top of page

By:

Shoumojit Banerjee

27 August 2024 at 9:57:52 am

Classroom of Courage

In drought-scarred Maharashtra, a couple’s experiment in democratic schooling is turning child beggars into model citizens In the parched stretches of Maharashtra, from Solapur to the drought-hit villages of Marathwada, a modest social experiment has quietly unfolded for nearly two decades. It is neither a grand government scheme nor a corporate-backed charity. Since 2007, the Ajit Foundation, founded by Mahesh and Vinaya Nimbalkar, has worked with children living at the sharpest edges of...

Classroom of Courage

In drought-scarred Maharashtra, a couple’s experiment in democratic schooling is turning child beggars into model citizens In the parched stretches of Maharashtra, from Solapur to the drought-hit villages of Marathwada, a modest social experiment has quietly unfolded for nearly two decades. It is neither a grand government scheme nor a corporate-backed charity. Since 2007, the Ajit Foundation, founded by Mahesh and Vinaya Nimbalkar, has worked with children living at the sharpest edges of society in Maharashtra. The foundation has become a home for out-of-school children, those who have never enrolled, the children of migrant labourers and single parents, and those who scavenge at garbage dumps or drift between odd jobs. To call their foundation an “NGO” is to miss the point. Vinaya Nimbalkar describes it as a “democratic laboratory”, where education is not merely instruction but an initiation into citizenship. The couple were once government schoolteachers with the Solapur Zilla Parishad, leading stable lives. Yet what they witnessed unsettled them: children who had never held a pencil, begging at traffic signals or sorting refuse for a living. Prompted by this reality, the Nimbalkars resigned their jobs to work full-time for the education of such children. Leap of Faith They began modestly, teaching children in migrant settlements in Solapur and using their own salaries to pay small honorariums to activists. Funds soon ran dry, and volunteers drifted away. Forced out of their home because of their commitment to the cause, they started a one-room school where Vinaya, Mahesh, their infant son Srijan and forty children aged six to fourteen lived together as an unlikely family. The experiment later moved to Barshi in the Solapur district with support from Anandvan. Rural hardship, financial uncertainty and the pandemic repeatedly tested their resolve. At one stage, they assumed educational guardianship of nearly 200 children from families that survived by collecting scrap on the village outskirts. Eventually, the foundation relocated to Talegaon Dabhade near Pune, where it now runs a residential hostel. Twenty-five children currently live and study there. The numbers may seem modest, but the ambition is not. Democracy in Practice What distinguishes the Ajit Foundation is not only who it serves but also how it operates. Within its walls, democracy is practised through a Children’s Gram Panchayat and a miniature Municipal Council elected by the children themselves. Young candidates canvass, hold meetings and present their budgets. Children maintain accounts and share decisions about chores, activities and certain disciplinary matters. In a country where democratic culture is often reduced to voting, the foundation’s approach is quietly radical. It treats children from marginalised backgrounds as citizens in formation. The right to choose — whether to focus on sport, cooking, mathematics or cultural activities — is respected. “We try never to take away what is their own,” says Vinaya Nimbalkar. Rather than forcing every child into a uniform academic mould, individual abilities are encouraged. A boy skilled in daily calculations may not be pushed into hours of bookish study; a girl who excels in cooking may lead the kitchen team. For children who have known only precarity, standing for election, managing a budget or speaking at a meeting can be transformative. On International Women’s Day, the foundation seeks visibility not just for praise but for partnership. If you are inspired by their mission, consider supporting or collaborating—your involvement can help extend opportunities to more children in need.

Choosing Her Battle

Updated: Nov 25, 2024

Her Battle

As anticipated in a long, polarised presidential campaign, Trump’s win has reignited the fight for reproductive freedom in the United States. The current social media trend on the Pro-Choice v. Pro-Life debate exposed America’s deep-seated division over women’s rights. But alas, the whole discussion is centred on the right to terminate the pregnancy.


The June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to end the constitutional right to abortion paved the way for the states to prohibit abortion completely. Biden’s government kept the issue hanging until the 2024 election to use it as a foil against conservative Republicans.


Currently, about 28 of the 50 US states have hostile regulations; of these, four states have outlawed abortion at 6 weeks; in India, this limit is set at 24 weeks. The 17 US states intend to confer personhood either on fetuses or embryos, which would prohibit the use of emergency contraceptive pills. Conservative lawmakers who have already curtailed reproductive rights in over half of the country are now pushing to restrict access to birth control and IVFs. 13 US states have imposed a complete abortion ban without exceptions for rape or incest, as the American conservatives fear that by playing the victim, women would take advantage of rape exceptions? The state offers no exception, even to a child who has just attained puberty. Feel the anguish of the innocent child who is devastated by man’s brutality and is left with no legal alternative but to carry the unwanted result of the traumatic assault or face criminal punishment for abortion. Furthermore, South Carolina and Louisiana Republicans have proposed the “death penalty” for women who have abortions; it is a fact that I had to check again to believe.


In the US, women in a state with an abortion ban or restrictive laws are compelled to travel to other states where the procedure is permitted. Sometimes, the one-way journey takes over 12 hours to reach the nearest clinic. Those who cannot afford long travels or work-offs are often forced to opt for unsafe and illegal medical procedures. The abortion ban pushes the dejected, desperate women to seek out dangerous methods, resulting in huge fatalities. Would you still call this “Pro-life”? The pregnant women diagnosed with cancer find themselves between the devil and the deep sea. They have to convince the court that it is a medical emergency and plead for their lives or travel far to undergo an abortion. This causes a delay in starting cancer treatment and tons of anxiety.


Some border cities in the US prohibit individuals from helping patients crossing borders to access abortion, and also from possessing and distributing abortion pills in the city. These abortion restrictions lead to patients being given less effective medication and a trauma that is hard to heal! Is it not a moral obligation of the state to ensure its citizens have access to medical care? Is it not fundamental to medical care to respect the patient’s needs and not judge the patient’s morality?


Analysis of state-level reproductive rights and population data reveals that abortion is completely banned in states with a coloured population of roughly 20 per cent or more. These are the states where, from 1970 till the 1990s, over one million women of colour were forcibly sterilised or coerced into using unsafe contraceptives for prolonged times! Some university hospitals removed poor women’s uteruses, without medical grounds. It was a systematic genocide of the coloured race, carried out not using guns or weapons of mass destruction, but using a tiny birth control pill. Is the current blanket ban on abortion meant to cover up the government’s past evils? Or, is it a new wicked plan to support the labour-intensive industries?


The mealy-mouthed response of President Trump on future abortion policies has spooked American women so much that they are stockpiling contraceptives before his term begins. Meanwhile, very disturbing social media trends have erupted, in which American women are expressing violent fantasies of poisoning and killing their partner to prevent unwanted pregnancy. And to which the misogynist men are retorting with hashtags such as, ‘Your Body, Our Choice’ and ‘Get Back In the Kitchen’. These social media trends have exposed the ingrained inequality between genders fostered by social norms and expectations. And also the failed body politics of the United States. How can American women ever hope to achieve reproductive justice if all they do is bickering and sputtering on social media about a single issue? Doesn’t the woman’s choice extend far beyond a pregnancy?


If a woman can’t have control of her body, she can’t control her life. Her mental, physical, and emotional health, her social behaviour, her education, her vocational skills, her career goals, her motherhood, her ability to create, love, nurture, and her influence on the world, everything is diminished. She lives a smaller life.


In this era of Judicial globalisation, the legal systems of various countries borrow ideas and doctrines from one another and refer to foreign judgments in their domestic court proceedings, and the Indian judicial system is no exception. Here, we cannot ignore the negative dimension of judicial globalisation, where such precedents relating to abortion law by conservative courts might attract undue weightage and influence other countries’ domestic decisions.


In India, abortion is legal with certain restrictions. It is not a constitutional right; the right to life and personal liberty is interpreted to include reproductive choice. However, recently, in two cases, the Indian courts denied abortion on the grounds of mental depression. After making progressive amendments to the MTP Act in 2021 and 2022, India took a step backwards in recognising women’s reproductive autonomy.


Changing societal attitudes is necessary to eliminate the stigma and moral judgement surrounding women’s reproductive decisions. It needs sensitive support and all-inclusive open advocacy, which can be ensured only with public awareness, education and acknowledging the need of Reproductive Justice. Reproductive Justice means empowering women to make decisions about their bodies, including access to contraception, abortion, and assisted reproduction facilities, freedom from sexual violence, freedom from coerced usage of birth control and the ability to choose to have and raise a child. It must not be reduced to the option of ending the pregnancy. And certainly, it should not be promoted by reckless, cheap social media trends but by choosing the battle carefully.


(The author is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page