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.

Was Michelle Bachelet selected for being critical against Modi?

While the BJP is projecting India’s rising global confidence, Congress continues its pattern of picking dubious international personalities

New Delhi: Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile (2006-10), receiving the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize is no accident. At the UNHRC, she repeatedly targeted India using familiar Left-liberal talking points. Congress celebrates her because she speaks the language their ecosystem wants the world to believe about India.


Michelle Bachelet is widely criticised in Chile for policies that destroyed Chile's economy. Due to her poor performance, Chile now sees a right-wing surge and she is the one now being showcased by the Congress ecosystem as a prize-worthy figure. While the BJP is projecting India’s rising global confidence, Congress continues its pattern of picking dubious international personalities simply to seek external approval. Instead of honouring genuine achievers, it turns to people with troubled records, revealing its persistent dependence on foreign validation.


When she criticised India after the removal of Article 370, she ignored how Kashmir finally gained equal rights and real integration. Congress used her remarks to claim India acted against democracy. It was never about human rights. It was always about political gain.


Her comments on the Delhi riots followed the same predictable line. She picked one side, overlooked the complete picture, and painted India as intolerant. Congress immediately held up her statements as validation, not because they were accurate, but because they helped them pressure the government.


She even went so far as to file a petition in India’s Supreme Court against the CAA. This was a clear intrusion into India’s sovereign decisions. Congress did not object. They welcomed it quietly because it suited their narrative.


Her remarks on NGOs and activists completely ignored national security threats, foreign funding issues, and coordinated anti-India campaigns. Congress embraced her version of events because it allowed them to question India’s institutions without taking responsibility.


During the farmers’ protest, she repeated incomplete and misleading claims about sedition cases. She did not acknowledge the way misinformation caused unrest on the ground. Congress again used its criticism to attack India internationally, even though it hurt the country’s image.


Her claim of “shrinking civic space” ignored the reality that India has one of the freest and most energetic public spheres in the world. Congress preferred her version because it helped them undermine India’s growth and confidence under PM Modi.


Her framing of “minority rights” followed a familiar script. It echoed the Congress narrative that Indian Muslims live in constant fear, something not supported by facts on the ground. Congress appreciated her stance because it aligned with their favourite political line.


She used the vocabulary of human rights as a political tool. Words like “concern” and “alarm” were used to shape a negative picture of India. Congress relied on her criticism to build an international echo for their own domestic politics.


Her background in socialist politics explains her discomfort with strong nationalist governments. Congress, unable to connect with the voters, found comfort in her worldview because it reflects their own political frustration.


Congress supporting Bachelet is not about honouring peace. It is about rewarding someone who consistently criticised India and helped validate their anti-BJP narrative. It reveals where their real interests lie.


Her accusation that India “marginalises Muslims” ignored constitutional safeguards, welfare measures, and equal opportunities. Congress used these statements to fuel its own story because it lacks widespread public trust.


Her criticism was selective and incomplete. It ignored the positive transformations taking place in India. Congress did not mind because selective criticism is the tool they depend on during political decline.


The core question is simple. Why would a national party reward someone who repeatedly undermined India’s decisions? The answer is equally simple. These criticisms are useful to Congress because they cannot win the people’s mandate.


In the end, this is not just about Michelle Bachelet. This is about Congress choosing to align with every voice that questions India, simply to attack the Modi government. While the BJP works to strengthen India’s global standing, Congress continues to lean on those who weaken it. And the people of India can clearly see the difference.

Comments

bottom of page