they are bound to pick up these words. Caste-based abuseswhich have been banned for more than a decade, but it is found that they continue to be used in the schoolsetting in some form or the other.Table 2.19: Value and rank of verbal abuse (%)Punishment Value (%) RankMental characteristics/Derisive adjectives 81.2 1Animal based 41.7 2Relational abuse (Sexist) 14.5 3Caste and community based 10.1 4Threatening phrases 0.8 5It can be seen from Table 2.19 and Figure 2.8 that Indian children mostly are abused for having apparently‘below par’ mental characteristics. Table 2.20 shows that as many as 82.2% of children in the age group 3–5years admitted to being abused by their teachers for not possessing a sound mind. In all other categories ofverbal abuses, the youngest children seem to suffer the most. They are not even spared from sexist abusesthough they may not even comprehend them (see Figure 2.9).Age groupTable 2.20: Age-wise punishment inflicted by verbal abuse (%)Mentalcharacteristics/Derisive adjectivesAnimal basedRelational abuse(Sexist)Caste andcommunitybasedThreateningphrases3–5 yrs 82.2 54.2 23.4 11.2 0.56–9 yrs 75.3 39.8 14.3 9.4 0.410–14 yrs 83.8 41.4 14.4 10.5 1.0Total (3–17 yrs) 81.2 40.7 14.5 10.1 0.828

Data AnalysisSexTable 2.21: Sex-wise punishment inflicted by verbal abuse (%)Mentalcharacteristics/Derisive adjectivesAnimal-basedRelational abuse(Sexist)Caste andcommunitybasedThreateningphrasesBoys 81.6 44.8 15.4 9.0 0.8Girls 81.1 36.1 13.4 11.6 0.8Total 81.2 40.7 14.5 10.1 0.8Table 2.21 presents a description of the experiences of boys and girls when it comes to being abusedverbally. Except for animal-based abuses, there is parity between the percentages of school-going boys andgirls who acknowledged being abused by different forms of derogatory language. The notion that girls arespared from harsh language is fallacious because this study shows that even amongst the children who areat the receiving end of sexist abuses, the percentage of girls is only marginally less than boys. At school,they are considered as incapable and as unruly as boys.Type of schoolTable 2.22: Punishment inflicted by verbal abuse disaggregated by school type (%)Mentalcharacteristics/Derisive adjectivesAnimal basedRelational abuse(Sexist)Caste andcommunitybasedThreateningphrasesState Govt. 80.4 44.0 15.5 11.8 0.9Central Govt. 71.1 17.1 11.8 15.8 2.0Private 83.9 34.9 10.6 7.6 0.8Total 81.2 40.7 14.5 10.1 0.8Table 2.22 shows that the practice of abusing children verbally is common in all types of schools. Inprivate schools the emphasis is more on the apparently ‘below par’ mental characteristics of children – asreported by close to 83.9% of children. Although sexist abuses prevail across all the three categories of29

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schoolsschools, children in State Government-run schools reported the maximum frequency in the use of thesewords at 15.5%. The Central Government schools also subject their children to such abuses (71.1%) eventhough their data looks better than that of other schools.Table 2.23: Punishment inflicted by verbal abuse disaggregated by sex and school type (%)Punishment typeSexSchool typeState Govt. Central Govt. Private Govt. aided schoolMental characteristics/Derisive adjectivesBoys 81.1 70.5 83.6 100.0Girls 79.7 72.6 84.8 50.0Animal based Boys 48.4 14.1 38.5 0.0Girls 39.2 19.2 30.4 0.0Caste and community based Boys 10.2 11.5 7.1 25.0Girls 13.7 20.5 8.3 0.0Threatening adverbial phrases Boys 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.0Girls 0.8 4.1 1.0 0.0Relational abuse (Sexist) Boys 16.9 10.3 10.2 0.0Girls 13.9 12.3 11.6 0.0Table 2.23 corroborates the trends that were discussed earlier:(1) Girls are verbally abused on a par with boys(2) The type of school does not make any difference to this experienceThe notion that the privately-managed schools have better qualified staff and therefore they are lesslikely to be cruel to children has been proven to be a misconception by this empirical study. There is littledifference in children’s words, their expressions and their feelings whether they study in a private schoolor in a government school. The denial of their childhood is equally intense and pervasive.Section V: Projective ToolThere was a section in the tool in which two enlarged illustrations were presented to the children whoparticipated in the study. Both the illustrations depicted a child getting hit by an adult. The children wereasked to imagine who the adult in the illustration could be and what could be the reason behind hittingthe child? The children responded candidly. Their answers reveal the fear that children experience in thecompany of adults and this fear is internalised at a very young age. For children, adults can be abusivewhether at home or at school. The institution does not matter. A majority of children (53%) thought thatthe adult in the illustration was a parent and 4% thought that it was a grandparent or relative that the childmust have disobeyed. The children have internalised the idea of pleasing the adults all the time and in everysetting. As many as 43% children thought the adult was a teacher and that the teacher was upset becausethe child had not done well in the exams or had not completed her homework.30This implies that children have internalised the idea that abuse inflicted by teachers is justified because theythink about our well-being and prepare us to face difficulties in life like exams. However, the overall imageof the adult world from a child’s perspective which can be extrapolated from this study is of a harsh andcruel world. In verbal as well as physical communication, adults present an inharmonious world to childrenin which kindness has limited role to play.

Data AnalysisLkk{kkRdkjRkkjh[k ---------------------------------- txg ----------------------------------1- mez 2- fyax3- Ldwy dk izdkj 4- d{kk5- D;k Ldwy esa rqEgkjh fiVkbZ gksrh gS\6- fiNyh ckj rqEgkjh fiVkbZ dc gqbZ Fkh\7- bu esa ls dkSu&dkSu lh lt+k rqeus Hkqxrh gS\fpdksVh dkVukcky [khp¡ukNM+h ls ekjukmaxfy;ksa ds xêksa esa isaflyQ¡lkdj nckuk31

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsgkFk ij QqVs ls ekjukest+ ls ck¡/kukdku ejksM+ukck¡g ejksM+uk32ihB ij ekjukeSnku ds pDdj yxokuk

Data Analysisukd ejksM+ukxky ij FkIiM+ ekjukmaxfy;ksa ds xêksa ij ekjuk“kkSpky; u tkus nsuk33fctyh dk djaV yxkuk

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools8- rqedks Ldwy esa buesa ls dkSu&dkSu lh ltk,¡ feyrh jgrh gSa\d{kk ds ckgj [kM+k dj nsuknks yM+fd;ksa dh pksVh ck¡/kukeqxkZ cukukgkFk Åij djds [kM+k djukest+ ij [kM+k djuk34,d iSj ij [kM+k djuk?kqVuksa ds cy [kM+k djuk

Data Analysis9- D;k rqEgkjh d{kk ds lHkh cPpksa dks ltk feyrh gS ;k dqN [kkl cPpksa dks\10- mu cPpksa dks ltk D;ksa feyrh gS\Û gkseodZ u djus ijÛ d{kkdk;Z u djus ijÛ ijh{kk esa uEcj de vkus ijÛ “kksj epkus ijÛ ;wuhQkeZ esa deh jgus ijÛ f”k{kd ds loky ds Bhd mRrj u nsus ijÛ dksbZ vU; dkj.k11- ,d grs esa rqedks fdruh ckj ltk feyrh gS\12- rqEgkjs v/;kid buesa ls dkSu ls “kCnksa dk mi;ksx rqEgkjs lgikfB;ksa ds fy, djrs gSa&Û ikxyÛ mYywÛ bMh;VÛ dkepksjÛ ukyk;dÛ cntkrÛ gjkehÛ mYyw ds iV~BsÛ dksbZ vU; “kCn35

Data Analysis3 ConclusionThere were 6632 children who participated in this study across seven states, namely Delhi, Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. These children were studying in threetypes of schools, namely private, Central Government schools and schools run by State Governments. Thefindings of the study indicate a high prevalence of physical as well as verbal abuse. There were only ninechildren who had not experienced even a single punishment in any of the categories. The main conclusionsthat can be drawn from the study are:3.1 The experience of punishment and abuse begins at an early ageThe study reveals that the introduction of all the three kinds of punishment – verbal abuse, direct inflictionof pain by the teacher and posture punishments – begin as soon as the children start their schooling, thatis, at the pre-primary stage. These three methods are used not just to create fear in the children’s mindsat an early age, but are also used on a regular basis to maintain control through terror tactics. Even thepreparatory schools socialise and nurture the child in a culture of fear. The four most common forms ofpunishment are being beaten by cane, being hit on the back, getting boxed on the ears and being slappedon the cheek. The youngest children in the school system also suffer the severity of these four forms ofpunishment. This shows that the popular notion that the severity of punishment is less for younger kidsis not true. As soon as the institution of the school is introduced in their life, the reality of punishmentunfolds, remaining consistent till the end. Although the instances are few, there are children in this agegroup who had experienced getting electric shocks in the school. The punishments in which pain is inflictedthrough a child’s own body are also used with equal severity for the youngest children in the schoolsystem– 46.7% of 3–5 year olds had been made to stand outside their classroom and this percentage isconsistent for older groups of children as well. The 3–5 year age group is made to kneel down and squaton the floor as much as older children are. Thus, there is hardly any differentiation or leniency observed foryounger children. However, what makes the overall scenario for this age-group worrisome is the fact thatthey constitute a highly abused group in terms of the way they are punished by words. Derisive adjectiveshad been used for 82.2% of 3–5 year old children which is marginally less than 83.8% of the oldest groupconsisting of 10–14 year olds. For abusive words that liken the children to animals, the youngest age-groupagain tops the chart with almost 54.2% of children in this age-group reporting that they had been subjectedto abusive language that likened them to animals or attributed them with animal-like qualities.This implies that the school is not just a violent place for the youngest age group, but it is also detrimentalto a child’s development. It is the school itself which is telling them that they are not capable of learningeven though it is the school’s job to develop their capacities and skills. At such a young age, when the child’scapacity to differentiate between reality and perceptions is limited, the internalisation of such derision isdeep as well as strong. Even before the school develops their potential, it declares them incapable and alsoconveys to them that the school is not available as a support institution. The school comes across as adetached institution – impatient in imparting the right skills for development to young children. The loss ofdignity takes place very early in a child’s school career.37

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools3.2 The body is used as a site to instil disciplineIt is apparent from the data that the dominant aspect of the school experience for all children is theregimenting of their bodies. Their bodies are used as a device to train them to conform, and it is as anunforgettable experience. A child’s hair is pulled, ears are boxed, nose twisted, cheeks pinched and slapped,back and shoulders are pinched and hit, fingers and knuckles are crushed, hands are wrung and strained bystretching, food is denied, legs are hit and injured by overstraining them, feet are tortured by overstrain,abdomen is kept tense by not letting them use the toilet and the body gets electric shocks. The schoolthus emerges as an institution which uses the child’s body as a prime site of interaction and it seems thatno part of the body is spared. It comes as little surprise then that newspaper reports often highlight casesin which a child’s ear drum gets damaged due to the intensity of the teacher’s slap.The analysis done in the previous chapter highlights the extent of bodily abuse that the children have toundergo on a daily basis within the space of the school. The overall picture is very tense from the child’sperspective. What is worth noting here is that in the case of several punishments, it is the child’s own bodywhich is used to inflict pain. The action of giving pain to oneself on the demand of somebody else is a grossmisuse of a child’s powerlessness. The sense of helplessness must be acute for children when they are madeto cooperate and inflict pain upon themselves. This practice leads to a feeling of disgust towards oneselfwhen person inflicting pain is the victim herself/himself. These punishments may appear less severe thandirect hitting, but their psychological impact is equally worrisome. It shows that the school does not trustits own ability to teach academic regularity and other skills required for learning and punishes childrenfrom the very beginning. Physical pain becomes a constant experience for school-going children.3.3 The type of school is irrelevant with regard to the nature of punishmentbeing meted outIt is commonly believed that schools run by the State Government give more punishment as compared toprivate and Central Government schools. This study negates this belief in a big way. The chance of a childgetting any of these punishments is equally high in all kinds of schools. It has also been noticed that there isa consistency in the preference for particular punishments across different types of schools. Being hit witha cane is marginally less in private schools as compared to others, but they make their students run roundsof the playgrounds much more than other schools do. Private schools hit their students’ knuckles morethan other schools. They are the same as Central Government schools when it comes to giving electricshocks to children – 0.6% of children in private schools and 0.7% of children in Central Governmentschools have experienced electric shocks. In the case of State Government schools, 0.1% of children havebeen given electric shocks. This implies that any object or facility available in the school serves as an objectof torture for children. Private schools are also stricter when it comes to prohibiting children from usingthe toilet. However, the differences are marginal and schools are consistent in giving preference to hittingwith a cane, slapping and hitting on the back.Similarly, there is no difference between schools when it comes to abusing them verbally by using derisiveadjectives about children’s capabilities and abusive words that liken children to animals. It is therefore afalse belief that private schools are more sophisticated in their dealings with children.38The findings reveal that irrespective of the type of management, schools are not democratic institutions.They resort to violent and abusive means to regulate the time that children spend in their premises.The difference in management does not get translated into difference in interaction with children. Theperceptions about children and the beliefs about controlling them physically to teach them are equally

Conclusionprevalent in all kinds of schools. The reason is obvious and easy to understand – the pre-service teachertraining institutes from where teachers go to these different kinds of schools are the same. It is in theteacher-training institutes that the weak foundation of cognitive psychology and educational theory islaid. This unfolds in the same manner, whether the trained person teaches in a private or a governmentrunschool. The schools are different in their appearance, infrastructure and fee structure, but children’sexperience is same.3.4 Girls are not sparedAnother popular belief is that the girls are not hit as much as boys. The present study proves this to befalse. A child’s chances of getting hit, verbally abused and physically tortured are not altered by the genderof the child. Girls suffer as much as boys do – the difference, if any, is marginal and gets evened out inthe overall picture. If girls are caned slightly less than boys, their hair is pulled much more than boys’. Theincidence of slapping, being hit with a cane or on the back is high even for girls. Their bodies are not seenas weak when it comes to receiving punishments. As a student, the child loses the potential of any leniencybased on gender and is viewed as equally eligible to receive all kinds of punishments. Girls are abusedwith equal intensity with sexist abuses, caste- and community-based abuses and derisive adjectives. Thisimplies that the words which are commonly associated with men to vent their aggression are very mucha part of the school-going girls’ socialisation process. The tendency of society to use female body parts toabuse people is just as prevalent inside the school and girls are subjected to it at an early age. The schoolboundary does not act as a barrier from any of society’s demeaning practices.3.5 Reasons for punishmentsThe majority of children get penalised for academic reasons, i.e. for not doing a task, for not bringing booksand notebooks, for scoring low marks in the exams and for not being able to perform well – 93.3% of thechildren suffered direct physical violence from their teachers for any of the above-mentioned reasons. Thesecond dominant reason for punishment is child-like behaviour. The child is hit when he/she wants to drinkwater, eat food when hungry, jump or scream to express happiness or talk to another child. The schooldoes not want children to behave like children while learning. Children are expected to leave their ageappropriatetraits at home and behave in a restricted, guarded, scared and controlled manner at school –86.2% children were hit because they showed child-like tendencies in school (for example, if they could notcontrol their hunger and thirst or if they needed to answer the call of nature at a time when the teacherhad given some work or was teaching or was just present in the class). No less than 50.8% children hadbeen abused physically because they did not comply with the rules of their school – they had tried to writeon the backboard, felt bored during morning assembly, could not close their eyes for long during morningprayer, did not wear complete uniform and could not stand in the harsh sun. Some of them had reportedlate by a few minutes in the morning. All this disturbs the order in the school for which children arepunished physically as well as abused verbally. Democratic means of maintaining law, order and control arepremised on values of rationality and the reliance on painful methods for controlling children goes againstthe grain. The schools are unable to create an ethos of rational argument in establishing order which is amust for learning. The schools are also not able to distinguish between the needs of adults and children,who need constructive bodily engagement in their growing years. Children need to play, run, jump and doall kinds of things in the school whereas what dominates school experience for most Indian children isphysical punishment.39

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools3.6 School as a reflection of societyThe study indicates that there is continuity between home and school in the ways by which adults controlchildren. When shown the tool, 53% of children thought that it was a parent and 43% thought that it wasa teacher. The overwhelming majority gave the reason that the child had not followed the instructions ofthe adult and that must have annoyed him/her. This implies that the behaviour of the school-teacher isconsistent with that of the parents. The image of the teacher that emerges from this study is that he/shereacts instinctively and is not able to overcome the perception that adults in Indian society in general havetowards children.40

Articles onCorporal Punishment

Addressing the widespread acceptance or toleranceof corporal punishment of children and eliminating it,in the family, schools and other settings, is not only anobligation of State parties under the Convention. It isalso a key strategy for reducing and preventing all formsof violence in societies.Committee on the Rights of the Child,General Comment No. 8

Towards a Culture of Non-violence inAll Institutions– Prof. Shantha SinhaChairperson, NCPCR1. BackgroundGross acts of punishment to children in both private and government schools have come to light throughnewspapers, media, public hearings and complaints that the National Commission for Protection of ChildRights (NCPCR) has received since its inception in 2007. Most children are subject to violence such asslapping, caning, kneeling down, standing on bench, making rounds in the school compound and many such‘routine’ acts in the name of discipline. If the child is poor, from a scheduled caste community, or a girl, sheis likely to face such ‘routine’ acts more often.One can very well imagine how, when subject to insult and humiliation, children would react and whatmust be happening in their minds. Some have been able to brave the insults and pursue educationregardless of violence. There are, at the same time, several instances where children have become martyrsto corporal punishment. Some have even committed suicide. In Kolkata, a class VIII boy was caned andpunished repeatedly and he committed suicide. In Uttar Pradesh, a girl of class VIII who was also from thescheduled caste community was punished and asked to clean latrines Unable to bear the insult and castediscrimination she too committed suicide. The Commission has heard innumerable cases of suicide ofchildren on being subject to insinuating and often unreasonable remarks by school teachers. In the year2008 it was reported that there were 98 suicides of children in Tamil Nadu alone as a consequence ofcorporal punishment.Undoubtedly, insults, humiliation and acts of violence, both emotional and physical have an impact onchildren and their levels of confidence and self-esteem and militate against the freedom and dignity of achild. In addition, physical assault can adversely impact the health of children harming their growth and wellbeing. Children drop out of school thereby jeopardising their right to education. More generally, fear ofbeing punished makes children less willing and unable to ask questions or challenge what they are taught,and so detracts from the quality of education.The study conducted by the Commission showed that out of the total of 6,632 children/respondentsacross seven states, only nine denied having received any kind of punishment. This indicates that 6,623i.e. 99.86% of children reported experiencing one or the other kind of punishment. As many as 81.2% childrenwere subject to outward rejection by being told that they are not capable of learning. The punishmentsoccupying the next four ranks were: getting beaten by a cane, being slapped on the cheeks, being hit on theback and ears getting boxed. These four punishments do not lag behind much in terms of their occurrence.Out of the total, 75% reported that they had been hit by a cane and 69% had been slapped on their cheeks.Even the cruel practice of giving electric shocks found a mention in the data collected.Such punishment sometimes leaves visible marks, as in physical injury, swelling or bleeding. However, littlegets known of the mental anguish a child goes through unless it manifests in a suicide or death.43

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools2. Corporal Punishment–Social AcceptanceCorporal punishment is not an isolated instance but a manifestation of a culture of violence and insensitivityto children and their rights. It goes unnoticed as it has a general social acceptance. Many are unmindfuland oblivious to the harrowing experiences of violence and insults children have faced and thus would noteven acknowledge that corporal punishment is a serious issue requiring action.Embedded in this atmosphere of condoning violence on children, parents too believe that punishment ofchildren is indispensable and often use similar methods to discipline children. When they come to know thattheir children are not being treated well in school, they do not bring it up with the school teacher and theschool authorities as it is considered normal to be punished. At times they understand that the child needsa hearing from the school teacher and the school authorities but are unable to dialogue with the teacherout of fear that the child would be further victimised. Since a child spends at least six hours a day in school,perhaps more time in the school than at home, parents feel vulnerable and choose to remain silent.As professionals, school teachers are equipped to see the futility of common sense that corporal punishmentis a pedagogic tool for disciplining children. They are fully aware that fear stifles the process of learning andthat it is wrong to hit or insult children. They have been given skills to engage with children in a creativemanner, while appreciating that each child is unique and has her own pace and style of acquiring knowledge.Yet, they flout professional ethics and perpetrate violence on children.There is an indifference of the education system as a whole that includes the school teachers, principals,management and the education bureaucracy, which is unwilling to transcend the pervasive societalatmosphere that regards children as less than equals and does not see punishment as a violation ofhuman rights.Children just do not like being insulted and beaten up. In their wisdom they have decided that the worldof adults would not understand and can do little to help them out of such humiliation. Therefore theyremain silent due to fear and submit to violence without questioning. They are deeply hurt and unless itbecomes unbearable, they do not tell. They sometimes show signals of deep hurt in their behaviour butthis goes unnoticed, perpetuating further violence on them. They are so much a part of values and normsthat our society especially we as adults have created that they feel this is what growing up is all about andthere is no point in complaining. Even when they do, it is likely that they are not heard and the incidenceof physical or emotional hurt is trivialised.3. Corporal Punishment and LawCorporal punishment can be classified as physical punishment, emotional harassment and hurt causedby discrimination – due to gender, caste, illness, disability, learning difficulties and so on. The NCPCRconsiders that ‘all forms of corporal punishment are a fundamental breach of human rights’. A slap is asdetrimental to the child’s right as grievous injury. Indeed there are no gradations since it must be seenthat condoning so called ‘small acts’ actually leads to gross violations 1 . Thus even acts that many consider‘mild’ – constitute corporal punishment – there isn’t a threshold below which physical force against a childis acceptable.44In theory, corporal punishment is covered by all the provisions under Indian law that punish perpetratorsof physical harm. Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life, which has been interpretedto include the right to education for children under 14, and the right to dignity 2 . Article 14 of theConstitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Although Article 15(3)1http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/Guidelines/Guidelines_on_Corporal_Punishment_to_Chief_Secretaries.pdf2Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993)1 SCC 645; M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, (1996)6 SCC 756.

Towards a Culture of Non-violence in All Institutionsof the Constitution allows the State to make special provisions for children and protect them as a classfrom physical abuse to which they are particularly vulnerable this has seldom caught the attention ofpolicy makers.The Directive Principles of State Policy are not justiciable rights, yet, several of the provisions are indicativeof the value that the Constitution makers placed for protection of children. Article 39(e) directs the Stateto work progressively to ensure that “the tender age of children are not abused”. Article 39(f) directsthe State to work progressively to ensure that “children are given opportunities and facilities to developin a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protectedagainst exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.”However in practice we have seen that while abuse directed against an adult would be criminally prosecutedas it violates Article 14 or Article 21, similar abuse against children is tolerated.The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJA) 3 is an important statute thatcriminalises acts that may cause a child mental or physical suffering. Section 23 of the JJA, 2000 statesas follows:‘‘Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes orwilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglectedin a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.’’Section 23 covers the actions of anyone who has “actual charge or control over” a child. While Section 23 islikely to be applied most often to personnel in childcare institutions regulated by the JJA, it arguably applies tocruelty by anyone in a position of authority over a child, which would include parents, guardians, teachers andemployers. Although it does not use the words “corporal punishment”, it is framed so as to cover the rangeof actions that constitute corporal punishment. It is also important to note that Section 23 is punishablewith a maximum of six months imprisonment. In practice, there is no evidence of the implementation of thisprovision.The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (RTE Act) provides that no child shallbe subject to “physical punishment or mental harassment” in schools 4 . Those officials that contravene thisprovision shall be liable for disciplinary action under service rules applicable to them.This prohibition under the RTE Act is an important step forward – it reinforces and enshrines in law thegrowing consensus against corporal punishment in schools. However, the provision does not criminalisecorporal punishment; it does not resolve contradictory provisions in criminal law in favour of an absoluteban. Nor does it lay down a standardised penalty for corporal punishment that should be incorporatedin service rules to punish teachers and the school management for inflicting corporal punishment. Inpractice, this could mean corporal punishment is penalised very lightly, which would have little deterrenteffect given how widely it is accepted as a method of discipline.India signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which includes the Right to Protection, 1989 (CRC)in 1992. It is bound by its obligations under the CRC to ensure that “no child shall be subjected to tortureor other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”[Article 37(a)] and this is complementedand extended by Article 19, which requires States to “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, socialand educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse,neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care ofparent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”.453Amended in 2006.4Clause 17.

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsArticle 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention refers to school discipline and requires State parties to “takeall appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent withthe child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.”Under the CRC, India has a clear, immediate, binding obligation to ban all violence against children.4. Schools and Culture of Non-violenceOften school teachers express helplessness when confronted with a recalcitrant child who is impossibleand cannot be managed and so has to be punished. Teachers also often mention that without discipliningchildren, it is difficult to have any meaningful transaction in the classroom. Government school teachersoften justify violence as they find the work conditions undoubtedly adverse. There are overcrowdedclasses, not enough textbooks, first-generation learners etc. But children are not responsible for all theseproblems that teachers face in performing their duties. The teacher must take up these issues throughtheir unions with the education system. It is incorrect to victimise the children who are the weakest inthe system who can never provide answers to structural deficiencies. Besides, this is not to say that thereis no violence or corporal punishment on children in well-to-do schools.The current debate has substituted the practice of ‘positive discipline’ of children in the place of corporalpunishment. Although the elements of positive discipline emphasise interaction with children, respectingthem and not punishing them, it is still within the bounds of a structure of authority of the teacher and thechild. There is an undercurrent of acceptance that children need to be disciplined and told how to behave.This again positions the teacher and the child in an unequal relationship. It is important that the vocabularyused in this context changes to express equality in relationship. Thus, a more apt concept is the use of‘positive engagement’ of the teacher with the children.In this sense school teachers must know that their professional rights as teachers are linked to children’srights in schools. One reinforces the other. The teachers would gain authority to bargain for betterconditions of work and to be respected as teachers only if they are in a position to show that no matterwhat, children would be seen as equal partners and it is only in a school that the process of learningis enhanced along with children having an access to all other rights. Thus the school teachers and theprincipal are not in any adversarial position vis-a-vis the children and their parents and therefore they needto welcome any feedback from the child, or a meeting with the parents and not be defensive. Further, sinceteachers are in a position of trust and with complete knowledge of the child’s moods, sense of securityand insecurity, learning pace and behaviour, they should recognise when the child is seeking attention andbe quick to discuss the matter with the child in confidence. If it is a problem of a child being abused athome, the teacher should be supportive of the child and in a position to look for remedies rather thanblaming the parents. Thus from a position of power and authority the school teacher should play a role ofthe mentor and a guide.5. What must be done?46The RTE Act as we have seen clearly outlaws corporal punishment. The rules for implementation of the Actwill have to incorporate the procedures under criminal law to severely punish the perpetrators of violencewhich would be the school teachers as well as the school principal and the management if they have nottaken adequate steps to prevent violence on children and create a culture of non-violence in schools.Once a strong law is in place, it should be applicable to all other institutions where children are locatedas in the case of juvenile homes, hostels for children, and so on. According to Peter Newell, “Eliminatingcorporal punishment requires both clear and explicit law reform and sustained public and parent education–5Peter Newell, ‘The Global Progress towards the Human Rights imperative to eliminate and prohibit all forms of Corporal Punishment’, Speechdelivered on 4 February 2009, New Delhi, www.ncpcr.gov.in

Towards a Culture of Non-violence in All Institutionsabout children’s rights and the law…. Law reform requires the removal of any authorisations of corporalpunishment or defences of it which exist in any laws, or in common (case) law…. If all authorisations anddefences are removed, then the criminal law on assault should protect children as it protects adults fromassault in all settings of their lives, whether or not the assault is disguised as discipline. 5 ”A law banning corporal punishment in all settings (family, institutional and non-institutional) is necessaryand to be effective requires active participation of all of us, parents, civil society, and the schools, teachers,education administration at all levels as well as all those responsible for management equally. There haveto be multiple interventions beginning with a public campaign against all forms of violence on children.This must build an atmosphere where children, parents and child defenders alike gain confidence to speakup against the practice of corporal punishment. It is in this context that the directions of the NationalCommission for Protection of Child Rights regard participation of children to speak against corporalpunishment and bring it to the notice of the authorities as important. While building the atmospherethrough campaigns children should get the courage to make complaints and not accept punishment as a‘normal’ activity of the school. Further every school, including hostels, JJ Homes, shelter homes and otherpublic institutions meant for children must have a forum where children can express their views. Suchinstitutions could take the help of an NGO for facilitating such an exercise. A box where children can droptheir complaints, even if anonymous, has to be provided for in each school.The Commission has also indicated that there has to be a monthly meeting of the School ManagementCommittees (SMC) to review complaints and take action. The SMCs are to be encouraged to actimmediately on any complaints made by children without postponement of the issue and wait for a moregrave injury to be caused. In other words the SMCs need not use their discretion to decide on thegrievousness of the complaint.Considering the fact that the school principal has a huge responsibility in ensuring that child rights aremainstreamed in the manner in which the school is run; the school management including the schoolprincipal must take equal responsibility for ensuring that corporal punishment is not practiced in schools.They must make every effort to see that the culture of violence on children is replaced with a culture ofnon-violence and positive engagement of the teacher with children. To prevent assault on children all theabove set of practices are to be monitored by the education department as they are finally responsible formonitoring the schools.Further in case of severe violence resulting in hospitalisation or death of a child, the Commission hasdirected that that there have to be criminal proceedings against the school teacher and the managementand immediate suspension of the teacher concerned, pending departmental enquiry. The expenses towardshealth have to be met by the school/education department, and the child has to be supported throughscholarship, fee waiver and other school charges by the Government until completion of school education.In case of suicide there has to be booking of charges of aid and abetment to suicide on the concernedschool teacher and the child who attempts to commit suicide shall be given counselling and all support tolive a normal life.6. End Corporal PunishmentIn a way, ending corporal punishment is part of the history of unfolding of values that emphasise corehumanistic principles of equality, freedom and justice and rights of individuals. The answer to the violenceon children is a culture of empathy and non-violence that should govern the relationship between adultsand children.47

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsThis is indeed a challenge. Practicing non-violence as the highest form of culture begins with seeingchildren as equals. It is necessary for adults to behave with them in a manner that they are not subject toviolence and hurt of any kind. In a way, fostering such a culture will develop adults as responsible adultswho would in turn be vigilant and question those that are breaking the norms of respecting childhoodand in doing so, inculcate the values of non-violence in children; adults cannot preach non-violence whenperpetrating violence.The world of adults must acquire the unique capabilities to pay special attention to have children’s opinionsheard and respect the dignity and rights of every child in every circumstance. What is required thereforeis to build skills of school teachers, care givers and adults at large to engage with children as equals, listento them and address their concerns in a manner that does not hurt or humiliate them.48

ArticlesThe Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit andEliminate All Corporal Punishment of Children– Peter NewellCoordinator, Global Initiative to End all Corporal Punishment of ChildrenChildren have identified corporal punishment as the most common form of violence they face in their everyday lives. This is not a special problem in South Asia or in India. It is a universal, global problem. Violent andhumiliating punishment is still the daily experience of children in most countries of the world.Children – including young children – are increasingly speaking out themselves – in Asia and elsewhere –about the hurt caused to them by the acceptance and legality of this violence disguised as discipline, bytheir parents and teachers – by people they want to love and respect. The major 2007 national study onChild Abuse and other research shows the scale of this deliberate violence across India.What do we mean by corporal punishment? The obvious reference is the definition provided by theCommittee on the Rights of the Child in its General Comment No. 8 on the child’s right to protectionfrom all corporal punishment; I quote: “The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ punishment as anypunishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort,however light…”. Most involves hitting children, with the hand or with an implement – a whip, stick, belt,shoe, wooden spoon, and so on… The Committee goes on to list many other ways adults have devisedto hurt children deliberately. And it concludes: “In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment isinvariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also crueland degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment whichbelittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”What does it mean to prohibit all corporal punishment? All States have criminal laws on assault whichprotect people from being hit and hurt deliberately: India’s Penal Code. But when it comes to children,in most countries the law still draws a protective circle not around the child victim, but around the adultperpetrator. So prohibiting all corporal punishment requires the removal of all justifications and defencesof ‘reasonable’ punishment or ‘lawful’ correction, so that children have the same protection as adults fromassault – whether or not it is disguised as discipline.In India, the question of whether there is still a defence or justification for corporal punishment – byteachers or parents – is confused, with at least one court decision – in Gujarat in 2008 – strongly denyingthat any defence exists. India’s just-released report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child suggests,on page 81, that Sections 88 and 89 of the Penal Code do prevent the law recognising corporal punishmentas an offence. It also states that the Prevention of Offences against Children Bill, which was then beingdrafted by the Ministry, would cover corporal punishment as an offence: I think that can be taken as a clearGovernment commitment to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family.The purpose of this law must be to transform attitudes and practice, to move parents on from violentpunishment to positive forms of discipline that work, not to punish more parents. So it needs to deliver avery clear and explicit message, that it is no more lawful or acceptable to hit or deliberately hurt a child,than to hit anyone else.49

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsThis transformation demands a foundation of clear, unconfused law.This is not an issue on which compromise is useful or acceptable. We do not compromise in condemningand prohibiting all violence against women or elderly people – so why children?Some suggest that law reform to ban corporal punishment, especially in the home, should wait andonly follow a change in social attitudes. Nobody would make that argument now in relation to violenceagainst women – that we should wait to prohibit domestic violence against women until we have achievedchange in men’s lives and attitudes, universal anger management courses, full employment and so on. Itis equally unacceptable to wait for children. In any case, while the law states that it is OK to hit childrenor hurt them deliberately, attempts at promoting non-violent parenting and teaching are going to behopelessly undermined.Of course, law reform on its own will achieve little; it has to be linked to comprehensive awarenessraisingand education about the law and children’s rights to protection, and about the dangers of corporalpunishment, together with promotion of positive, non-violent relationships. And I will say more about thatprocess and government engagement in it later.Prohibition is an immediate human rights obligation. In all of the 32 countries which have achieved acomplete ban on corporal punishment, majority public and parent opinion was against the ban, oftenmassively so, when it was enacted. In these states, politicians and parliamentarians have been persuaded toact, as they often have to act on social issues, on the basis of their human rights obligations and professionalopinion, ahead of public opinion. The law should surely be seen first and foremost as an educational tool;a preventive tool.So where have we got to globally on this issue? The scale of deliberate punitive violence against children,in their homes and families and also in many countries in alternative care, schools and penal systems – hasonly become visible quite recently. That is a big step forward, because once visible, it becomes very difficultto defend hitting and hurting children deliberately.With visibility has come recognition, across regions and systems, that the legality and social acceptanceof corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment of children are human rightsviolations, condemned now by international and regional human rights monitoring bodies. The Conventionon the Rights of the Child has been ratified almost universally, by 193 states including all in South Asia.The Convention requires States to protect children from ‘all forms of physical and mental violence’and as the Committee on the Rights of the Child emphasises in its General Comment: “There is noambiguity: ‘all forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalised violenceagainst children. Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms ofviolence and States must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures toeliminate them”.50The Committee has recommended prohibition of all corporal punishment to more than 160 States globally,including all in South Asia – to India in 2000 and again in 2004. Other United Nations human rights TreatyBodies now consistently echo the Committee on the Rights of the Child, including the Committee AgainstTorture. Also when States’ overall human rights record is examined in the new Universal Periodic Reviewprocess in the Human Rights Council in Geneva, there have been constant recommendations to ban allcorporal punishment of children. India will come up for review again in 2012 and I am confident that thisissue will be pursued, because the process looks in particular at recommendations from Treaty Bodies likethe Committee on the Rights of the Child which have not led to action.

The Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit and Eliminate All Corporal Punishment of ChildrenRegional human rights systems, in the Americas and in Africa have also condemned all corporal punishmentand recommended prohibition.In 2008, the Council of Europe became the first major inter-governmental organisation to launch an explicitcampaign for prohibition across its 47 member-states. And I was glad to hear that a few days ago the GoverningBody of the South Asia Initiative to End all Violence against Children, a project of SAARC, which comprisesgovernment and civil society representatives and two child representatives from the eight states, agreed as apriority to launch a regional campaign for prohibition and elimination of all corporal punishment.The harmful impact of corporal punishment on children is well-researched now, with more than 100 studiesreviewing its developmental outcomes. Their findings are strikingly consistent. Corporal punishmentis associated with higher levels of aggression and antisocial behaviour in children, and this associationcontinues into adulthood. There are no research findings demonstrating that physical punishment leadsto positive long-term outcomes; all findings reveal negative effects on children’s development. In arguingfor prohibition of violence against women, we would not look for research into its effects … it would beinsulting to women. And it is equally insulting to children to suggest we have to prove harm in order tocondemn this deliberate violence. It is a human rights violation: full stop.We really do not need more research, although research into children’s real experiences remains valuablefor advocacy.Why is challenging and ending corporal punishment so important, given the extreme breaches of children’srights and the extreme forms of violence that children in India and so many States are still facing? We arenot just challenging a particular form of violence – though it is the most common form of violence againstchildren. As the Committee on the Rights of the Child asserts in its General Comment, ending it is anessential strategy for ending all forms of violence against children: the idea that breaching a child’s humandignity and physical integrity is acceptable, or even as some still suggest ‘in their best interests’, makes everyother sort of extreme abuse, including sexual exploitation, more likely and easier. No State can pretendthat it has an effective child protection system while its laws and social attitudes still authorise and acceptviolent punishment of children. Ending all legalised violence against children is the only safe foundation forchild protection.Each year, corporal punishment kills significant numbers of children in all regions and seriously injuresmany thousands more, including babies and small children in their homes. But beyond the obvious childprotection context for outlawing it, the acceptance and legality of this daily punitive violence is highlysymbolic of children’s low status in our societies, as possessions, not people.Just as challenging routine domestic violence has been a fundamental part of women’s emancipation andprotection, so it is with children. When we challenge all corporal punishment, however light, we are pursuingchildren’s equal right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. This is as fundamental asanything can be to improving children’s status and gaining recognition and respect for children as rightsholders alongside the rest of us.When we use parallels with the campaign to end violence against women, people respond: “But childrenare different”. And of course they are different: the babies and small children, whom research suggestsare the victims of most corporal punishment in the home, are different in that they are very small andvery fragile. Children’s vulnerability, their developmental status, their dependence on adults and the hugedifficulties they in particular face in seeking protection for themselves: all these differences suggest thatthey should have more, not less legal and other protection.51

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsThis is a transformative issue for children. Attitudes to children can be changed and violence against childrenrapidly reduced if India can quickly make prohibition – including in the family – explicit. And also link lawreform to using all the points of contact with families and children to transmit the basic messages aboutthe law and children’s rights to protection, about the dangers of corporal punishment and the principlesof positive, non-violent relationships with children – they are not very complicated. Most parents, oncethey are given space and time to think and talk, know what works in encouraging acceptable behaviour andresponsibility in their children. When I speak about building this educational process into all the State’scontacts with parents and children, I always suggest that birth registration could be a moment to transmitvery basic and simple messages about children’s rights – including the right not to be hit. There are antenataland post-natal contacts, all sorts of contacts by all elements of the health service; immunisation – andone could perhaps use the slogan that immunising your child against violence means not hitting them andnot transmitting the message that you see violence as a way of sorting out conflicts…. Other contacts inthe pre-school sector, at school entry, in the school curriculum for future parents – and so on.It is essential of course to emphasise that the first aim of banning corporal punishment in the family iseducational, not punitive, to move parents on from violent discipline. Prosecuting and sentencing moreparents, sending them to prison or fining them, will not help children. So there needs to be a clearemphasis, either in the law itself or in guidance to all those involved, that charging and prosecuting parentsshould only be pursued when it is judged necessary to protect a child from significant harm, and to be inthe best interests of the victim child. The Committee on the Rights of the Child provides detailed guidanceon this in its General Comment No. 8.Globally, there is real progress and the context has been the developed human rights consensus. TheUN Secretary-General’s study on violence against children, led by Professor Paulo Pinheiro, highlightedprohibition of all corporal punishment as a key recommendation. The Secretary-General’s SpecialRepresentative on violence against children, Marta Santos Pais, has adopted prohibition of all violence –including all punitive violence – as a key priority within her mandate as global advocate.The human rights consensus and the follow-up to the UN Study is leading to accelerating law reform: acrossthe world. Thirty-two States have implemented a complete ban on all corporal punishment, including inthe family. This now includes five States in Africa. Brazil is poised to be the first large State, with 69 millionchildren, to achieve this reform, hopefully before the end of this year. If India with its 420 million childrenfollows quickly, it will dwarf that achievement and transform the global statistics.A significant majority of States globally–120–have achieved a ban in schools. It has been prohibited as adisciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in 113 states. But at least 42 States – including somein South Asia but not India – still authorise the sentencing of child offenders (in some cases as young as 8) tocorporal punishment – caning, whipping or flogging. And in alternative care settings of all kinds, just 37 Stateshave achieved clear prohibition; India has prohibited in care and penal institutions for young people but not,I believe, in some other forms of care.52What are the challenges? The biggest challenge everywhere is that for most people, most of us, this issuehas a strong and often painful personal dimension: most adults were hit by their parents in their childhood.Most parents have hit their own growing children. We do not like to think badly of our parents, or of ourown parenting, and that makes it much more difficult to move on to see this issue as one of equality andhuman rights.People often respond to me, in Asia and in all other regions: “But corporal punishment is part of ourculture” – as if it wasn’t part of the culture of my country. The UK in its colonial past did much to promote

The Human Rights Imperative to Prohibit and Eliminate All Corporal Punishment of Childrenthe use of corporal punishment, in the context of slavery and armed occupation, in the developmentof school and penal systems for young people and in some missionary teaching. The traditional Englishcommon law defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ has existed in the laws of more than 70 States worldwide,including a number in South Asia. It’s a deeply shaming legacy.Another challenge, in my country and many others, is that some adults believe their religion gives thema right or even a duty to use corporal punishment. The international human rights instruments upholdthe right to freedom of religious belief. But belief cannot lead to practices which breach others’ rights,including their right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. Violence of any kind cannotbe dignified or justified by reference to religion; increasingly this is accepted in relation to violence againstwomen, and it must be accepted in relation to children. Now, respected leaders of all faiths, includingChristianity and Islam, are increasingly speaking out against all violence against children, and supporting theprohibition and elimination of all corporal punishment.We should not be modest in asserting the huge potential of achieving this change in attitudes to andtreatment of children, not simply for children but for the development of more peaceful, non-violenthuman societies.Each year, India celebrates the International Day of Non-violence and the commitment to non-violenceof the Father of the Nation. It is surely appropriate that India should move quickly now to fulfill itscommitment to ending legalised punitive violence against children, leading this region.All that is needed is a short Bill to confirm explicitly that there is no defence or justification for violenceagainst children disguised as discipline or punishment. Simultaneously, there could be a review of allthe existing channels that could be used, relatively cheaply, to begin the task of transforming attitudesand practice. And this simple law reform would also enable clear enforcement on the ban on corporalpunishment in schools in the Right to Education Act, and in institutions and all forms of care.Children, like adults, would then carry with them clear protection against being hit or deliberately hurt,wherever they are and whoever the perpetrator. As the Indian Constitution asserts, and the Governmenthas accepted, children deserve nothing less.peter@endcorporalpunishment.org53

ArticlesBanning is Just the BeginningCorporal Punishment in Schools will Prove Tenacious– Krishna KumarProfessor, Central Institute of Education, Delhi UniversitySeeing a child being smacked or caned is a uniquely sad sight. As the child stands receiving the force of ateacher’s arm, the child looks helpless and scared. The sadness it evokes in an adult bystander’s mind isunique because it carries a certain amount of guilt that any adult must feel while seeing a child getting hitor after hitting a child oneself. The guilt has to do with the realisation that a child is helpless on accountof being a child. If the child is being hit at home, the onlooker’s guilt is compounded by the sense ofhelplessness caused by the awareness that the parents have legitimate authority over the child; hence, anoutsider – even a relative – cannot claim the right to interfere. When a child is being hit in a classroom,the presence of an adult onlooker is highly unlikely. When a teacher is meting out corporal punishment,the other children are the only witnesses. In cases where a child is being hit by the principal in his office,an assenting parent or a visitor may be present. Principals who are used to hitting children overcome thehesitation to hit in the presence of an audience early in their career. The act becomes part of their aura.But, even in a general sense, no matter how cruel the idea of hitting a child might seem to an onlooker,the fact is that it is a socially sanctioned form of violence.The term ‘corporal punishment’ suggests a formal procedure, and this is precisely what the phenomenonroutinely witnessed in our schools is quite often not. If you happen to be around when a child is being thrashed,you would think that you are looking at something that has erupted quite casually and spontaneously, andnot something formally or procedurally planned. Nor is it always ‘punishment’, for the cause may not beapparent or substantial to a third person’s eye. Both the speed and the manner of its occurrence hint atthe routine character of the phenomenon. That is perhaps the most important thing about the practice ofcorporal punishment in schools: it does not constitute an event. Rather, it is part of the school’s cultureand daily life. It is a ritual in which teachers and children participate – by means of their contrasting role – asa matter of routine. This is one reason why the State’s intention to outlaw corporal punishment with thehelp of the act governing children’s Right to Education (RTE) has faced cynical surprise and lip-service inthe first year of its promulgation. Both reactions point towards a bleak future. If we wish to shape thefuture in accordance with the RTE’s bright vision, let us reflect on the phenomenon and recognise its depthand power as a cultural practice.Cultural SanctionWhen a teacher hits a child during a lesson, he is apparently guided by the belief that this act is neitheroutrageous nor unexpected. Those of us who do not teach in a school find the idea of children beingbeaten up totally unacceptable because we assume that it is morally odious in an obvious sense. Thisfeeling is sharper if we happen to be people who support RTE in its resolve to ban corporal punishmentin schools. If we are the kind of people who are engaged in any form of activism in the field of education,children’s rights, or related social issues, our response to corporal punishment is likely to be even morepredictably negative. For us to make sense of why such a practice exists at all, it is necessary to start with55

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schoolsthe awareness that we are outsiders to the existential world of the teacher. As outsiders, we may not findit easy to grasp the nature of the social sanction that corporal punishment enjoys, nor can we perceive thecircumstances under which it occurs. When a teacher metes out corporal punishment in any form to achild, he or she has every reason to believe that the action enjoys social approval. We must acknowledgethat in making this assumption the teacher is right. This, to my mind, is the correct starting point for peoplelike ‘us’ who feel outraged by the prevalence of corporal punishment and who want to understand whyit exists.The punitive aspect of the violence involved in corporal punishment is not always visible or evident.Quite often, it is simply a punishment in advance for anticipated behaviour. In such cases, it manifests asa kind of reflex on the part of an authority figure who knows what is coming and prevents it at the firstinstance of the appearance of the unwanted behaviour. For an illustration, imagine the recess bell in a boys’school, students rushing down the staircase, and the principal or a senior teacher climbing up. If corporalpunishment is an established practice in this school, it is highly likely that the principal will hit or slap someof the boys as they come close to colliding with him or with each other. In such a case, he can be seen asusing his physical force simply as a means of reinforcing his socially sanctioned moral authority. Such an acthas every chance of imposing a temporary order.In other cases, corporal punishment can serve as a sharp reaction to a behaviour the children do notconsider as obnoxious as the teacher does. Ways of talking or giving a quick answer fall in this category.Teachers often find the language used by children inappropriate and offensive. They have limited awarenessof the fact that children’s language reflects what they hear at home, in the neighbourhood and on television.Instead of setting an alternative example, many a teacher might well react hurtfully, by means of abusive wordsor a slap. These reactive forms of corporal punishments are quite different from those used on occasionswhen a child has actually done something the teacher finds unacceptable, or has not done what the teacherexpects and wants. Reactive anger or violence, once initiated by one or more teachers serving in a school,gets embedded in the school’s ethos and acquires a momentum of its own, unlike corporal punishmentgiven for specific reasons. This last category is what is normally recognised as corporal punishment, bothby its supporters and critics. The other two forms remain invisible and unrecognised. Equally unrecognisedremain the circumstances under which different forms of corporal punishment manifest.Evil or Ritual?56It has been customary to label certain common practices which seem undesirable or odious from amodernist perspective as social evils. Quite a few well-entrenched practices have been thus labelled awayover the last century. Child marriage is one such practice, and though it is well known that it affects the livesof girls quite differently from how it affects the lives of boys, it has been classified in the broad category ofsocial evils and its own title – i.e. child marriage – does not distinguish between boys and girls. Anyone witha passing acquaintance with the phenomenon knows that early marriage has dire consequences that areexclusive to girls. By naming it a social evil, the State has historically conveyed its lack of adequate capacityto eradicate it. Child marriage was legally banned over 80 years ago, and the legislation banning it has beenrenewed more than once, but the practice continues. Apparently, those who practice it do not regard it asocial evil. Practices like child marriage did not disappear as a result of negative labelling. Female infanticidewas banned more than a century ago, and it seemed as if the ban had worked, but the practice has comeback in its modern version of female foeticide. These annals of the so-called social evils remind us that thegap between society and State runs wide in our country, and the State’s will does not necessarily prevail,and certainly not easily when it deals with a socially sanctioned evil practice.

Banning is Just the BeginningThe social sanction that the practice of punishing children corporally receives arises from old and culturallyapproved concepts of learning and growth during childhood. The idea that a child is tender and passingthrough a formative phase of life is not incompatible with the view that he or she needs to be mouldedby determined hands. It is a common belief that children know nothing or very little and, therefore, theydepend on adults to learn everything, including language. Moreover, it is also a common perception thatwhen they learn, their ability to learn is tenuous and, therefore, they tend to make mistakes. It follows thatadult supervision and frequent intervention are required to prevent incorrect learning and mistakes. Theintervention required can take any number of forms, including the use of force which the child may haveno capacity to resist. Indeed, the child’s resistance in this context would only prove the necessity of theintervention and the importance of repeated interventions involving force. We must remember that thesocial philosophy we are attempting to discuss here is grounded in the belief that the child has no agencyor intrinsic desire to learn. External influence is believed to be crucial for shaping the child’s trajectoryof growth and learning. Past infancy, a strict regime, steeped in a punitive environment, is regarded as apositive input for ensuring rapid progress in the right direction.Counter-theorising, about the harmful effects of pampering or display of affection is also widely prevalent.It is mainly mothers who are believed to be liable to spoil the child, especially the son, by showing too muchemotional attachment. The balancing, corrective role is supposed to be played by the father. The teacherwho takes charge of the child at school does so in place of the father and, thereby, performs the role ofa father outside the family setting. Before we discuss how women teachers enter this role, let us recallthe nature of a father’s role in the child’s life as defined by tradition. It draws its character from what it isnot, namely the mother’s role. If motherliness stands for affection and attachment, the father’s role standsfor detached concern. His ability to provide a counterbalancing factor with reference to the mother’sexpected role depends on his being unemotional, even harsh. He establishes the objectivity of his positiveconcern for the child’s welfare by being frank in his criticism and his preparedness to take tough measureswhen the child does not seem to benefit from verbal criticism. The teacher is precisely in this role atschool where the father cannot attend to the child’s needs. Traditionally, down the centuries, teachers ofthe young child have been men.The idea of teaching has evolved, literally, as an activity that forms a lesson for the child – something thechild cannot easily forget. The term shiksha, though now used in a positive sense in Hindi, continues tohave this connotation when used figuratively. The father’s capacity to teach the child a lesson when neededis supposed to be emulated by a worthy teacher at school. Many Indian languages have sayings like thisone in Hindi: ‘the flesh belongs to the family, the bones to the teacher’. Many biographies of men whoattained success offer instances of harsh physical punishment given by a teacher. If memories of this kindare tinged with resentment or anger, it is certainly not expressed. Teachers’ harshness is supposed to betolerated, even appreciated by the student, and not just by his parents and the community. If a teacher doesnot exercise his right to thrash the child, he is often perceived as being too mild to be a good teacher intowhose hands the child could be entrusted.The association between the role of a father and that of a teacher has not been disturbed in any markedway by the recent policy to increase the intake of women in school teaching. This need not surprise us,first, because a role is independent of a person. A woman performing a role whose cultural identity isassociated with that of a male cannot, on her own, alter it. Rather, she is likely to aim at success in that roleby acting or behaving in the manner in which social expectations define it. Hence, a number of incidentsin which children are given harsh corporal punishment occur in a class taught by a woman teacher. Thesecond reason why we need not be surprised by the use of corporal punishment by women teachers isthat their own social identity is usually shaped by patriarchy, in the sense that they receive recognition as57

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schoolseffective or successful teachers when they conform to the role-behaviour associated with men. Strictnessis an important aspect of such behaviour. A strict teacher is one who does not tolerate any disturbance inthe class or deviance from the behaviour children are expected to exhibit in the presence of a teacher. Ifa woman teacher were to show tolerance of the kind of behaviour that a male teacher would not tolerate,she will invite the perception that she is a poor substitute, someone who is ‘womanly’ rather than merelya good teacher. She is caught between two stereotypes: that of an effective teacher, and that of a woman.Teacher’s Reality and TrainingApart from the social sanction that corporal punishment derives from tradition, it also acquires a certaindegree of reinforcement from the space where it occurs. Where teachers spend their working time eachday is not a simple space from the point of view of analysing the circumstances under which corporalpunishment occurs as a routine. Physically, one might say, the site looks like any other constructed space,but it is quite different if you look at it standing in the shoes of an Indian teacher. Historically, teachers ofthe young have remained a neglected category of India’s professional workforce. Indeed, the use of the term‘professional’ for school teaching in India may itself be contestable. The training which precedes a person’sinduction into teaching is both brief and weak in terms of its academic rigour. The kind of preparedness theone-year training under B.Ed. or the two-year training under D.Ed. provides looks both inconsequential andirrelevant to face the real world of teaching at a school. The routine of five to six periods a day, requiringinteraction with several different classes which have a pupil-teacher ratio of anywhere from 1:40 to:90 looksaltogether incompatible with the pedagogic methods taught during training and lofty ideas like addressingindividual differences and age-specific characteristics. As for the infrastructure, schools of different typesvary, but a great number of schools carry an unkempt, eroded look which makes a contribution towardsmaintaining a negative, punitive ethos. And then, the impact of parental pressure on teachers and childrento focus narrowly on tests and examinations makes teachers get accustomed to ignoring the larger aimsof education. Principals, in particular, are vulnerable to social and systemic pressures to perform. Privateschools may differ little from Kendriya Vidyalayas in this respect. Both explicitly demand high performanceby their children in public examinations, and the principals of both types of schools expect teachers toensure this demand is fulfilled. This kind of narrow focus and the pressure it generates pushes teacherstowards getting children to perform. All aspects of performance, from homework to test and examinationresults, create space for the use of corporal punishment. The teacher’s position in this larger scenariois that of a subservient accomplice. When teachers take recourse to hitting children or punishing themphysically in some other way, they act on behalf of a society and a system which does not appreciate theeveryday challenge faced by the teachers. Occupying a low position in the social ladder and struggling withthe contradictory demands of their job, many teachers are chronically dissatisfied, unhappy and angry.It is no surprise that they often unleash their anger on the powerless children they teach. It makesthings convenient that this venting of a teacher’s anger on a child’s cheeks or back enjoys social sanctionexplicated earlier in this essay.Can Training Help?58Some of the analysis presented above forms the backdrop of the National Curriculum Framework–2005.A lot of changes in the curriculum and textbooks have been brought about over the recent years to alter theburdensome nature of classroom life. These changes would make a far greater impact than they have if theyhad been followed up and backed by reforms in teacher training. These reforms were indeed planned by theNational Council of Teacher Education, but no real progress has been made so far. Indeed, the situation inteacher education is getting worse, with more than 80 per cent of the training institutions now operating

Banning is Just the Beginningin the private and unabashedly commercial sector. A vast majority of them are much too rudimentary andcrude as institutions to be able to incorporate any substantial component in their curriculum aimed atencouraging self-reflection and critical thinking about an issue like corporal punishment. Such a componentwould have to address the social sanction that the practice of corporal punishment enjoys. It would alsohave to integrate pedagogical training with an analysis of stress that the system and society place upon thechildren and teachers. This kind of academically enriched curriculum of teacher training is so rare in ourcountry that I can safely point at just one programme which offers it. I am referring to the Bachelor ofElementary Education (B.El.Ed.) course of Delhi University. Among B.Ed. programmes, one cannot thinkof a parallel example yet.ConclusionIn this essay I have argued that the practice of corporal punishment in schools will prove difficult to curbthough it has been banned under RTE. Banning it may mean very little or at best merely a beginning fora prolonged systemic and social struggle. Its systemic roots lie in the poor quality of the training India’steachers receive and their low status as professionals. The pressure they are under to drive children hardtowards high scores in tests and examinations often results in situations which involve physical punishment.Such punishment has social and cultural sanction under which the teacher is expected to discipline thechild with the help of harsh measures. While improvement in training and working conditions of teacherscall for systemic reforms, the social sanction that corporal punishment enjoys needs to be addressed byawareness-building cultural campaigns aimed at establishing children’s right to dignity and affection as acommon value.59

ArticlesEvery Child has a Right to Learn with Dignity– Karin HulshofUNICEF Representative for IndiaThe importance of children growing up in a nurturing environment, devoid of even so much as the threatof humiliation and violence cannot be overstated. For this, the abolishment of corporal punishment is anecessary precondition. Much of a child’s character building takes place in schools, making the learningenvironment critical to giving every child the opportunity to learn with dignity and without fear.The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights has been at the forefront of the movement toabolish corporal punishment for children in India. These guidelines against corporal punishment in schoolsare another step in helping children grow and learn in a safe and healthy environment and protecting themfrom violence. With the Right to Education, India has made the prohibition of physical punishment andmental harassment to children in schools a legal obligation. UNICEF hopes that these guidelines will helpmove policy to practice, thereby transforming the daily reality of hundreds of millions of children in schoolsand at home.The statistics on the practice of corporal punishment are sobering. According to the Ministry of Womenand Child Development’s study on corporal punishment (2007), 65 per cent of school going childrenreported facing corporal punishment. That translates into two out of three children who have been victimsof corporal punishment.Over the years, we have heard countless voices from such children across the country – telling us howcorporal punishment affects them. Stories of how such practices, like those revealed in this NCPCR study,rob children of their dignity, crush their self-esteem, sap their curiosity, cause sadness, anger and aggression.Corporal punishment both interferes with children’s desire and ability to learn, while also often pushingthem to drop out of school.Not only are the effects of this dangerous because every child that drops out of school is one child lessthat receives an education, but because it can also have long-lasting effects on more than one generation.Children who experience these forms of violence are more likely to use similar methods on their ownchildren. This needs to change. The reality is that as long as the current situation persists, where two outof three children are still subjected to corporal punishment in their daily lives, the Right to Education andits aim of providing at least eight years of child-friendly education to each and every child, cannot and willnot be realised.As the custodian of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF strongly believes that any, and all,forms of violence against children is neither justifiable nor acceptable. The Convention on the Rights of theChild, to which the Government of India is a signatory, is clear. It requires States to protect children from“all forms of physical or mental violence” while in the care of parents or others (Article 19). It requiresdiscipline in schools to be “administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity” (Article 28).Children everywhere must never be subjected to “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatmentor punishment” (Article 37).61

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsThe Committee on the Rights of the Child is no less unambiguous in its interpretation of this. It requiresthe prohibition in law of all corporal punishment in all settings – the family, schools, all forms of alternativecare and juvenile justice settings.The Right to Education Act explicitly bans corporal punishment in schools, and 18 states also have specificlaws banning the same. Legislation alone though is insufficient when you factor in the reality that very fewchildren are in a position to take recourse to legal provisions. And in addition to legal provisions, one alsoneeds redressal mechanisms. Who can a child turn to when subjected to corporal punishment? Thereneed to be mechanisms and at the very least – someone a child can comfortably and take into confidencewithin the school.The majority of incidents of corporal punishment go unreported and children continue to suffer in silence.We need to do more. We need to help change the mindset of parents, teachers and children themselvesso that punishment is no longer a socially accepted norm for inculcating discipline. We need to challengethe existing perception that sees punishment as the only means to discipline children. This implies bringingabout a change in adult perspectives, and exploring alternative strategies with the active participationof children.UNICEF is frequently asked if ending corporal punishment will mean chaos in classrooms. To this wesay “No”. In fact, corporal punishment is a barrier to children’s access to school and to their learning.Evidence both globally and in India shows that in schools that encourage a child’s creativity and respectstheir dignity, where the environment stimulates and taps the natural curiosity of a child – discipline isintrinsic. We call this a child-friendly school.In a child-friendly classroom, active teaching methods are used to engage children. Teachers smile andlaugh with children and evidence tells us that this improves children’s learning outcomes significantly.Furthermore, both the school and the community play an active role in ensuring that children’s environmentis safe and healthy.So how do we make classrooms and homes more child-friendly? For a start, we need to leverage theseguidelines to offer alternatives to corporal punishment. One such alternative is positive disciplinetechniques that promote positive behaviour in children. While punishment is meant to control a child’sbehaviour, discipline is meant to develop a child’s behaviour, teaching them the foundations for positiveconduct that will last a lifetime. We can teach a child self-control and confidence by focusing onwhat it is we want the child to learn. Instead of resorting to punishment that focuses on the problem,we need to focus on the solution. Simply put, using positive discipline techniques to help childrenunderstand their own behaviour, take the initiative, be responsible for their choices, and respectthemselves and others.62What does positive discipline look like in practice? We can take an example from a consultation organisedby the Government of Bihar and UNICEF in 2010. A consultation where we heard real life stories andvoices from the field and from them, how to do things differently. tOn the first day of school, a Class 1teacher, Mr. Kumar went to face 60 children in his overcrowded classroom. The children were all new toschool, so the first few days were challenging. Mr. Kumar explained that his students often talked whilehe was talking. Many, especially the first-generation school-goers, were not able to follow lessons, so theybecame frustrated and distracted. The children would copy from each other’s books and some would loseinterest and make drawings on the walls or desks.

Every Child has a Right to Learn with DignityThe studies on corporal punishment indicate that many teachers facing this situation would use measuressuch as pulling the hair of students, insulting them by telling them they are stupid, or caning. Mr. Kumar hadobserved during his teacher internship, that such violent measures were counterproductive. They pushedchildren to drop out, prevented them from learning and created violence both inside and outside the school.So instead, Mr. Kumar took a positive discipline approach. In the initial days, he helped children democraticallyset up rules and consequences for bad behaviour. When required, he set disciplinary measures that wouldhelp children learn to change. For example, instructing children to clean the drawing off the furniture afterschool. He also set up group work with mixed-level groups of children so that faster learners could helpslower learners. A weekly class leader was selected based on good behaviour, and a space set up in thecourtyard where children would go if they had a disagreement to work out a solution.In a few short weeks, Mr. Kumar saw his Class 1 students transformed. Their learning improved steadily. Byfostering democratic participation, his students developed a sense of empowerment and helped each othercontrol their behaviour. His classroom became more inclusive, one where children developed a greatersense of empathy for others, even those from different backgrounds. The children became more helpful tothe teacher and peers, and Mr. Kumar’s job became easier. Even parents noticed a positive change in theirchildren. During a Village Education Committee meeting, they started discussing how ending corporalpunishment was improving their children’s experience of school and made a commitment to try thepositive discipline techniques at home. The child cabinet in Mr. Kumar’s school made posters, songs, andtheatre sketches to promote these messages in the community.Mr. Kumar’s classroom and community is not difficult to replicate. UNICEF sees many of these positivepractices in schools and communities across India. We also understand that there is no one-size fits allsolution to this problem. What we need is a multi-pronged approach that addresses corporal punishment inhomes, institutions and schools; and strategies that address attitudes, law reform, institutional mechanismsand improve monitoring. These guidelines provide us with the framework, mechanisms and actions tomake Mr. Kumar’s Class 1 into the norm. They give options on how to address the variety of challengesteachers might face in different situations. The guidelines indicate how to actively ensure that children’svoices and participation guide the collective decision-making that will bring the positive and urgent changesrequired to end to all forms of violence towards them. Ending corporal punishment is not just the right ofall children in India, it is our legal obligation.UNICEF is committed to working with the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights,Ministry of Human Resource Development and other partners to create a climate where there is ‘zerotolerance’ for corporal punishment. We will continue to advocate for educational environments free fromall forms of physical and humiliating punishment. Provide teachers like Mr. Kumar with the necessary capacityand tools to create child-friendly environments. UNICEF will also support states to amend or adopt newlegislation and policies harmonised with these guidelines and strengthen monitoring and redressal systems.We will continue to provide technical assistance to make sure that quality education reforms take intoaccount positive discipline techniques and strategies. In our campaigns to promote the Right to Education,we will work to build stronger school-community linkages to help school management committees, childcabinets and youth groups address corporal punishment in schools and homes.For this, these guidelines must be disseminated far and wide. Strong partnerships with media can continueto report incidents of corporal punishment, while also promote protective behaviours and practices.Media can help bring to public attention to the violence children experience and help spread awarenesson children’s right to protection.63

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsWe must look for every opportunity to raise awareness with parents, teachers, governments, media andother key stakeholders. We must create a movement against corporal punishment. These guidelinesare a clear road map to more child-friendly schools, safer communities and a more peaceful anddeveloped society.Each and every one of us has a role to play in building a world fit for children: a world where violence hasno place and children can learn and grow with dignity and respect. It is not only the right thing to do, butalso the smart thing do, and most importantly – it is our children’s birthright.64

Teachers and Corporal Punishment– Poonam BatraProfessor, Central Institute of Education, University of DelhiSchooling to DisciplineWithin the Indian context, two distinct yet related strands of the idea of schooling co-exist. The firstis to do with the building of character and morals as the most important goal of education. There ismuch lament about degrading values amongst children, poor upbringing and the neglect of traditionalvalues in education. The second is the obsession with high academic performance in an outcome-basededucational framework. Both these are sought to be met by making ‘discipline’ the centre of all schoolactivity. Learning to concentrate, learning to perform in examinations and learning to behave in desirableways are acknowledged to be the key means of achieving these goals. This finds immediate endorsementfrom the parent community in a society where education of quality for the masses remains a mystifiedphenomenon. The education of most Indian children thus assumes moralistic overtones, with the aim toreform children through harsh discipline. The NCPCR study indicates how children assuredly believe thatphysical punishment is for their own good.The paradox is in the co-existence of a relatively progressive educational discourse that advocates for the‘agency’ of the child in her own learning as through curriculum frameworks (NCF, 2005) and RTE (2009)regulations; and the preposterous practice of ‘silencing’ children.The idea of ‘disciplining children’ can also be said to stem from deep-rooted folk conceptions aboutchildren and their relationship with adults. The cultural practices associated with child rearing andeducating children permeate schooling practices across the country. The hegemonic relationship betweenadults and children is a case in point. This is often manifest in either a culture of patronage towards theyoung or control through power and the firm belief that education is about learning by rote. Both thesehave cultural sanction.The dictionary definition of corporal punishment relates to physical beating and whipping, usually using acane. It is no surprise that for most children interviewed in the NCPCR study, enduring the cane has beenthe most commonly encountered experience – it serves the purpose of threatening and beating childrenin order to discipline and control them. It is also not surprising that for most, the ubiquitous image of theteacher is one with a crane in his/her hand. Similar findings have been reported in other studies as well 1 .The intimate relationship between corporal punishment and discipline is not simply a social convention;it finds legitimacy via definitional assertions in dictionaries as well. ‘To discipline’ is often stated to mean‘to punish’. The English Thesaurus 2 places ‘discipline’ amongst a long list of synonyms of the word, ‘punish’.Accordingly, to punish means to chastise, to penalise, to castigate, to reprove, to rebuke, to reprimand andto discipline!651Plan International, 2006.2See Thesaurus version available in MS Word.

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsThe idea of punishment is also related to popular conceptions of childhood and education. Clichéd popularthinking related to children such as ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’, ‘children are empty vessels’, ‘childrenneed to be moulded’ persists in the thinking of contemporary educators, often serving as guiding principlesof entrenched school practices.Schools in India are identified as the main site where corporal punishment has assumed endemic proportions.Authoritative relationships between teachers and children, legitimised by the existing system of educationare an extension of the adult hegemony over the child. Teachers and heads of schools work together todiscipline children with the aim to cultivate desirable behaviour, inculcate morals and values and ensureacademic performance – the widely practiced aims of schooling. This has parental sanction as well 3 .The Global Initiative movement launched in 2001 under the aegis of the UN Convention on Child Rightsnoted that most adults, care givers and education officials across several countries view corporal punishmentas a necessary part of the upbringing of children and their education 4 . Corporal punishment has wideacceptance as a practice against children in India as well. Research has revealed how homes are as much sitesof extreme forms of physical punishment as the school 5 . While teachers openly accept that children cannotbe disciplined without punishment, children too tend to accept it as a way of life. They often justify it as aparent’s or the teacher’s right to correct them.Disciplining or Engendering ViolenceCorporal punishment, a phenomenon rooted in socio-cultural realities is internalised by both, theperpetrator and the victim. It has, as a result, assumed the power of perpetuating itself as a way of life.Corporal punishment therefore needs to be seen as a social practice of extreme discrimination againstchildren as abhorrent as the prevalent practice of child abuse and domestic violence; more so, because ithas adult and systemic sanction.There is no running away from the fact that corporal punishment amounts to the psychologicalmaltreatment of children. It could therefore be more appropriately categorised as child abuse. Advocatesof corporal punishment however, continue to argue that it provides an immediate response to indiscipline.Research on the other hand reveals the disastrous long-term consequences of corporal punishment.Studies have demonstrated how corporal punishment leads to negative physical, psychological andeducational outcomes. Some of these are: aggressive and destructive behaviour, increased disruptiveclassroom behaviour, vandalism, poor scholastic achievement, poor attention span, increased drop-outrate, school avoidance and school phobia, low self-esteem, anxiety, somatic complaints, depression, suicideand even retaliation against teachers (Poole et al., 1991). Other research has demonstrated associationsbetween corporal punishment of children and maladaptive behaviour patterns such as aggression anddelinquency (Knox 2010).66It is indeed paradoxical that the advocates of corporal punishment seek to correct behaviours that are adirect consequence of aggressive ways of dealing with them. In a simple argument, Strauss (1996) assertsthat the more children are hit, the more anger they report as adults, the more they hit their own childrenwhen they are parents and the more likely they are to approve of hitting. Simons & Wurtele (2010) alsoargue that when adults use corporal punishment it teaches their children that hitting is an acceptablemeans of dealing with conflict. The vicious circle is complete when children too start accepting corporalpunishment as a way of life. This is where we are as a society, caught in this vicious cycle.3Parents often tell teachers to hit children when they do not study or obey. Here is a common example from some parts of the Hindi belt inIndia: ‘haad-maas apka, haddi hamari hai’, giving sanction to hit children.4Save the Children, 2003.5Plan International, 2006; NCPCR, 2012.

Teachers and Corporal PunishmentIf we truly want to recreate schools as safe and nurturing spaces for children to grow and learn, we willneed to challenge the very idea of corporal punishment as a corrective measure. This can only be achievedwith the active collaboration of teachers who are currently the most direct link that sustains the use ofcorporal punishment in homes and schools. In order to do so, it may be useful to understand why teachershave become symbols of such harsh discipline.A Good Teacher Means Being in ControlThe culture of punishing (read disciplining) children is closely associated with the reified image of theteacher as one who ought to be ‘in control’ in order to be an effective teacher. This idea of controlmanifests in the popular conception of education which is to ‘socialise’ children in ‘desirable ways’ of‘sitting’ in a formal class, ‘behaving’ in school, ‘following instructions’ ‘obeying’ authority (teachers), talkingonly when asked to and finishing tasks on time. A close look at the reasons for getting punished asidentified by children of the NCPCR study bears testimony to this argument. The reasons for punishingchildren fall into two broad categories: (a) behaviours that disrupt teachers’ ‘control’ inside and outsidethe classroom. Examples include sitting at the teacher’s table, writing on the blackboard, not obeying giveninstructions or following methods of learning; (b) behaviours that upset the established order and ritualsof the school. Examples include arriving late to school, wearing improper/dirty uniform, not greeting theteachers and ignoring their demands. Not doing their homework or classwork; forgetting to get booksand other materials to school can also be seen as disrupting the ‘order’ of the school. Giving expressionto basic physical needs, spontaneous acts of sharing jokes and laughing, running around open spaces andinventing games to ease the oppression of a routinised classroom strangely also evoke anger and physicalreactions amongst teachers.The study also reveals that while physical punishment is widely practiced, extreme forms of verbalreprimand is the most prevalent form of humiliating children. This includes the use of derisive adjectivesto call out children from different castes and communities, sexist ways of addressing them and denigratingthem through excessive verbal abuse.The prevailing culture of schools as reflected in children’s responses is indicative of how children areperceived by teachers and the attitudes they hold about the children they teach. Though rooted in theirsocio-cultural experiences these can be seen to be extended through the training they receive whilepreparing to be teachers. Most teacher training programmes for instance, inculcate the belief that silenceis a virtue as it signifies a well managed class. The focus is therefore on how to maintain order in classand how to keep children in ‘control’. Even classroom furniture wherever available, is designed to restrictchildren’s movement in class in order to keep them ‘in control’.Teacher training programmes also foster the belief that the most important differences between childrenare individual in nature, such as being less intelligent or smarter than others. This assumes great significancefor teachers who are desperately in search of reference points against which to evaluate children. Thisthen becomes the only notion of diversity that teachers seem to gather. Each child in class is evaluated inreference to the ‘ideal textbook’ child that teachers are supposedly familiar with. In this frame teacherslearn to be judgmental about children and their learning. Children are labelled as intelligent, dumb or slowlearners. What ‘real’ children are and how their diverse contexts affect their development and learning isnot a concern of those who prepare teachers. The texts teachers study during their training also does notengage them with these concerns.67

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsSchool teachers thus develop a universalistic understanding of children which has little bearing with therealities they encounter. They never learn to relate to children and connect with them as persons. Tofulfil their inexorable role of evaluating children and keeping them in control, teachers look for anchors intheir own experiences which are usually steeped in a culture of stereotypes and prejudices. The unequalpower relationships between adults and children thus become the culture of the everyday classroom.Often teachers’ sense of helplessness results in taking their frustrations out on powerless children. As a14 year old child remarked, “Teachers do not know what to say or do, therefore they beat or threaten tobeat.” Children internalise cues of authority from school and at home at an early age and begin to legitimiseviolence towards the powerless as a way of life.68Invoking the Teacher to Combat Corporal PunishmentCorporal punishment is thus tied to the larger context and concern of the prevalence of violence in societyand the popular constructs of childhood and education that dominate processes of schooling. It wouldtherefore be important to bring Teacher Education Institutes into the fold of institutionalised mechanismsto combat this social menace. This would involve addressing teachers through both the pre-service andin-service teacher education programmes.To begin with, all teacher development programmes 6 need to have a mandatory provision to integratethe study of children, their development and learning in varying contexts. The current courses focus onmodels of instruction and learning theories rather than the developing child. A clear shift therefore needsto be made from the current focus on courses of educational psychology to courses on childhood and howchildren think and learn. The child needs to be at the centre of processes of pedagogic communicationthat seeks to ensure learning. Teachers need to engage with children in real contexts, rather than learn tomouth abstract, universalistic, textbook constructions of ‘who a child is?’ This would help teachers viewand understand children as rooted in diverse contexts thus enabling them to relate to them, evoking sensitivityto children’s ways of thinking and perceiving. This in turn would help teachers to discern and questionpopular notions and assumptions about children and education, including their own.Authentic understanding of how children think and learn; why children fail or are unable to perform onschool tasks can only happen if teachers learn to listen to children. These need to become the subject andprocess of teacher preparation. In traditional teacher training the dominant pattern is to leave the onusof learning to children. The current system absolves the teacher of any responsibilities towards children’slearning. This orientation can change only when teachers are also provided opportunities to engage withquestions and concerns of classroom practice. Listening to children will help teachers understand themand feel less angry with the mistakes they make.A major divide between the socio-economic and cultural background of teachers and children in mostState schools is a key factor in perpetuating the problem of corporal punishment. It would be strategic todevelop and disseminate short films/video clips on the vulnerability of children and the responsibility ofadults. Class monitors often substitute teachers in maintaining discipline by threatening and often resortingto physical beating. This has particularly led to a process of legitimising violence amongst children, whileabsolving the teacher. The system of monitors in classes, chosen from among the students needs to be amajor focus of discussion with the aim to completely abolish the ‘use’ of monitors to punish children bybeating them. Specific mechanisms can be evolved with teachers to actively discourage violence amongstchildren in school settings. Introducing the concept of a ‘home room’ (zero period) period everyday and a‘home room teacher’ who encourages children to share and express their experiences and feelings openlycan help give voice to children.6The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCTE, 2009) has several suggestions on how to redesign the education of teachers.

Teachers and Corporal PunishmentInvolving the CommunityThe strategy should be to appeal to parents urging them to start thinking about the deleterious effects ofphysical punishment and their role in combating it. Teachers can be organised to become lead ambassadorsin this effort of creating a public discourse. This would help teachers to take ownership and responsibilityfor bringing about a change in school cultures.Simultaneous mechanisms of redressal need to be made available for children in and around schools.Dedicated time on select TV channels can be allocated for the reporting of such investigated cases. Thiswill act as a society-watch mechanism that deters teachers and other adults from indulging in the physicalbeating of children. Such mechanisms can be suitably linked to available academic research institutions,non-governmental organisations and university departments of education, social sciences, social work andwomen’s studies that can maintain a dossier of cases with critical reflections and commentary. Documentsof this kind can be disseminated for use by researchers as well as for purposes of teacher developmentthrough pre-service and in-service programmes.It is important to examine the problem of corporal punishment within the larger context of violence andchild abuse that plagues current Indian society and human civilisation. Blurring of boundaries betweencrime and terrorism; between terror and the struggle for freedom; between the struggle for human dignityand the politicisation of identities have manifest more blatantly than ever before. The most vulnerablein a society plagued with legitimised violence, are children … whose stifled voices desperately need tobe heard. The NCPCR study is a systematic attempt to bring substantial evidence to the argument thatviolence against school children in the name of disciplining them is a crime that strips children of the basicdignity of life accorded to them by the law of the land in which they are born.69

Eliminating Corporal Punishment in SchoolsReferencesGovernment of India, GoI, 2009, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, The Gazette of India,27 August 2009, New Delhi.Knox M, 2010, On Hitting Children: a review of corporal punishment in the United States Journal of PediatricHealth Care, 24 (2), pp. 103-7.NCERT, 2005, National Curriculum Framework, 2005, NCERT: New Delhi.NCTE, 2009, National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education: towards a professional and humane teacher,NCTE: New Delhi.Plan International, 2006, Impact of Corporal Punishment on School Children: a research study, Plan International:New Delhi.Poole SR, MC Ushkow, PR, Nader et al., 1991,. ‘The Role of the Pediatrician in Abolishing Corporal Punishment inSchools, Pediatrics, 88 (1)’, pp. 162–7.Save the Children, 2003, Hitting People is Wrong – and Children are People Too, ‘Global Initiative to End All CorporalPunishment of Children,’ Save the Children, Russell Press: England, Revised Edn.Simons DA and SK Wurtele, 2010, Relationships between Parents’ Use of Corporal Punishment and their Children’sEndorsement of Spanking and Hitting Other Children, Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, (9), pp. 639-46.Straus MA, 1996, ‘Spanking and the Making of a Violent Society, Pediatrics, 98(4), pp. 837-842.70

Annexures

Compliance with the values recognized in article 29(1) of theCRC clearly requires that schools be child-friendly in the fullestsense of the term and that they be consistent in all respectswith the dignity of the childCommittee on the Rights of the Child,General Comment No. 1

Annexure I73

74Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools

Annexure I75

76Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools

Annexure II77

78Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools

Annexure III79

80Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools

Annexure III81

82Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools

Annexure III83

84Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools