The removal of a eight-year-old child, either from class or a day care centre due to a disability or circumstances as a fall out of disabilities, is always painful. While it is illegal and a violation of several rights, laws and statutes, nothing hurts more to the parent than the feeling that they were not in a position to protect their child from a situation of trauma.
It is widely settled that even children with disabilities, do not lose their sensibilities and in situations where they have been wronged or violated, they understand and react. Therefore when the Goa University decided that Nandkumar Kamat’s eight-year-old autistic should not be allowed to visit the day care centre of the University, meant for children of University employees, it should have acted like a parent and not like a keeper of a rule book.
The University may well argue that that is what they were doing since another child of an employee of the university was subject to a bout of violent behaviour from Dr Kamat’s young eight year old.
While there is no denying that the matter is sensitive, there can be no denying that the matter also needs sensitive handling. The University found a very convenient excuse to get the autistic boy out of the system by stating that he was over six year’s old, the cut off age for children to be accepted in day care. But isn’t it interesting that for two years, from the time the child grew from six to eight years, this did not become a cause for his literal expulsion. So the real cause is the child’s alleged violent behaviour. Now in any conflict like this, a decision cannot be unilateral, i.e one child cannot get instant ‘justice’ without any inquiry or trial and another child, who is more disadvantaged, cannot get instant injustice without any opportunity to be heard.
The issue here is the manner in which the decision was taken not the need for such a decision. If there was indeed a complaint of violent behavior and if it was increasing as per the press release of the registrar, then let it be investigated whether the University made serious efforts to address this with Professor Kamat.
The Goa University’s stand that the child needs Special Education is totally irrelevant to this issue because that is a call that only the parents can take. The child was not studying in the university, it was only providing a common facility to wards of all employees without prejudice to whether the child was normal.
The change in circumstances- the alleged violent behaviour, is for the moment, an allegation. If indeed, it is a regular behavior pattern which is seriously affecting all parents whose children use the day care centre, a perfectly sensible solution can be worked out.
A the same time, Professor Kamat must be open to discuss and accept that the allegations could be true and need to be addressed. He must openly do so and take or accept actions that will occur as a consequence. After all the Goa University is Dr Kamat’s second home-arguably even his first. While empathizing with his pain and anguish, we also call upon him to factor that deliberate injustice to his son, will not happen in such a space.
This hasn’t been handled too well. But given the circumstances and the condition of the child, the Goa University should step back and allow more time for discussions so that no one is hurt.
