brand logo

Too young to protest, or never too early? 

18 Oct 2022

  • Parents weigh in on the debate over whether they are using their children as human shields
BY Sumudu Chamara Amidst a socioeconomic crisis that is seeing parents protesting against the Government in an attempt to secure a better future for their children, what are these parents expected to do with the children whose futures they are fighting for? One parent told The Morning: “At the moment, Sri Lankan parents of children under the age of 18 years have only two options – either keep children in their comfort zones at home, in the dark about the unpromising future that they are most likely to have, or, enlighten them about the true economic, social, and political situations in the country and guide them to be responsible citizens, seeking to change that situation as they grow up.” This comment sums up the dilemma among many Sri Lankan parents regarding whether they should participate alongside their children in anti-Government protests or refrain from exposing them to such activities until they legally become adults. In both cases, there is a common concern among parents as to what children’s participation or non-participation in protests would achieve. Even though these concerns are not new in the context of the “aragalaya” (the people’s struggle) movement, it has become a topic of contention, following the 9 October Galle Face protest where the Police took stern measures to arrest certain protestors who were carrying children with them. The incident led to a national-level debate on children’s right to participate in protests and the parents’ right to facilitate it and children’s safety.   Children’s right to fight for change    Children, according to the majority of the parents that spoke with The Morning, should have the opportunity to participate in protests, and thereby contribute to bringing about the economic, political, and social changes that would shape their own futures.  “I want my son to be a down-to-earth person, who is not only familiar with the prevailing situation in the country but is also willing to do something to set it right in his capacity,” mother of a 10-year-old male child, 35-year-old Janani Isanka (name changed on request), said. “Despite the fact that the country’s situation has gone from bad to worse, we do not have money or connections to migrate or send my child abroad. Sri Lanka is the only home we have. That is where we will most likely live until our deaths. Therefore, it is the duty of my husband and myself to make this a better place for our son and any child we may have in the future. At the same time, we as parents have a duty to ensure that our son knows the true situation of the country and is ready to live in it, especially in a context where he has no opportunity to leave the country. By taking our child to protests, we are just doing our part as parents.” A similar opinion was expressed by A. Nandana Samaratne, a 39-year-old father of a 12-year-old female child and a 14-year-old male child, who said that for better or for worse, fighting for change will be an inseparable part of children’s lives in the coming few decades.  “Whether we like it or not, the future is filled with struggles, mainly struggles to obtain food, proper education, and health services. Also, there will be a struggle for a sense of safety regarding children’s professional and personal lives. My children will have to face dire economic and social situations I did not have to face as a child. Therefore, they have to be members of a stronger generation than my generation was, and they have to learn to fight now in order to live a better life in the future. They have to learn what sort of changes and against whom they should fight. Although what we as parents can do is limited, every parent has a duty to ensure that their child is ready to face a future filled with struggles.” However, some parents opposed the idea of taking children to protests based on the children’s knowledge and understanding of what they participate in and questioned the expectations of what is to be achieved from children’s participation. “The ‘aragalaya’ must definitely go on, because of Sri Lanka’s ‘inguru deela miris gaththa’ (replacing something undesirable with a more undesirable thing due to the misguided belief that the latter would be better than the former – literally meaning ‘exchanging ginger for chilli’) mindset when they allowed then-Prime Minister and Acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe to replace then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The question is, what role children can play in the ‘aragalaya’,” said Janaka Perera (name changed on request), a 42-year-old father of three children between the ages of nine and 15 years.  Agreeing with the argument presented by parents that children should have a right to participate in peaceful protests as citizens of the country, Perera said that that is not the questionable aspect of this topic, but rather, the issue is regarding what children can contribute to protests.  “There is no question about the children’s right to see a better future. But most children that were seen in the photographs of protests and even the children I have seen in real life during protests are children who looked like they were younger than 12-13 years, who may be in Grade Seven or Eight in school. My question to these parents is – do you think your child fully understands what they participate in, because, if they do not understand it, it is tantamount to you guiding your child to do something that they might not want to do.  “It is equal to misguiding children, even if it is done in good faith. If your child is not old enough to fully understand that this is a protest against the Government, to bring about a change to the Government or leaders expected to remedy the economic and social crises, and most importantly that protests are likely to be attacked by the Police and the military and that therefore participating in protests could be risky, then you should not take your children to protests.  “Would you allow anyone else to make your child do something that they have no idea about? If you do not, why would you do it?”  He emphasised that while being patriotic citizens, parents should not forget to be responsible parents.   Safety concerns   The safety concern is at the centre of this discussion. While participating in a protest does not necessarily expose one to risks associated with clashes between law enforcement and security forces and protestors, given the fact that such clashes were quite prevalent during the first phase of the “aragalaya”, although parents endorse children participating in protests with knowledge of the nature of the protest, when it comes to safety, they expressed different opinions. When questioned as to whether taking children to protests is the best approach to familiarising children with the country’s prevailing situation given the risks associated with protests, Isanka said that children are already familiar with the current dire economic situation and are suffering heavily due to the same. What children should be exposed to now, according to her, is the idea that these economic situations could be changed for the better, and that people, including children, have to fight for it.  “The Government has no right to talk about children’s suffering. It is because of the Government, which consists mostly of members of the past Government that triggered the economic crisis, that my children are suffering without a proper meal, necessary stationery to study, or any kind of assurance about their future wellbeing. When the Government is talking about children’s safety, in reality, it is talking about its own safety. It feels threatened because of protests, and it feels restrained because it cannot direct the Police to hunt people down when there are children involved. So, it is trying to stifle protests by talking about children.” Meanwhile, Kishani Mekala, a 44-year-old mother of a 17-year-old female child, said that while challenging the Government’s actions that jeopardise the people’s safety is important, putting children at risk in that process is unacceptable.  “We all know that the Government is insensitive to the people’s concerns and safety, and that the Police and military officers follow any order that they receive with no regard to the people’s safety. Challenging such authoritarianism should be a part of the ‘aragalaya’ but not at the expense of the children’s safety. Our children are precious to us, not the Government, which is very good at shedding crocodile tears. After something has happened to our children, no amount of protests, complaints, legal actions, or tears can reverse that damage. In fact, in a country like Sri Lanka, proper legal action against politicians, or the Police or military officers, cannot be expected. I do not recommend taking children to protests, because, to the Police and military officers, our children are just another person and they do not care about human rights. The 9 October protest is not the first time that they dealt with children insensitively and people in general, and it will not be the last.” She further appealed to citizens to refrain from taking not only children, but also people who are not fully developed in terms of physical or mental state, to protests, noting that when it comes to protests, people cannot expect protection from the Police and the military. Safety or humane treatment during protests, however, is not just a matter that concerns children, according to several parents who spoke with The Morning. They were of the opinion that while children are special due to physical and mental capabilities associated with their age, safety should be a right of every citizen regardless of age or any other factor and that the Government is duty-bound to ensure that every citizen can enjoy that right.  “The fact that the Government is talking only about children’s safety at the hands of the Police implies that putting non-children (adults) at risk is not a cause for concern, is it not?” one parent questioned, adding that inhumane treatment at the hands of the authorities should be looked at as a human rights issue, not just a children’s rights issue.  In addition, in response to the question about the Government’s allegation that some parents are using children as a shield to protect themselves from law enforcement officers during protests, all aforementioned parents agreed that if that is the intention of bringing children to protests, then it is not acceptable and that such parents should be penalised for exposing their children to harm and for misusing their children. They said that that should however be done through a proper investigation, not based on the Government’s sentiments, which they said are politically motivated. In addition, some alleged that the Government has no right to talk about children’s safety at protests because the Government has already expressed its stance by attempting to penalise parents, not police officers who put children’s safety at risk.


More News..