‘Stop judging and labelling children’

Experts believe that its often a poor choice to judge a child or the parents for any public display of arrogance. Parenting is a matter of study today. At no point parents feel confident the upbringing path they have chosen is a right way. Some depend on child psychologists, some on elders while some think its gambling. A class 5 student from Gujarat, has sparked a massive debate with his conduct on the latest episode of Kaun Banega Crorepati. The child appeared on the 17th season of the...

min read

Experts believe that its often a poor choice to judge a child or the parents for any public display of arrogance. Parenting is a matter of study today. At no point parents feel confident the upbringing path they have chosen is a right way. Some depend on child psychologists, some on elders while some think its gambling. A class 5 student from Gujarat, has sparked a massive debate with his conduct on the latest episode of Kaun Banega Crorepati. The child appeared on the 17th season of the long-running quiz show which is hosted by Amitabh Bachchan, where his conduct on the hot seat led to backlash on social media. Needless to say, the parents were in spotlight with all doubting their parenting skills. In an interview with ‘The Perfect Voice’ , Dr. Sachi Pandya , a psychologist at NH SRCC Children’s Hospital, shared her observations on why Structure at home matters in the upbringing of children and how avoiding the Pitfalls of overindulgence affects parenting. The KBC episode has gone viral with all voices questioning the upbringing of the child who displayed a behavior that came as a shock to even the host. Who is at fault? Is he innocent? Is it time to introspect about a larger concern around upbringing? The fault is social media and access to the content that is floating across the internet. Children feel pressurised to be 'cool', 'macho' and try to act adult like without really knowing its implications. It is not their fault. Their brain is still developing and they are absorbing a lot from the environment which is the societal responsibility and the culture we are knowingly unknowingly forging towards. More than the youngster, it was his parents who became the target of backlash for ‘improper upbringing’. What does your study say? Parents do play a vital role when it comes to disciplining and upbringing but blaming the child's behaviour on the parents and judging the parents is a poor choice and shows lack of empathy. Children sometimes behave in different ways and display volatile emotions and wear masks to hide their nervousness, anxiety or shyness. It is not under parents' control. Understanding that children are still learning, removing the lens of judgment and rather giving grace is what this time calls for. The parents also in that moment would be feeling helpless or nervous and just use smiling or laughing or overlooking the child's behaviour, it doesn't mean they are not conscious but rather trying to deal with the situation. We say that do not take the child's behaviour personally, but I also say refrain from judging the parents and rather look at supporting the parents within the community to nurture a better society. It is everyone's responsibility. A child doesn't grow at home, it goes to school, it lives in a society, it interacts with people in different spaces, also watches a lot of content, what about sharing the responsibility of nurturing the young minds rather than shifting blame. Some believe that the behaviour may have stemmed out of nervousness and that the child was unnecessarily being targeted. Can you share your thoughts? I agree. Children are still learning about emotions and how to regulate their emotions. Most of the time they hide nervousness with coming across as arrogant and cold. Children should be spared of harsh judgments and labels. It is one of the most insensitive things a society can do. I am thinking of the messages floating on social media and how much this is hyped and what impact it is going to have on the child and his parents on a long term. It is nothing less than a nightmare! What do you think is the root cause of rising arrogance and lack of humility among most kids? It is a disconnection often times the child experience among peers, within family, within the society, there is isolation too, judgment and harshness they are met with, the pressure to learn and be perfect, keeping adult like expectations from kids, poor the fast paced life, lack of quality time and play, less social interactions, overuse of screen and social media, gaming and internet. Also, there needs to be an increased focus on social emotional learning and helping children thrive emotionally and socially. How do you think parents should tackle arrogance of their children? Arrogance is a behaviour. Any behaviour stems from an emotion brewing underneath. Parents rather than correcting the child, getting disappointed in the child or judging the child should first look at the root of this behaviour. Are they angry, annoyed or feeling guilt. Explore their emotions, the dynamics they engage in in different environments outside home, know their emotional needs and co-regulate. Connection before correction always works when it comes to teaching and strengthening right behaviours. Meeting the arrogance with a stern look or a cold word will only shut the child down, keep them emotionally volatile and alone in their struggle and encourage more such behaviour. Now that Ishit Bhat has become popular for all the wrong reasons, it must have been a difficult phase for the parents and the child; the entire family to deal with the situation. The child may likely face backlash among peers or any other such situation may arise due to this. How should a child and a family handle such situations without suffering a mental setback? Flood them with empathy, nurture a culture of allowing mistakes. Every child deserves to make mistakes and learn as they grow to become their best selves. Nobody is perfect, especially not the ones who are the first to judge. Media reports have highlighted a ‘six-pocket-syndrome’ which is claimed to be a major factor. Can you explain how? Children thrive when there is consistency between their home and school environments. While schools often provide structure, routine, and clear expectations, some homes lack the same level of guidance. When children return to unstructured or unsupervised settings, confusion can arise, leading to boredom, poor self-control, or even aggression. Early boundary-setting—starting as young as age one or two—is crucial. Children need to be gently but firmly taught what is and isn’t acceptable, such as not hitting or pushing. Just as important is parental modeling. When adults handle conflict calmly and communicate respectfully, children learn to do the same. Daily conversations, shared chores, and emotionally supportive routines help children develop empathy, discipline, and resilience. However, a growing concern in today’s families is the "Six Pocket Syndrome"—a term referring to the overindulgence of children by six adults: two parents and four grandparents. While love and attention are essential, when paired with a lack of discipline, this can foster entitlement, low frustration tolerance, and emotional immaturity. What advice would you give to the parents today? Studies show that children raised with both warmth and structure—what psychologists call "authoritative parenting"—develop stronger self-regulation, confidence, and social skills. Besides, children today often bear the burden of early emotional complexity and pressure to perform way before they are physically and mentally to do so. Rather than placing blame, we must ask: Are we giving children the space to be children? Are we letting them grow slowly, explore their inner worlds, and feel safe in their bodies, free from pressure to perform or impress? Parents and caregivers must strike a healthy balance: providing love and support while also setting clear limits. With consistency and care, children can grow into respectful, resilient, and emotionally intelligent individuals.

RSS and the Communists: A Parallel Journey of Two Opposing Ideologies

Madhav Bhandari
Oct 12
5 min read

Part 1: Exactly a century ago, the RSS and the Communist Party of India were founded within months of each other. The first of a three-part series examines how the two entities charted opposing courses in shaping the nation’s political mind.

**RSS founder K.B. Hedgewar with other Sangh leaders in 1939.**

This year marks one hundred years since the founding of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Coincidentally, it is also around this time that the Communist Party of India completes its own century of existence. These two ideological streams represent the extreme poles of India’s social and political life. Their philosophical foundations, methods of functioning, loyalties, and ultimate goals stand in stark opposition to each other. That such diametrically opposed ideologies should have arisen at almost the same moment in history is a striking coincidence.

As both the RSS and the Communists mark their centenaries together, a comparative examination of their journeys becomes necessary. Such a study can illuminate the progress — or decline — of India’s political thought and organization over the past century. What follows is my own preliminary and broad attempt at such a comparison.

Let us begin with their founding.

Early days

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was established in 1925, on the day of Vijayadashami (Dussehra, 27 September), in Nagpur. The initiative was led by the late Dr. K. B. Hedgewar, with the participation of several prominent Hindutva-minded individuals from Nagpur and the wider Vidarbha region. Some among them held senior positions in the Congress. Notably, however, not a single Englishman or foreigner was present at the founding.

Before creating the RSS, Dr. Hedgewar had been actively engaged in the freedom struggle through the Congress. A staunch follower of Lokmanya Tilak, he served as the General Secretary of the Vidarbha Congress. After Tilak’s death, however, he found himself unable to accept the political line adopted by the Congress. He withdrew from the party and went on to found the RSS. This sequence of events is historically well-attested and documented; there has never been any dispute over it.

At its very inception, it was made clear that the organization would remain completely apart from politics and political activity, working solely for social and national rejuvenation. Its declared aims were to unite Hindu society, revive India’s national character on the strength of that unity, and strive for the creation of a united, prosperous, and powerful India.

There are sharp disagreements regarding the exact details of the founding of the Communist Party of India. Different dates and events between 1920 and 1925 are cited in this context. On 17 October 1920, the Communist Party of India was established in Tashkent, Russia, at the initiative of M. N. Roy. Present on the occasion were Roy’s English wife Evelyn Trent Roy, Avani Mukherjee, Roza Fitingof, Mohammad Ali, Mohammad Shafiq, and several others — including a few prominent British communists. However, the Communist Party of India (CPI) does not recognize this event as its official founding. They consider 26 December 1925 as their foundation day, because on that date the first Communist Party conference was held in Kanpur. At that conference too, M. N. Roy, his wife Evelyn Trent Roy, and several British and Russian delegates were present.

**M.N Roy (centre) with Lenin (front) and Maxim Gorky (behind Lenin) in Moscow, 1920.**

Yet, a large section of communists in India does not consider the Kanpur conference to mark the party’s true birth. Their reasoning is that between 1920 and 1923, a number of small and large communist groups had already been formed in different parts of India. Around the same time, trade unions claiming to work on Marxist principles had also been established in several places. These organizations were primarily concentrated in the provinces of Bombay, Madras, United Provinces, Punjab, Sindh, Orissa, and Bengal. All such groups eventually came together at the Kanpur conference. The CPI(M) maintains that because these groups united there to formally establish the Communist Party of India, 26 December 1925 should be considered the official foundation day. Meanwhile, supporters of other factions continue to regard the founding dates of their own groups as the true birth of the Communist Party in India.

In short, there is considerable disagreement among communists themselves about when exactly the party was founded. But 26 December 1925 is the final date in this debate; if that date is taken into account, the Communist Party was founded just two months after the RSS. Accordingly, its centenary also begins this very year.

Class struggle

From the day of its inception, the Communist Party of India was part of the global communist movement. Its declared aim was to foment class struggle in India, wrest political power and wealth from the capitalists and landlords, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. They had no acceptance of any form of democracy. Alongside this, they held another distinct belief: that “India is not one country, not one nation, but a collection of sixteen to eighteen nations.” Indian communists claimed that this conclusion was based on the country’s linguistic and caste diversity — though in reality, this argument had long been advanced by certain English thinkers, and the Indian communists merely presented it as their own.

According to them, communities speaking Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Bengali, Odia, Gujarati, Sindhi, Punjabi, and Kashmiri, as well as religious communities like Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians, were all separate nations. But there was no mention of the Hindus in this enumeration. Just as they argued that “India is not one country,” they also declared — based on what they called “deep study” — that “there is no such religion as Hinduism.” They believed that all these various “nations” should come together voluntarily to form a “Union of India.” But before that could happen, they considered it their foremost duty to “liberate” each of these nations from what they called India’s slavery.

In simple terms, their declared objective — then and now — was to break India into sixteen to eighteen separate parts.

The RSS, by contrast, was founded with the purpose of creating a united, integral, strong, and prosperous India. Not a single foreign power or individual participated in the RSS’s founding. In the case of the Communist Party, however, British and Russian individuals and institutions played a major role. The RSS functioned on the basis of the meagre contributions it received from its sympathizers, while from its very inception, the Communist Party received generous funding from Russia and England. In addition, the British government itself regularly provided money to the communists.

As we shall see, the dependence ran deeper than money. The CPI’s political line often shifted with the twists of Soviet foreign policy — opposing the Indian National Congress in one decade, aligning with it in another, condemning the Second World War as imperialist before abruptly supporting it after Hitler’s invasion of the USSR. This opportunism betrayed the party’s subservience to Moscow rather than loyalty to Indian realities.

While the RSS sought to build a movement rooted in India’s civilizational identity, the Communists were entangled in ideological and financial strings that ran through London and Moscow — a foreign tether that would shadow their politics for decades.

[Tomorrow, we examine the relations of the RSS and the Communists with the British government and the Congress, following Independence.]

(The writer is Vice-President, BJP Maharashtra, former Chief State Spokeperson of the BJP, Maharashtra and Director, Vilasrao Salunke Adhysan (Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini). He is also the author of several books including a noted work on Ayodhya.)