Ergo, it takes a village to raise a child.

A: An entire nation, it would appear. One has seen the law through three governments, in itself evidence that large parts of the village aren’t working too well. At one point, things got very rough. Individuals and private citizens had to do more than their bit. Yet, even after it seemed to be done, since POCSO had been passed as a full-fledged independent law, an identical anti-teen agenda raised its head within 9 months. It was somewhat surreal; a few ministers who had supported POCSO were, within less than a year, preferring to be influenced by a subgroup. Some of this sub-group receive foreign funding for their ‘awareness’ activities and can be very vocal. The bizarreness was in watching those ministers posturing on TV, pandering to what they preferred to see as populism, when in point of fact it was an alternate agenda-led issue which pointedly ignored—when not thwarting—the greater good of all.

Fortunately, the national debate pre-POCSO had been comprehensive; right-thinking individuals in parts of the media had done their bit in disseminating balanced information to their viewers and readers, bless their numbers and their resolve! Therefore when several people—especially from the middle-class—felt compelled to step up and speak with complete clarity, it was effectively conveyed. Some also chose to engage directly with law-makers, including the politicians. To the credit of political party leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, they ensured the honouring of Atal Behari Vajpayee’s original intent while conserving Sonia Gandhi’s commitment to the children from birth to 18 years of age. Ironical that it should take the opposition to buttress the courage of her convictions which some of her own party-persons were out to wreck. Further evidence, perhaps, that the village is indeed outof-whack.

On protection for the nation’s future citizens.

A: Never has one been more convinced of CPUs and CPCs (see chapter ‘Child protection units’) and not just for sexually but all children in distress. At one of the meetings around POCSO, a senior policeman metaphorically washed his hands off by saying it would be best if sexually abused children could be whisked away, so to speak, by non-governmentwallahs for all follow-up. He had no answer when questioned, ‘Since they too have paedophiles in their midst, who will then police them?’ He had a point about citizen-unfriendly police stations and the style of questioning in which the police believe themselves to be supreme. But to assume that the very real concerns of our children can be, sort-of, farmed out is appalling. It is absolute arrogance in refusing to understand that the middle-class—which pays all its dues thereby forming India’s backbone; pays its taxes which pays the salaries of politicians and policemen—deserve both, action and accountability.

Then there was the upper-class male gynaecologist who also washed his hands off his own children saying parents can’t be protectors. He was arguing for consensual sex from the age of 16, that it be lowered from 18. He, like a few ‘women’s groups’, knew that a lowering of the consent age would: