Why Mrs Chatterjee makes Norway defensive and nervous

Imagine if a Norwegian infant — four months old and still breast-feeding — and her toddler brother were removed by Indian childcare authorities from their parents and permanently placed in an institution. Not because of how they were being raised — based on differing perceptions on parenting — but because of the mother’s “mental stability”. Would public opinion in Norway be on India’s side? Would Norwegians think the stated reasons justify the solution? Of course not. There would be outrage there that India has summarily taken away two Norwegian kids from their Norwegian parents and placed them in a system where their care would be carried out and supervised solely by Indians. No “facts” about the suitability of the parents, especially the mother, would be deemed enough to warrant this extreme step by India. And had this fictional incident happened after 2014, there may have been even more criticism! Be that as it may, why should India’s strong reaction to the real-life 2012 incident of two Indian children being taken away by highhanded Norwegian authorities — inspiring the movie Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway — surprise anyone or elicit a defensive article from that country’s ambassador to India? Would India’s ambassador to Norway dash off a self-righteous riposte in the local media had a Norwegian made a film titled, say, Mrs Johansen vs India? Had India been the culprit in such an egregious incident, the whole of Europe — especially the Scandinavian countries that tout their welfare systems as above reproach (contrary to facts) — would have joined the chorus of criticism too and demanded a return of the children to their parents. But the robust reaction from India, with the government, the political parties, the people and even the usually contrarian media standing together, got the Norwegians doing a rethink. Indeed, the only aspect of the real case that may have surprised people was the rare political convergence this issue prompted. Lead roles were taken not only by the then foreign minister SM Krishna of the NDA government but also Sushma Swaraj and Brinda Karat, firebrand politicians from totally opposite ideological camps. Unprecedented sustained diplomatic intervention culminated in the incident even featuring in talks at the prime ministerial level. Hence Norway has backtracked on the issue of possible “bad” parenting by the couple — with its implications of cultural condescension — and highlights the alternative argument of “possible abuse” instead. The now-estranged husband of the real Bengali woman on whom the character of “Mrs Chatterjee” is based, also alludes to her bouts of rage. As he is now a Norwegian citizen and still lives and works there, his sudden epiphany about his wife is questionable. Unlike when he appeared on TV beside his wife a decade ago, now while recounting their joint ordeal to get their children back from the Norwegian foster care system, the husband snidely alludes to her character (or rather, the alleged lack of it) too. And speaking for local authorities, Norway’s ambassador to India states “the system can only intervene when neglect, violence or abuse is confirmed…” The campaign to deflect and undermine seems coordinated. This strange convergence begs the question of whether the case had more of an impact than Norway would care to admit. India standing together on issues is a formidable prospect indeed. Especially in the eyes of minuscule Scandinavian countries that have gotten used to punching above their weight. Preaching and deciding has been a lucrative career for many Scandinavian diplomats and retired politicians. Having their pre-eminence challenged must be scary. When India stands up for the real Mrs Chatterjee — Sagarika Chakraborty — other Indians abroad feel empowered. And India has shown an increasing intention to do just that: it is repeatedly stepping in when our nationals and diaspora are in trouble. The West doesn’t mind when India launches rescue missions in strife-torn zones elsewhere in the world but backing other troubled Sagarikas in “peaceful” Western countries has a very different implication. It reveals that they do not practice what they preach. For instance, Norway’s foster care system — which its ambassador here brazenly continues to tomtom — has been wilfully ignoring differing cultural norms when deciding to take away children from immigrants to place them in institutions, cutting off ties to their real parents. Norway has been strongly censured on this by the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR). Sagarika’s case, shockingly, is not unique. Another high profile case in which Norway’s childcare authority Barnevernet —a word made familiar to Indians by Sagarika’s descriptions of her ordeal — took away the minor son of a Muslim immigrant is particularly significant as parts of that incident sound eerily similar to Sagarika’s epic battle. It highlights how important it was that India stepped in to help Sagarika regain her children before they were irretrievably adopted by some Norwegian couple. Mariya Abdi Ibrahim was 16 when she arrived in Norway with her three-month-old son fleeing Islamic fundamentalists in Somalia. When her son was just 10 months old, he was taken away by Barnevernet citing neglect and abuse. Sounds familiar? He was then adopted by an evangelical Christian Norwegian couple and cut off from Mariya. She fought in vain for over a decade to block this in the courts. That could well have been the fate of Sagarika’s children too. Other aspects of Mariya’s battle also sound like Sagarika’s. When she could not stop them from taking away her infant son, she asked that he be placed with relatives, or another Somali — or any Muslim — family so that he would be brought up in keeping with his culture and faith, but the court turned her down. In Sagarika’s case, India’s strong espousal of her case may have been what led Norway to agree to placing the kids in her brother in law’s care in India. Barnevernet’s trigger-happy attitude had led to an unusually high number of child welfare cases at ECHR. Finally, in 2019 — seven years after Sagarika’s children returned to family in India — a 17-judge ECHR bench decided Norway had not done enough to keep Mariya (now aged 30) and her son together and violated the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights. This resounding judicial slap then led to changes in Norway’s adoption regulations. Even in the unlikely event of a Mrs Johansen vs India, Norway cannot take a moral high ground. Somalia was not in any position — nor inclined, perhaps — to help Mariya; India rallied behind Sagarika. Norway backed down on Sagarika in 2012 but stalled Mariya till 2019. In the age of social media, it is impossible to stop the flow of information and hide double standards. No wonder Norway is defensive and European-heavy “humanitarian aid” circles are nervous. The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed are personal. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .