Letting go

During our session on Social impact management by Ms Anita Rego, I was struck by one particular point she mentioned early in her presentation. 

She spoke about respecting the life of the beneficiaries whom we reach out to and often make a remarkable contribution in alleviating pain and suffering.  She said that once we make this intervention, at times over years and varied means, and the individual is free of that what stifled his or her growth and life, we must let that life grow by itself.  Just because we have made a difference in the life that individual does not mean that the person has to be indebted to us for the rest of his/her life.  I do not 'own' that person.  He/she is totally free to live his/her life on his/her own terms.  Neither do I have to feel entitled to his/her decisions or plans nor has that individual to feel 'burdened' under our 'charity'. 

The young leading the way

When Don Bosco was writing the regulations for the oratory of St Francis de Sales and the rules for the fledgling Salesian congregation, he adopted varied tactics.  When it came to the oratory itself, he was no stickler for rules.  But he did write down 'guidelines' more as a reflection and help to others working with him, rather than as a formal code book.  That he had to greatly alter this style, he learnt it the hard way, while writing and submitting his Rules for the congregation to the Vatican. 

Another aspect that comes out more strikingly in his guidelines for the oratory (more than the boarding schools, which came under the jurisdiction of the State and needed formal approval) is the direct engagement of the young people themselves in the everyday running of the house.  While it is true that there were priests and teachers and Don Bosco himself, but it was the boys themselves who were actively involved in the running of the place.

Young people need to be trusted and given responsibilities, rather than shielded from them.  One of my own greatest learnings and joys at Navajeevan, Ramanthapur was this pedagogy of letting boys take charge of things. These boys (just like most of those with Don Bosco then) were already living their life out on the street - all on their own.  They certainly knew what decision-making means, especially the consequences of them.  Adding my trust to their abilities and giving them that freedom made a huge difference to the way things were carried out in the house. 

Parenthood and unconditional love

Listening to Fr Jose Plascencia speak about the fatherhood of Don Bosco, I was struck by two of his points towards the end of his presentation.  He made a significant point trying to relate God the Father's unconditional love and human fatherhood, equally applicable to motherhood as well. 

In every type of human love, there is a prior knowledge of the person being loved, except in one.  Parents love their son or daughter even before he or she has a face or a name, even before they know whether it will be a boy or a girl.  This rather universal dimension of parental love comes close to the unconditional love of God for his children. 

The second aspect is that the love of a father or mother is not at all indifferent to the response of the son or daughter, but it does not depend on the response.  Parents love their children no matter what.  Even if they know that their son or daughter is turning to evil and unrighteous, one cannot really get a parent to wish evil upon them. 

As I listened to these points I was wondering if as a Salesian we can ever be a 'father' to the children we take care of, especially those orphaned or abandoned, like in our Navajeevans.  One really needs a different kind of heart to really love.  And if we do not make every effort to acquire that heart, we would be making a joke of the prayer of consecration we recite every morning.  

Child and the family

On March 3, 2018, the Times ran an interesting article titled 'When good intentions lead to awful crimes'.  It was about the child migrants who were sent to New Zealand and Australia years ago.  The whole concept was to populate the British colonies with children from Britain so as to ensure the population remains white (mostly).  The whole endeavour was to ensure that the best civilization (read that as English culture) would prevail.  It was not done out of fear that the English would be wiped out or over run.  The enterprise was taken up at the height of the English mentality that the sun would never set on the mighty empire!! 

The exporting of children as colonial seed corn dates back to 1618 when 100 destitute children were sent to the fledgling colony of Virginia. By the time the last party of child migrants arrived in Australia in 1967 more than 130,000 children had been removed to Canada, New Zealand, Rhodesia and Australia. 

What actually happened 400 years ago was in a way charitable: boys, orphaned and abandoned or not from affluent families or from broken families, in Britain were taken to Australia with the idea of giving them a better future and a chance to carry on the 'English legacy' in the Down under. 

A child brought up in the bracing colonial climate would, it was believed, learn the value of hard work and escape from the corrupting influence of the slums. 

While what actually happened to these thousands of children remains far from the ideal or normal, the intention of those who approved and endorsed this enterprise was noble - as per the times. Even when the programme ended it was not because of moral issues but because the empire itself was waning.

The author does not condemn the whole programme but picks up the lesson to be learnt: need for rigorous follow up of charities.  Rightly so.  Passing moral judgement on the past by the standards of the present is meaningless.

Today, the idea that children could be removed from their families, lied to and dumped in the hands of strangers seems utterly iniquitous.The science of child psychology (which only emerged in the 1920s) has taught us that a child brought up in a family, even a poor and dysfunctional one, is almost always happier than one with no family at all. 

Teachers and guns: a nauseating combo

Recently Donald Trump, the US president strongly advocated arming the teachers to combat shootouts in schools!  At first I thought it was a joke!  But he was serious and sure about it producing better results: preventing any further shoot outs. His logic: any intruder will not dare step into a place where he knows he is going to be shot at.  However I realised I needed to put down my thoughts as to why this idea is not only bizarre, absurd but nauseating.  Apart from the evident political gain of upsetting the pro-gun lobby, why is this proposal wrong...

Education is meant to equip students with a sense of meaning and purpose for their life.  It is meant to help them form not just their heads but their hearts and hands as well.  If one overseeing such an endeavour is carrying a firearm what message does it carry for the students?? 

• That violence is normal.  Rather than advocate and work towards peace, the teacher becomes a living symbol of violence and fear.  In an era when physical punishment is seen as detrimental to the growth of the child, how can carrying a gun be seen as helpful?  
• Imagine the trauma of a child watch a teacher kill a student, a fellow classmate - however wrong the latter may be!  
• A teacher is not a soldier.  He or she is not moulded to take lives but build lives. Those teachers who laid down their lives saving their students from bullets are hailed as heroes.  That's what teachers do - save and help grow.  Not shoot and kill! 
• What if a disgruntled teacher decides to open fire in his or her classroom?  
• How does having more guns prevent shootouts?  The only thing it would lead to is an increase in the possibility of a shootout.  
• Rather than see how troubled children and youngsters can be helped to grow up healthy, the proposal suggests to eliminate them! 
  

While I sympathize with the parents, relatives and friends of those children and staff killed in the recent Florida school shootout, my heart also goes out to the youngster who carried out the brutal attack and his family.  The larger question that needs to be addressed is how does one ensure that young people do not end up so depressed that they have no other means than the gun to resort to? 

Don Bosco and the sacrament of reconciliation

In my reading in preparation for the talk on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I came across this book by Gianni Asti (translated by Fr Ian Doulton) titled Don Bosco the Confessor of his boys.  It is an interesting book chronicling the dynamics that showed the bond of Don Bosco and his boys, especially around the confessional. 

As part of my reading also realised that of the three lives that Don Bosco wrote during his lifetime, that of Dominic Savio, Mickey Magone and Francis Besucco, one common feature in all those biographies was a chapter dedicated to Confession and the sacrament of Reconciliation. 

The most striking thing among all these narrations from the life of Don Bosco is the familiarity that the boys felt with Don Bosco.  For most of these boys there was no one in the world.  For some they were far away and most often not in good terms with. Just like those in our navajeevans, the home for street children.  Yet in Don Bosco, they found one whom they could trust.  They were at home with him.  That feeling of having someone in whom one can fully trust, can confide, be oneself, is truly empowering.  No wonder, Mother Teresa used to refer to loneliness as the worst disease.  

Adults at risk

Today was the Safeguarding Policy day for half of the GBR Province.  We were at Farnborough for the animation and presentation.  It was good again to meet many of the confreres of the south, especially those at Farnborough.

What I found most interesting of the animation today was the morning session which focused on 'adults at risk'!  Well all these years I had heard and very much been part of the discussion on 'young at risk', but never once did I ever hear of 'adults at risk' (except when Thathi was elected as provincial someone was pulling his leg and saying, now we have TaR - Thathi at risk!).  But having lived in the English context especially the present state of the GBR Province and its outreach, it made sense to me.  Taking care of those vulnerable - whatever the age group.  Mostly it was about vulnerability regarding physical ill-health and mental well-being.  The second half of the day was about the dangers faced by children in the digital world.  The latest report on children and internet states that 98% of 7-16 year olds have access to internet across the UK.  And most of these are active users of the latest apps.  Messaging and sharing information, pictures and whereabouts seem to be the most engaged activity.

Another thing that caught my attention: The stark difference in our approach to dealing issues with young people and children between the 'western' mindset and the 'eastern' mindset was visible to me in our discussions. There were a couple of us non-Europeans and in our response to certain case studies we found it most important for the family to take to first step with regard to teenagers and growing children.  In our own groups we found ourselves stating the same possible immediate responses: a calm dialogue with the teenager, asking the youngster to invite his or her friends home for a party together with the family, sitting and talking together as a family... Others felt the school and existing systems/structures needed to be initiated or approached for handling the issues.

Immigration and YaR

The current discussion mode and mood about immigration has great similarities with our Salesian work with street children.

From my little experience and association with the work for and with the young at risk, I don't think I'll be wrong to say that initially the work was not at all recognised as a Salesian work.  Slowly it gained momentum and then it picked up fast.  More Salesians joined in seeing the need at hand.  It reached a sort of climax where it was hailed as truly ennobling.  It is also at this time that what we did for the children was offer them shelter and education.  The focus was on the institutional set up (though of course, when it began it was anything but institutional!).  The children were catered to.  There were attempts made to rehabilitate the children back with their own families but I'm not sure if that was the primary task. Then came the age of experimentation with trying to 'create' family like atmosphere within the institution.  So there were couples entrusted with a certain number of children but all living in the campus.  That really did not work.  Then came the era of introspection which brought the realization that institutional help is to be the last resort.  The first task is to make sure the child has a safe childhood in its own family.  We are yet to truly understand and get into this mode because we are now still stuck with our institutions!

The same 'evolutionary' process is what I see in the whole debate about immigration.  Unfortunately it is still in one of the first levels of growth: 'what to do with the immigrants?'  Rather than address the root of immigration and thereby address it, the discussion is mostly about offering (or not offering) the immigrants the right to entry, stay and work.  

Novena to Don Bosco: Reason for our Existence

Novena to Don Bosco

(Remembering DON BOSCO and the significant people who shaped his life and works) 

Day 7: Youth 

(His Heartbeat) 

REASON FOR OUR EXISTENCE 

“... that part of the human society which is so exposed and yet so rich in promise.” 

(Constitutions of the Society of St Francis De Sales, No. 1) 

I owe you my life. Be sure of it: from now on I will spend it entirely for you. 

Don Bosco's solemn perpetual promise soon after he miraculously recovered, from certain death in 1846... thanks to the fervent prayers and wishes of his 'dirty little rascals'. 

For you I study, for you I work, for you I live, for you I am even ready to give my life. 

Don Bosco's words to his poor boys, those under his care and for whom he was willing to go to any length. 

Don Bosco used to go begging in the city of Turin for the maintenance of his poor boys. At one place, when Don Bosco extended his hand asking for some help for his boys, the man spat on it. "This is for me," Don Bosco said calmly and extending the other hand, said... "Now for my poor boys!" The other person was so touched, that he remained a generous benefactor of Don Bosco all his life.
(Click here to download the pdf file for display)

Learning from St Francis de Sales

Today we commemorate the feast of St Francis de Sales.  Besides being the founder of the MSFS, he is venerated as the patron of the Salesians of Don Bosco.

Stained glass arcade of St Francis de Sales at Saint Paul Catholic Church (Westerville, Ohio)

When Don Bosco founded his congregation for the youth at risk, his natural choice of St Francis de Sales was not an impromptu decision.  It was out of a personal and historical resonance with the Saint that made Don Bosco propose St Francis de Sales as the patron.  Of all the virtues of St Francis, what attracted Don Bosco and something which moulded his own life, was the virtue of self-discipline.  St Francis is renowned for his gentleness and meekness. However, he was not 'born' with those virtues.  He had to strive to excel in them.  Don Bosco was much worse.  He was short-tempered, rebellious, hard-headed and as stubborn as a mule.  Don Bosco himself acknowledges these vices in his life.  And with this baggage he could not have done much for the kids to whom he was keen to reach out to.  For they too were of similar character!  Don Bosco then makes the difficult choice: to change himself in order to be useful to the boys whom he loved most. In this arduous task of working on oneself, he chose St Francis de Sales.  Though, honestly speaking, he did not have as much a success as did St Francis, but there was considerable change.

Living our religious life

An emphasis and reminder of living our religious life as it is supposed to be... not interpreted and squandered!

It is not enough to live the vows: we are called to live them in such a way that we become transparent, visible, joyful signs of the life of the resurrection. Signs are either visible or they are not signs at all. In our being Salesian Brothers or Salesian Priests lies all the wealth of the gift that we are called to bring to the young and to the people of the 132 countries in which we live.  Together we are the Don Bosco that they meet.  

Working together?

One concrete thing we, the members of the Salesian family, can actually work on is the target group of our apostolate.  Not that it is unknown but why are we so blind to it. It had ocurred to me earlier while at Ramanthapur but now it flashed across my mind more vividly today.  As part of our work at Ramanthapur, we also look after girl children in distress. Of course it is at Hayathnagar.

I wondered then (when I first visited the place) and more so today.  Why on earth should we take up this task?  Especially when there are Salesian Sisters running two centres that too just beside our own centres at Bhoiguda and Uppal for exactly the same category of children - girls in distress or in need of care and protection. We could easily direct whenever there is a case, to the FMAs.

And as if that itself is not sufficiently illogical and insane, desperately search for and invite Sisters from other congregations to take care of the girls' home!! 

Feastdays with children

I never really could fully comprehend the following extract from Don Bosco's autobiography Memoirs of the Oratory of Saint Francis De Sales, (p 115)... not until my stay at Ramanthapur!

On the feast of All Saints, Dr Borrelli and I prepared to hear confessions. But everybody wanted to make their confession; what could we do? There were more than two hundred children but only two confessors.  One boy was trying to light a fire; another decided to put it out. The one brought wood, the other water. Buckets, tongs, shovel, jug, basin, chairs, shoes, books - everything was turned topsy-turvy while they were trying to tidy things up! 

Perhaps my formal, organised and structured living in the formation house prevented me from really understanding this scene.  How could there be so much of a confusion?

It was not until I reached Ramanthapur, the rehab home for street children and started involving the boys in preparation for feast days or major celebrations that I not only understood this scene but became a first hand witness to it.  Those boys would be so eager to do anything you ask them to do!!  They only wanted to be part of the ongoing preparations and celebrations.  The greatest punishment would be to ask them to sit quiet!  Entrusted with a responsibility, boys would go to any extent to see that the task is done - even though in the process greater damage is done in another field or portion of the house!  If two of them are assigned to laying the carpet on the stage, they would make sure it is there - but don't ask what became of the backdrop which was worked on for more than a week and was already in place, until these two masters arrived on scene!

Their excitement and goodwill would be brimming over and one cannot even scold them for causing a greater monetary or physical damage.  Even if one did scold, the boy would only be perplexed for just a short while, with that strange look, "What wrong could I have done?" And before you know it, the excitement of the boy has doubled and he shoots off, assuring you, "Don't worry Brother, I'll do it better this time!"  Oh, boy!

That the event itself goes on smoothly and there is no real catastrophe (that the buildings at least are in their own place) is in itself a great miracle under these circumstances.

All said and done, it is worth the risk and perhaps the only meaningful way of truly celebrating a feast with the boys! 

Choices

Speaking of choices, i couldn't but notice the plethora of choices my own nephew and niece have at home.  I say this in comparison with my boys at DBNJ Ramanthapur.  Not that the boys at Ramanthapur had no choices absolutely, but in very many matters my nephew and niece have abundant choices. Be it in matter of food, clothing, recreation and toys or in more profound things as education.

Mummy would ask them individually practically before every meal, what they wanted for meals.  Very often half way through her preparation of the asked menu, a different 'order' would reach the kitchen - that too loud and clear from the comfort of the living room with the TV remote in hand and eyes glued to the TV!  Compare that with my boys at Ramanthapur: they get what is served! They hardly have a say.  Almost a similar tale about other things as well.

So I wonder, which is better: having multiple options to choose from or limited options?  Or perhaps the question should be what makes one better: Choices or Choosing?  Of course the act of choosing itself is a great teacher.

Preventing theft vs Preventing becoming robbers

After two grueling days of doing all sorts of things and thoughts and loosing my peace of mind, and sleep and even temper over the growing tendency of theft and thieving by the boys, among themselves, tonight's goodnight was the climax.  Not that it is now over! It is just a beginning but a collective effort now.  Not individuals working for different purposes and ends but collectively arriving at a decision to curb theft.

While I had a discussion with all the boys (all 110 of them) and most of the caretakers, I kept saying to myself that the goal is not merely to prevent theft or robbery, but to help boys stay clear from becoming robbers!  As the instances of theft having been rising, I also realised that the 'new' thieves caught were once victims.  They now felt forced to 'join the gangs' or wanted to take revenge!  Therefore I was keen on forming character than merely preventing some random acts.

The easiest solution would be to lock it all up and intensify the scrutiny and "policing" but that's only a prevention of an act not the formation of character.  My focus therefore was on appealing to the conscience while ensuring that certain procedures and policies are in place.

Of prodigal sons and fathers

The last three weeks or so have been quite interesting here at Ramanthapur.  Among the many things that keep happening, a new phenomena was the return of the 'prodigal sons'.  More than a couple of boys, seniors who took off some months ago at different times and with no apparent (stated) reasons, began to return.  These boys were among the "leaders" cadre among the boys.  Their departure did create some flutter in the community then.  So did their return!  Several boys who thought that those who took off have made it big, were quite humbled and in a way surprised to see them return all lost and weary.

While many in the community, confreres, staff and students rejoiced at this 'ghar wapsi', I found it quite unsettling.  While other saw it as a sign of our greatness to be able to attract the boys back home, I saw it as a drawback.  For me it basically meant that we "successfully" made them into cocoons, rather than help them find their wings and take off.  Rather than make it on their own, we have incapacitated them so badly that they cannot survive in the world on their own. Imagine:  a child from the street now is not able to live in the society, in spite of having some skill or trade or profession to follow.

For once, I'm unable to fathom the meaning of the parable of the Prodigal son, in this context!

Identifying children in need of care and protection

A couple of days ago we had a review meeting of one of the commissions of the Province.  While discussing a particular point, the issue of admission of children to our YaR (young at risk) centres came up.  After a couple of minutes, one of the directors asked, "Don't you let CWC (Child Welfare Committee) decide that?"

I found that very relevant and apt.  Letting the CWC screen properly and admit only those children who really are in need of care and protection be admitted in such institutions as our YaR settings, would entail that our YaR settings really be YaR settings and not any general boardings.

As of now, any child with or without parents, in special situation or not, willing or not, will be "seduced" into the institution!  The major disadvantage of such a faulty procedure is that children who really need 'care and protection' (as a group designated by the JJ Act) will not get the same owing to the 'mixed' group of children living in the house.  Perhaps linked with this itself is the 'stigma' that the children with families have now to bear as 'orphans and street children'!

Visitors to DBNJ

Yesterday and today we had a string of visitors and sponsors... of various things and sorts.  Some sponsoring food, some cash, some clothes, some sweets, some offered books, some stationery and some basically to enquire about the possible modes of involvement.  It is rather taxing to meet them all and worse still is the amount of time that is consumed in speaking and interacting with these guests. While on the one hand, it is a good sign that people would like to get involved in the lives of these children in their own ways.  However, on the other hand, some do it out of pity.  That's quite pitiful!  Such 'pity' acts I always discourage and brush away.  Because that truly belittles the children, of which I do not approve.  I'd like to give the child an integrity and dignity which it is due... not some pity.  I aim to help children grow with pride and honour, able to ride upon their own confidence and not on someone else's leftovers.

One thing that sponsors first observe among our children is the spontaneity and their joy at being here.  No long faces or sad looks.  They are at home with the staff, with us Fathers and Brothers, and among themselves too.  They need not act before guests and put up a facade, like in some other childrens' homes.  They are the same as everyday, every other time.

(the temptation to take snaps of these guests always tugs at my hands but I resist... would like to keep the focus on the children) 

Participatory Action Research

The three days of training programme in Participatory Action Research (PAR) at Ramanthapur were enriching days.  I am happy I chose to be part of the same.  (More about it, read here).

Personally, I learnt most...

• That participation, includes the “last” in the group too! 
• I also got to know the names and some thing about the lives and works of people working with the YaR centres, some for decades of years! 
• Perhaps this method is more needed in a formation setting than a YaR setting. The rationale is that if Brothers see this in action and are involved in this exercise, they would automatically live it out in their own places of apostolate, wherever they are. Then we would not need to train the YaR sector, every sector would slowly but surely adopt this strategy.  (However, this entails that PAR be understood as a strategy, rather than another course to be completed!)
• Better we start to learn and enjoy working with lay people before it is too late and say, “We should have better prepared them, earlier.”
  

At home?

I've been trying to decipher as to why the 'participation model' works best in a home for street children, and not so well in a formation setting, at least in the Philosophate.  My analysis may be too raw or biased.  All the same I feel it is something that needs to be taken into consideration.

A child from the street, is very enthusiastic and most importantly responsible, when it comes to partaking with the caretakers in decision making, especially those decisions that affect him.  Perhaps this is because the child or the youngster knows from first hand experience what it means to make a choice and then bear the consequences of the same.  The choice to leave home and take to the streets was his and so were the consequent consequences of his choice.  He has that learning experience.  So now when you offer him a share in making decisions, perhaps even guided decisions, he still will very well be aware that the consequences of that decision or choice are going to be facing him sometime or the other.

A young man moving into the formation house, too leaves home to either become a Priest or a religious.  But hold on, does he?  Or has he moved from one house to another? Does he really accept the consequences of that choice of leaving home and live accordingly?  Or does he demand and expect the 'new' home to provide him with better facilities than the one he left?  Is he challenged enough to 'make a home' rather than merely enjoy the security the present home provides to slip into a comfortable life of ease?  To one who has never made any further choices, nor faced the consequences of the first choice, to such a youngster 'participation' would only mean a cushion to make his life - and his life alone - comfortable.