Please help me understand this Indian "law"

[Alexmahone]

If this statute allows corporal punishment as long as it does not exceed to causing death, then I stick with my statement above. If this is just allowing for surgeries, etc. that involve the risk of death, then I am wrong. My criticism would only apply to the law makers, not the average  citizen of India.

The simple truth is that corporal punishment of the kind that you are talking about is rampant here, whether legal or not. My point is that it's a culture difference. I've lived in India long enough to know that Indians do value children as much as anyone, it's just that the mentality here is 'a slap isn't gonna kill the kid'. Whether that's right or wrong is a different matter altogether, but do not assume Indians don't give a shit about kids.

It is legal in India, which was the whole point of the thread.

I'm someone who was a victim of Indian corporal punishment when I was a kid, which has caused several mental health problems for me now. If you think Indians value children, you should read the law I posted again. It essentially says that children under 12 years of age are the property of their guardians, who can do anything to them as long as they claim that it was "for their benefit". This is despite the fact that all the research shows that corporal punishment is a disastrous practice that only leads to more violence and social pathology.

As an Indian, I can readily admit that I never understood the cherished Indian value of "respecting one's elders". If that's true, I should respect a 1000-year-old banyan tree above anything else. The truth is that children are only going to respect people who command their respect, and if you're an elder who uses corporal punishment against a child, you're very unlikely to earn that child's respect. Ageism, the belief that older people are more deserving than youngsters, is rampant and accepted in India and is a social evil like racism or casteism.