“Children must never be used as tools for political discourse or exploited for social media entertainment; their right to privacy and protection overrides digital sensationalism.”
The recent intervention by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Srinagar, in the case involving a viral video of a minor school student criticising Jammu and Kashmir Education Minister Sakina Itoo has triggered an important debate on child rights, media ethics and the culture of digital sensationalism. The CWC’s move to summon a local news portal and direct cyber police to facilitate the removal of the viral clip is a necessary reminder that children must never be reduced to instruments of political discourse or social media spectacle. At the centre of the controversy is a school-going child expressing frustration over the delayed announcement of summer vacations. The issue of school closures during extreme weather is a legitimate public concern. However, the core issue is not the child’s grievance but how that grievance was recorded, amplified and weaponised in the digital public sphere. Children often speak impulsively and emotionally. Unlike adults, they do not fully understand the consequences of public exposure. A video recorded in a moment of frustration can remain online indefinitely, affecting a child’s confidence, emotional well-being and future social interactions. This is precisely why laws protecting minors exist. The CWC has rightly highlighted the issue of consent. Interviewing and filming a minor without the informed consent of parents or legal guardians raises serious ethical and legal concerns. Recording children near educational institutions without permission from school authorities further deepens the violation. A child’s image, voice and opinion cannot be treated as content for engagement metrics. The conduct of the media portal deserves scrutiny. Journalism is not merely about capturing dramatic sound bites and uploading them before competitors. Responsible reporting requires judgment, restraint and sensitivity—especially when minors are involved. In the age of instant content, the line between journalism and exploitation is becoming dangerously thin. The public response to the video has been equally revealing. Social media quickly transformed into a space of harsh judgment, with many criticising the child’s upbringing, parenting and school environment. Such reactions expose a troubling reality: society increasingly subjects children to the same unforgiving scrutiny reserved for politicians and celebrities. The remarks by National Conference spokesperson Afra Jan deserve reflection. Her observation that society has collectively normalised disrespect toward women politicians points to a larger cultural issue. Children absorb behaviour from adults—whether at home, in schools or through public discourse. If political conversations become toxic, children inevitably mirror that toxicity. At the same time, the reaction of some private school bodies has raised questions of its own. G. N. Var and the Private Schools Association Jammu and Kashmir strongly condemned the viral video and demanded strict action against those circulating it.
“Protecting a child’s privacy, dignity, and emotional well-being requires active listening from schools, stronger ethical media safeguards, and fair law enforcement by authorities. While the CWC’s advisory on child protection is necessary, society must not use safeguarding as a shield to avoid institutional accountability, governance failures, or genuine communication issues.”
While concern for a child’s dignity is understandable, their outrage appears selective and somewhat convenient. The private school association has chosen to focus overwhelmingly on the child’s language and the social media circulation of the video, while largely ignoring the root issue that triggered the public reaction—the delay and confusion surrounding the summer vacation announcement. This selective condemnation risks appearing less like moral concern and more like institutional defensiveness. Educational bodies should be cautious about framing this solely as a matter of discipline and morality. Schools indeed play a vital role in imparting values and responsible conduct, but they must also create spaces where students can express discomfort, frustration and concerns without fear. Discipline should not become a tool to silence genuine grievances. The criticism directed at the child must also be seen in perspective. Children are still learning how to communicate emotions, disagreements and frustrations. Expecting perfect political correctness from a minor while adults themselves engage in aggressive and polarised discourse reflects hypocrisy. This incident should serve as a lesson for all stakeholders—parents, educators, journalists, content creators and policymakers. Parents must encourage digital awareness and respectful expression. Schools must listen to students more actively. Media organisations must strengthen ethical safeguards regarding minors. Authorities must enforce child protection laws fairly and consistently. Most importantly, society must remember that children deserve guidance, not public humiliation. The CWC’s advisory is timely and necessary. Protecting children’s privacy, dignity and emotional well-being must remain non-negotiable. But safeguarding children should not become an excuse for avoiding difficult questions about governance, communication failures or institutional accountability. The real challenge lies in protecting childhood while also ensuring that genuine concerns are heard, addressed and not conveniently buried beneath selective outrage.
