It begins with an image that is difficult to forget — a small child, barely five, tied to a gate under the unforgiving afternoon sun. There is no ambiguity in the scene, only discomfort. A punishment meant to be seen, meant to shame, meant perhaps to “teach a lesson”. But meted out to whom, and at what cost? The incident in Faridkot, Punjab, involving the suspension of an assistant sub-inspector who allegedly subjected her granddaughter to this treatment, has rightly provoked outrage. Yet, outrage alone is an incomplete response. What demands attention is not only the act, but the logic that sustains it — the quiet acceptance of harsh discipline as both necessary and justified.
There is no defensible interpretation of what happened. It is abusive, degrading, and dangerous. But what really underscores the gravity of the lapse is that it was allegedly carried out by a police officer — someone entrusted with enforcing the law. That said, reducing the episode to individual misconduct allows the larger system to remain unexamined.
Policing in India operates under conditions of chronic strain. Long hours, unpredictable demands, and repeated exposure to stress and conflict take a cumulative toll. Despite this, institutional attention to the mental well-being of police personnel remains minimal. Counselling services, where they exist, are often inaccessible or underutilised. It is, therefore, necessary to ask whether those tasked with maintaining public order are themselves adequately supported in managing stress within their personal lives. The answer, more often than not, is in the negative.
Even so, stress does not fully account for the nature of the punishment. Tying a child to a gate, in full public view, is not an impulsive act alone — it reflects a deeper belief system. Across many households, discipline is still equated with severity, and effectiveness with fear. Public punishment, in particular, carries a performative dimension: It asserts authority not just over the child, but before an audience.
This is where the boundary between discipline and abuse collapses. Research in developmental psychology has long established that extreme punitive practices — especially those involving humiliation or physical harm — do not produce resilience or respect. They produce fear, anxiety, and, often, aggression. Obedience extracted under duress is neither stable nor developmentally healthy.
In this case, the child’s vulnerability is compounded by circumstance. With parents reportedly living abroad, she is likely already negotiating the emotional strain of separation. In the immediate term, such an incident can trigger acute distress — fear, confusion, withdrawal, and a profound loss of trust in the caregiver. The very figure meant to ensure safety becomes a source of threat.
The longer-term consequences are more insidious. Early exposure to such experiences can disrupt emotional regulation, erode self-worth, and increase the likelihood of anxiety and depressive symptoms. It may also normalise coercive behaviour, shaping how the child understands relationships and authority in later life. For children in transnational families, where caregiving arrangements are already stretched and substituted, such ruptures can have lasting psychological effects.
What, then, should be the response? Suspension is necessary — it signals accountability. But it is not, and cannot be, the end of the matter. A purely punitive approach addresses the act but leaves its roots untouched.
A more effective response must operate on multiple levels. Child protection norms must be enforced consistently and without exception. Police reforms must move beyond administrative restructuring to include sustained investment in mental health — mandatory counselling, periodic psychological assessments, and training in managing stress and family dynamics. Equally, there is a pressing need to challenge the social acceptance of harsh discipline through public awareness and parenting interventions that promote non-violent, evidence-based practices.
At the same time, both individuals in this incident require attention. The child needs immediate, trauma-informed support to restore a sense of safety and trust. The grandparent, without being absolved of responsibility, requires psychological evaluation and intervention. Without such engagement, the cycle is merely paused, not broken.
The Faridkot incident is disturbing precisely because it is not as rare as we might wish to believe. It exposes how easily care can slip into control, and discipline into cruelty, when stress, silence, and social norms converge. A child tied to a gate is not just a moment of anger. It is a warning — of what happens when systems fail, and when we continue to look away from the everyday violences we have learned to excuse.
Suman Verma is a developmental psychologist and a researcher whose work engages with child protection, school stress, welfare systems, and public policy. She is an associate editor of the International Journal of Behavioral Development. The views expressed are personal
