Mrs. Chatterjee vs Norway: bringing up children in a globalizing world order
Virat Divyakirti (virat.divyakirti@gmail.com | @ViratTweets)
Strange are ways of surveillance in this town
The watchman locked up my loved ones
Recently the film Mrs. Chatterjee vs Norway (short - MCvsN) has come to the limelight. The film was released on 17 March in India as well as in many other countries of the world. The film is based on a true incident. If I use the English word pair reel-real, I could say that 11 years ago when the real development was at its peak in Norway, I was standing in the middle. I am originally from north India and had reached Stavanger Norway by the end of 2009 rolling from Denmark, UK. In 2011, when I heard the news that the children of 'Bengalis' had been taken away by Barnevern (Norwegian Child Protection Department) then as a father of a one-year-old daughter I paused and I was curious to understand what caused this disaster. What is the nature of this calamity and could I help this couple, that comes from my own country, in distress in any way? Today they are struggling with this problem, tomorrow we could also find ourselves in a similar situation. I established a rapport with Anurup and Sagarika (whose story has been portrayed in the movie) and provided whatever little support I could. I was also happy that the crisis was averted in April 2012 when the children reached India safely. The story of Sagarika and Anurup went on like other household stories in India and I had lost interest.
Those reacting to MCvsN can be divided into three groups. The first group sees the film as an attack on Norway and its culture, rather than on the actions of a single institution in Norway. In this group, we have people who hold the responsibility of protecting and promoting Norway’s image and as well as a few immigrants who have now made Norway their home. They do not like the dissonance caused by this movie. Leading this view, Norway's ambassador to India, H.E. Mr. Hans Jacob Frydenlund, writes in his opinion piece (Indian Express, 18 March 2023) that the film is fictional and does not reflect reality. Norwegian institutions are not such nincompoops that they will pick up a child for hand-feeding or co-sleeping. His article does not mention that there are 39 cases pending in the European Court of Human Rights similar to the issue raised in the movie.
The second group comprises those who have been victimized by the protective shield that Barnevern has given to their children and some children (who are now adults) who were protected by Barnevern from their own parents. People of this group say that what is shown in MCvsN is exactly the same as what goes on in reality. Moreover, Barnevern can impose even more crude measures in the name of child protection. Statistically, the chances of being eligible for this type of protective shield are four times higher for Norway-based immigrant families than for an average family. But it is not that most of the people echoing this tone on social media are immigrants, there you will often find people of Norwegian background raising their voice. Marius Reikerås, Rune Fardal and Tonje Omdal are just a few of the many activists determined to change this system.
In the third category we can place all the others, ranging from the proletariat to the elite film critics. They have no direct interest in the subject matter of the film. The masses are enthralled by Rani Mukherjee's strong acting in the film and the sensitive subject matter of the narrative. The film ends on a happy note while leaving some tears rolling down viewers’ cheeks. Some film critics say that the director did not hold back in using literary devices such as exaggeration, polarization and conspiracy theories to give weight to the point of view. It is worth mentioning here that the film has been made keeping in mind the mainstream audience and in the process it has proved difficult to capture all the nuances.
Taking the theme of the film further, I would first like to comment on the name of the Norwegian organization Barnevern. My father used to say that a noun is good when it facilitates taking cognizance of the noun holder and at the same time it gives life mantra to the noun holder. It is wise that a name is more than a nominal label and provides a sense of the purpose and values. Personally, I understand child development or child welfare but child protection sounds incomplete. Child development is a comprehensive process that includes protection. Agencies that derive their agenda narrowly may become over-enthusiastic, develop tunnel vision, and become conceited about their role as Protectors.. No one can kill, one who is protected by Him. Brother, only the one above protects us.
Representatives of the first group and the second group are often heard clashing over issues such as cultural differences and use of violence to guide children. In this noise the basic question, regarding the essential qualities of the life cycle processes which take life from infancy to adulthood in an all-rounded way, is not heard. I propose here that an upbringing in which there will be defects in continuity, coordination-reciprocity and individualization, cannot promote all-round development of a child.
Continuity here means that every child is born with a civilizational and cultural heritage and she receives this heritage from her parents. When parents are unable to pass this heritage for any reason, then this responsibility rests with other adults available in parents' family and friends social circle and not with someone distant. When did a mango branch bear fruit on an orange tree? Here distant does not refer to physical distance, which in today's world is irrelevant. This importance of returning the care of a child, who has been orphaned by the force of nature or by the dint of man made laws, to those who are civilizationally and culturally closest to the parents is invoked by the dharmic principle of asteya, a prominent value in Hinduism and Jainism. Asteya is a component of the moral compass and asks us to not take what is not ours, not even responsibility. Coordination-reciprocity is not only related to the mutual complementarity of mother and father, which is particularly necessary in the early years of life, but it is also related to the coexistence of the family within the wider family and society. Family discord is an obstacle in coordination-reciprocity. The meaning of individualization here is that while remaining connected, the child now decides her own future journey and goes ahead. When a branch needs to spread, then it needs space where it can spread.
As I understand it, if any of these three qualities are lacking in a child's upbringing, an organization committed to children's welfare should step in to help fill that deficit. While filling this gap, the organization should keep in mind that its work should be based on the values of compassion, service, spirituality, altruism, pluralism, acceptance, continuity. Mission, vigilance, fanaticism, autocracy, insularity, imposition, opportunism should not confuse its program.
Rani Mukerjee enlivens the character of the heroine and presents the film to viewers wrapped in the restlessness of a distraught mother. The film is meaningful in the purpose of pulling the subject matter from the margins to the mainstream. The makers of the film deserve to be congratulated for giving life to such a sensitive subject with the finesse of professional movie making.
#MrsChatterjeeVsNorway #RaniMukerji #Norway #Parenting #ChildWelfare #NRI #HumanRights
