Whoever said parenting is easy

Both my grandmothers had at least seven kids each. I’m saying at least because I’ve heard various stats on how many kids each lost in various stages of babyhood and early childhood. The thathas went to court (both were lawyers) while the paatis cooked. A bale of dress material would be purchased before Deepawali and stitched into a pavadai for one daughter, a “half-drawer” for a son, “full-pant” for another, “sleeveless gown” for another daughter, etc. Next year, the finery would be passed down faithfully to the younger lot.

Education happened. Between the 7 kids, there would be 3 log books and 2 geometry boxes – these would get shunted across various classrooms in the course of the day. On both sides, I have aunts and uncles who were gold medalists as well as those who reached PUC (pre-university college, equivalent to today’s 11th standard) with great difficulty. Thathas and Paatis cared exactly two hoots for these achievements or lack of them. Parenting certainly seemed easier then.

I’ve been mighty upset over Scarlett Keeling’s death. If she’d been yet another tourist raped and killed, and had her family wept and left the country, I would’ve felt sorry for them and put it behind me. But in this case, I can’t. This tragic death is throwing up uncomfortable questions on parenting… how, how much, how long… the list is endless. The world is telling Scarlett’s mum Fiona MacKeown that she had been negligent. But this doctor-mother mentioned by Amrita was certainly not negligent – she took it to the other extreme. That made her a worse mother than MacKeown, I think. At least Scarlett is dead and hopefully her soul is resting in peace. This doctor woman’s daughter, on the other hand, will spend the rest of her life scarred.

Drawing the middle line seems the sensible solution. But where the f**k is the middle line? My son is nearly 14. He hops in and out of public transport buses and auto-rickshaws or trots cheerfully for miles together to attend his tuition classes. I’ve given his a mobile phone – an archaic model with not more than Rs. 10 worth of talktime – so that I know he’s safe when it’s 8 in the night and he isn’t home yet. Some of his friends’ mothers think I’ve given him a mobile a little too early. Who’s right here? On which count will I be accused of negligence:

1) If he’s hurt somewhere or is stuck in a place without access to transport and is not able to reach me because he doesn’t have a mobile
2) If he misuses his mobile – don’t ask me how, I’ve no idea

I’m also permanently at loss on how long a rope I should give him. TM is a strict, no-nonsense parent. He is as much a disciplinarian as he is a loving dad. I, on the other hand, let my kids get away with lesser discipline. I give more room for creative and independent thinking and choices. This lands me in a lot of trouble as we stay with our in-laws, who have pretty obsolete ideas on parenting. For instance, Paiyyan would occasionally want to eat from his school canteen, which is quite hygienic. MIL would oppose vociferously. My solution is to give him the money and ask him to help himself and fib to MIL that he’s taken lunch from home. I feel like a slimy worm after each such episode. I also feel guilty that I may be instilling very wrong lessons in my young son’s impressible adolescent head. But I honestly do not know the way out. If someone has read up to this paragraph and has a good suggestion to solve my problem, please, please do so. I shall be very grateful to you.

These are minor – and often imaginary – issues but have been bothering me on and off. The Scarlett murder has brought them into focus for me. Parental love, guilt, responsibility, negligence… all these are relative terms. Your concept of freedom is my very definition of negligence. Who am I to judge you? MacKeown does seem justified in insisting that her only sin was naivety.

But while my mind says all this my heart isn’t really able to digest the arguments. After all, the poor thing is dead. MacKeown says that Scarlett was never on drugs as the media reports claim, but there is some history of drugs in her family, as she herself has accepted with respect to her son. She knew that her well-endowed, teenaged daughter drank and was sleeping with a near-stranger, and was not really alien to drugs. So why on earth did she leave her alone in a foreign country? If this is not negligence, then what is? No, I’m not justifying what the tour guide and barmen did. I hope they are sentenced for 25 years, spend another 25 years in a leprosy home and later rot forever in hell – possible deep fried in Yama’s famed boiling oil. But nothing is going to give back MacKeown her pretty daughter.

If I sound illogical and incoherent and contradict myself in places, it’s because that’s precisely how I feel. Confused. The poor thing, about my child’s age, paid the price for her parent’s lifestyle with her own life.

If someone has actually read up to this, please throw some light on two things that puzzle me:

1) Ok, so they had to fill her up with drugs and rape her. But why the hell did they have to murder her? According to eye-witnesses, she was too stoned to be unwilling and was also not likely to commit suicide the next day – a la our Bharatiya naari – leaving behind a note on her modesty being outraged. So what was the reason for the murder?

2) What the hell does the Western media mean by “Why did you leave your daughter alone in a Third World country” or something to that effect? So how safe is your country for a teenaged, drunk, stoned 15-year-old? Didn’t Princess Diana get killed in a G7 country? Paparazzi, terrorists, rapists – if the end is death, it’s tragic.