Suranya Aiyar:

August 2015


Part I:  Introduction
Part II:  Basic Statistical Errors
Part III:  Physical Abuse: Bias, Exaggeration and Rigged Statistics
Part IV:  Sexual Abuse: Bias, Distortion and Rigged Statistics
Part V:  Bias and Lies on Emotional Abuse and Girl Child Neglect
Part VI:  Misleading Parents and Manipulating Children
Part VII:  Conclusion


This is a revealing analysis, well worth reading. It is some 50 pages long, but not terribly compact and the font size is large, and parts can be read on their own. It starts off going into some details in a survey which Unicef has conducted in India, and which Aiyar criticises the statistics of heavily (in terms quite easily understandable to non-statisticians). Then the paper puts the survey and its planned use in India into the international / Western perspective of 'child protection'.

The paper's author Suranya Aiyar gives a short 'autobiography' on the page following the title page. For those who are not familiar with her name I can add that she is very active and vocal on Indian social and cultural issues. From a Norwegian point of view: She was the one to take the clearest and strongest action in the Bhattacharya case, so that the mother Sagarika Chakraborti after a while got the children back in India. Cf

Suranya Aiyar:

9 May 2012


16 October 2012
(first and second entry in the thread – down at the end of the first entry there are 3 links, to the petition itself + to press announcement and appended material)

Signatories to the Petition to the Indian National Human Rights Commission:

12 October 2012
  

_________________
Hjemmeside http://www.mhskanland.net

 

Propaganda from Norwegian Save the Children, directed against immigrant families

Aiyar's study of Unicef's survey, contentions and activities in India emphasises that Unicef has some very active, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) taking part in what they do, especially Save the Children, directing accusations primarily to children's own biological families and claiming it is the family which is especially dangerous for children. Even the figures contained in Unicef own survey contradict this. Statistically it is abundantly clear that the home of the biological parents is what gives the best protection, and statistics after all builds on the sum of single cases.

Here we have Norwegian Save the Children with the same propaganda as the Unicef survey, this time particularly attacking immigrant families in Norway. What Suranya Aiyar warns against resonates with a frightening echo in this hollow propaganda:

(If you do not ask ..)
Redd Barna (Save the Children), 16 September 2015

  

_________________
Hjemmeside http://www.mhskanland.net

  

Unicef with 'child protection' Norwegian style in Kazakhstan
and with Norwegian money


Unfortunately Unicef as well as Norway are incessantly active with 'child protection' without a decent understanding that we see in the Western world:


Executive summary by
Camelia Gheorghe and Assel Mussagaliyeva
Unicef, 2014


"The Project is highly relevant for Kazakhstan’s CP reforms and national policies for improving the well-being of children and realisation of children’s rights as it addressed the top priorities of reform. The Project addressed the most pressing needs of children at risk of family separation, abuse and neglect and their families, identified in domestic and international reports and planning documents."

"The Project had an important contribution to the promotion and realisation of children’s rights by embedding them in revised legal framework and policy documents, improving the mechanism of identification, referral and redress of child rights violations. It has also opened access of families at risk, in their double capacity of duty-bearers and rights-holders, to child abandonment prevention services and violence free educational environments."

"Recommendation for the Ombudsman’s office, with the assistance of UNICEF and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
S1 Further strengthen the capacity of the Ombudsman’s office in the area of child rights monitoring and direct interaction with children.

Recommendations for the Government, with the assistance of UNICEF:
S2 Ensure a more coherent strategic and policy direction in the child protection area in line with the needs of children and their families, and Kazakhstan’s international commitments."


"S5 Develop a strong cadre of social workers and a culture of lifelong learning at various operational levels to ensure that they keep pace with reforms and are empowered to address the needs of beneficiaries at high professional standards."

Here we have it, the final signal of what style of child protection Kazakhstan will have: A strong cadre of social workers - - - You are heading towards tragedy, poor Kazakhstan.


  

_________________
Hjemmeside http://www.mhskanland.net

  

And here we have Save the Children Norway:


Save the Children, 3 December 2014

"… Save the Children Norway’s programming to strengthen the national child protection system in eight countries: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Uganda, and Zimbabwe."

It seems Suranya Aiyar was certainly right to include Save the Children in particular.

_________________
Hjemmeside http://www.mhskanland.net

   

Sunday Guardian Live which is published in India (affiliated with the English newspaper The Guardian), has serialised Suranya Aiyar's study.


Part 1:

By Suranya Aiyar
SundayGuardianLive, 5 October 2015

"The Ministry of Women and Child Development’s 2007 “Study on Child Abuse” report came out with an exaggerated narrative on the phenomenon of child abuse in India. The report, even today, serves as a foundational document of the ministry. UNICEF and Save the Children were among the leading NGOs that participated in the report. The report was based on a survey that used the flawed methodology of the UNICEF and allied agencies, marked by statistical errors and an arbitrary selection of respondents. Suranya Aiyar exposes all this in “Save your child from UNICEF: A study of UNICEF’s biased and false claims about Indian parents”. Here is the first part of Aiyar’s report."

*

Part 2:

By Suranya Aiyar
SundayGuardianLive, 6 October 2015

"The Ministry of Women and Child Development’s 2007 “Study on Child Abuse” Report came out with an exaggerated narrative on the phenomenon of child abuse in India. The Report, even today, serves as a foundational document of the ministry. UNICEF and Save the Children were among the leading NGOs that participated in the Report. The Report was based on a survey that used the flawed methodology of the UNICEF and allied agencies, marked by statistical errors and an arbitrary selection of respondents. Suranya Aiyar exposes all this in “Save your child from UNICEF: A study of UNICEF’s biased and false claims about Indian parents”. Here is the second part of Aiyar’s Report."


*

Part 3:

By Suranya Aiyar
SundayGuardianLive, 8 October 2015

"A misleading report on child abuse in India, guided by UNICEF and Save the Children, an NGO, serves as a reference material for the Ministry of Women and Child Development, notwithstanding its many statistical errors and evident prejudice of the agencies involved. Quite ironically, whereas the report flays Indian parents for not treating their children as individuals, it uses children as mouthpiece to highlight their plight. Suranya Aiyar exposes all this in “Save your child from UNICEF: A study of UNICEF’s biased and false claims about Indian parents”. Here is the third part of Aiyar’s report."

*

Part 4:

By Suranya Aiyar
SundayGuardianLive, 14 October 2015

The Ministry of Women and Child Development is being misled by a prejudiced report on child abuse in India, guided by UNICEF and Save the Children, an NGO. The report, which the ministry has accepted to serve as its statistical anchor, has given an exaggerated number of offenders within the family by clubbing neighbours and acquaintances as relatives. The report further floats a false notion that Indian parents indulge in a “conspiracy of silence” and are prone to cover up cases of child abuse. Suranya Aiyar exposes all this in “Save your child from UNICEF: A study of UNICEF’s biased and false claims about Indian parents”. Here is the fourth part of Aiyar’s report.
  
  
*

Part 5:

By Suranya Aiyar
SundayGuardianLive, 19 October 2015

Here is the fifth part of Aiyar’s report.
In this part, we scrutinise the Report’s (Study on Child Abuse: India 2007 http://wcd.nic.in/childabuse.pdf) claims about “emotional abuse” and “neglect” of female children.

• WHAT IS “EMOTIONAL ABUSE”?
“Emotional abuse” is defined as “treating harshly, shouting, belittling, name calling and using abusive language while addressing children” and “comparison”, which is described as comparing siblings or other children with each other.
• WHAT IS “GIRL CHILD NEGLECT"
Girl child neglect is defined by the following so-called “indicators”: “less attention, less appreciation, less food, fault finding, household work compared to other siblings and looking after siblings”.
    Regarding this portion of the Report, we will not repeat the exercise of scrutinising the statistics as we have done on its claims about physical and sexual abuse. We believe that regardless of whether or not the stated statistics stand up to scrutiny, the matters discussed in this portion of the Report have no place in a study on abuse.
  
*

Part 6:

By Suranya Aiyar
SundayGuardianLive, 20 October 2015

Here is the sixth part of Aiyar’s report.
• FAILURE TO TAKE INFORMED CONSENT
• MISLEADING RESPONDENTS AS TO THE NATURE AND INTENTION OF THE RESEARCH
• CAN YOUNG CHILDREN MEANINGFULLY GIVE CONSENT?

  

_________________
Hjemmeside http://www.mhskanland.net

  

Several new parts of Suranya Aiyar's study have appeared in SundayGuardianLive. Links have been added in the posting above.

  

_________________
Hjemmeside http://www.mhskanland.net