Allowing children reasoned choices in the development of their identities is indeed a laudable motive. Unfortunately, identity development in children is a complex process largely beyond their own control. Until a distinct identity is established, the child can hardly have any view of its own. And identity is a product of genetically inherited traits interacting with environmental cues.

Psychologists recognize two distinct aspects of the self-concept: the I-self and the me-self. The I-self is essentially a subjective awareness of the self as knower and actor and is characterized by self-awareness, self-continuity, self-coherence, and self-agency. Even the development of these subjective qualities is dependent on consistent reactions from the environment, especially those provided by parents. It is however the me-self that makes one an individual with a distinct identity. It includes material characteristics—appearance and possessions; psychological characteristics—thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and attitudes; and social characteristics—roles, and relationships with others. Much of the me-self in young children—including the name given, the way of dressing, and the manner of behaving with others—is a reflection of family values.

Being sensitive to the inherent traits of children as well as to their emotions and desires is very important. But parents also have to make conscious choices on behalf of their children, choices that have a lasting impact on the latter. Giving children their names is a case in point. Ill-chosen names can expose children to ridicule and name-calling. Nor is it practical to allow children to grow up and then choose their names. That children should identify themselves with the religion of their birth is also largely inevitable. Most young children love to participate in the religious rituals followed by their parents and to imitate their religious behaviour. If, as they grow up, they come to question such acts and behaviours, it only shows that their critical faculties are developing; and this process can hardly be hastened.

If parents cannot help influencing the spiritual and religious identities of their children, should they desist from indoctrinating them? Dawkins’s answer is a firm ‘yes’: ‘If you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing, it would be worth asking yourself how this came about. The answer is usually some form of childhood indoctrination. If you are religious at all it is overwhelmingly probable that your religion is that of your parents. If you were born in Arkansas and you think Christianity is true and Islam false, knowing full well that you would think the opposite if you had been born in Afghanistan, you are the victim of childhood indoctrination. Mutatis mutandis if you were born in Afghanistan.’

Indoctrination can indeed violate an individual’s psyche, often without his or her knowing it. More important, not only does such violence have an ­‘infectious’ quality—indoctrinated individuals seek fresh recruits—it also encourages hatred towards people holding different or contrary views. This argument against indoctrination has been widely used by secular educational agencies to exclude religious issues from school and college curricula. Professionals pride themselves over their ability to remain neutral in matters of religion while offering their services. Readers would notice such strict neutrality in the reports on WINGS—the Ramakrishna Mission’s counselling centre for school children in Singapore—in this and the previous number. But there is another side to this story.

Swami Vivekananda has pointed out that ‘doctrines or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details’ of religion. Can we afford to ignore such a crucial element of human identity as religion—after all, even such identities as atheist, agnostic, or sceptic are defined vis-à-vis religion—or remain blind to the valuable insights offered by the spiritual core of various religions? The UNESCO’s ‘guide to peace education’—Learning the Way of Peace (New Delhi: UNESCO, 2001)—takes notice of the fact that ‘with the advent of Western secularism at the beginning of the 20th century through the guise of a positivist scientific outlook to education, moral and human values were slowly discouraged away from school curricula. Under the ideal of value-free positivist and reductionist knowledge the whole of education was viewed narrowly as teaching facts of various subjects.’ The report of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century to the UNESCO ‘firmly restated the fundamental principle that education must contribute to the all-round development of each individual—mind and body, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic sense, personal responsibility and spiritual values’. ‘Such an education involves the spiritual development of man and the enhancement of his value as an individual and prepares the young people to understand the time in which they live.’

‘If I had to do my education over again, and had any voice in the matter,’ Swami Vivekananda once remarked, ‘I would not study facts at all. I would develop the power of concentration and detachment, and then with a perfect instrument I could collect facts at will.’ This training in concentration and detachment also forms the basis of authentic spiritual instruction; in fact, such practices have largely been developed and preserved by various religious schools and spiritual systems.

Elementary yogasanas and pranayama, the practice of awareness, and simple meditation are well-known means for cultivating natural self-discipline, a peaceful disposition of mind, and deeper insights into human nature. Without such insight ‘like Oedi­pus, that emblem of humankind, we may possess only the kind of cleverness that solves riddles and puzzles but altogether lacks self-knowledge and insight’. ‘The Self or Atman,’ the Upanishads declare, ‘is not even heard of by many.’ Depriving children of the opportunity to cultivate this self-knowledge at an early age is probably one of the more serious omissions which we still remain unaware of.

Sceptics may not mind such ‘value-neutral’ spi­r­itual elements in school curricula. But what about credal dogmas and rituals? Should children be exposed to the bewildering variety of these religious beliefs and practices? If we wish children to make reasoned choices, then it is reasonable that they be provided an accurate and sensitive view of different religions. Serious students of religion assure us that a sympathetic study of different religions not only helps us broaden our mental horizons, it can also prove enlightening. John Noss, author of Man’s Religions, remarked that ‘the difficulty of the work [preparation of the text of Man’s Religions] confronting him over a long period of intensive study and composition has been more than matched by the fascination and enjoyment that have steadily accompanied it. It seems to him a certainty that any sympathetic inquiry into the faith and understanding reflected in man’s religions must have such results.’ Such study could be an antidote to our fundamentalist tendencies that keep raising their heads all too often.