The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child defines corporal punishment as “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light”¹

Throughout history, this practice has been a common method of discipline, employed in various settings such as homes, schools, and judicial systems. However, the perception and use of corporal punishment is not new and has its root into the distant past and has evolved over time, leading to significant change in how societies view and implement it today.

Historical Background

The history of corporal punishment dates back to ancient civilizations. In Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, physical punishment was a standard disciplinary method. It was widely accepted as a necessary tool for maintaining order and instilling discipline. In medieval Europe, corporal punishment was common not only in homes and schools but also as a judicial penalty. The infamous practice of flogging, for example, was a routine punishment for crimes and misdemeanors.

During the colonial era, corporal punishment was frequently used in the Americas, Africa, and Asia and was integrated into educational and judicial systems. Schools routinely employed caning and whipping to discipline students, while judicial systems used public whipping, stocks, and other physical punishments as deterrents to crime.

The Evolution of Corporal Punishment

Over time, attitudes towards corporal punishment began to shift. The Enlightenment era in the 18th century brought about new philosophies emphasizing human rights and dignity. Thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau criticized the use of corporal punishment, arguing that it was inhumane and counterproductive. These ideas gradually influenced societal norms, leading to a slow decline in the acceptance of corporal punishment, particularly in educational settings.

By the 19th and 20th centuries, many Western countries began to reform their disciplinary practices. Corporal punishment in schools became increasingly controversial, and many countries eventually banned it. Sweden became the first country to prohibit corporal punishment in schools in 1958, followed by a complete ban on all forms of corporal punishment against children in 1979^2,3. This marked the beginning of a global movement towards eliminating corporal punishment.

The Good and the Evil of Corporal Punishment

Supporters of corporal punishment argue that it is an effective and immediate way to correct undesirable behavior. They believe that it instills discipline, respect for authority, and teaches children the consequences of their actions. Some parents and educators maintain that mild physical punishment, when used sparingly and appropriately, can be a useful tool in behavior management.

However, extensive research highlighted the negative consequences of corporal punishment. Studies show that children who experience corporal punishment are more likely to develop aggressive behavior, mental health issues, and lower self-esteem. According to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2016⁶, children subjected to physical punishment are at a greater risk of developing anxiety, depression, and antisocial behavior. The American Psychological Association (APA) also reports that corporal punishment can lead to long-term harm, including impaired cognitive development and increased likelihood of future violence⁷.

Present-Day Views on Corporal Punishment

The majority of the world’s countries have moved away from corporal punishment, especially in schools and judicial settings. Over 60 countries have banned all forms of corporal punishment against children, recognizing it as a violation of human rights⁸. In many societies, there is growing awareness of the harm caused by physical punishment and a shift towards positive, non-violent forms of discipline.

Organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and UNICEF strongly oppose corporal punishment. The WHO highlights that physical punishment is not only ineffective but also harmful, contributing to the global burden of violence against children. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, explicitly calls for the protection of children from all forms of physical and mental violence, including corporal punishment. Human rights organizations argue that corporal punishment violates children’s rights to dignity and protection from harm⁹.

Why the Change?

The shift away from corporal punishment has been driven by several factors. First, increased awareness of the psychological and physical harm caused by physical punishment has led to a reevaluation of its effectiveness and morality. Scientific research has played a crucial role in this shift, providing evidence of the long-term negative effects of corporal punishment.

Second, global movements advocating for children’s rights have gained momentum, influencing public opinion and government policies. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been instrumental in promoting the idea that children deserve the same protections and rights as adults.

Finally, changing societal values and norms have contributed to the decline in corporal punishment. Modern societies increasingly prioritize non-violent methods of conflict resolution and behavior management, reflecting broader trends towards human rights and social justice.

Scientific literature consistently supports the move away from corporal punishment. For example, a 2014 study published in Pediatrics found that children who experienced corporal punishment were more likely to exhibit behavioral problems and decreased cognitive abilities^6,10. Another study in the Journal of Family Psychology in 2016 found that corporal punishment did not improve children’s behavior over time and was associated with increased aggression and antisocial behavior¹¹.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for the elimination of all forms of corporal punishment, emphasizing its harmful effects on children’s health and development. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly urged countries to ban corporal punishment in all settings, citing it as a violation of children’s rights.

Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have condemned corporal punishment as a form of violence that has no place in modern society. These organizations advocate for the adoption of alternative, non-violent forms of discipline that respect children’s dignity and rights.

Corporal Punishment in Nepal

Corporal punishment has been a long-standing practice in Nepal, deeply ingrained in both domestic and educational settings. Traditionally, physical discipline was viewed as a necessary tool for instilling respect, discipline, and obedience in children. This cultural acceptance of corporal punishment extended across different strata of society, from rural areas to urban centers, and was often seen as a standard part of child-rearing.

As the author grew up in a rural village in Nepal, he personally witnessed farmers being punished by being hit with the sharp cover of a lentil plant for minor “crimes,” such as their goat grazing on someone’s field. Looking directly into the eyes of teachers or parents was considered “illegal,” leading to scary frowns from the elders. The author had to study Sanskrit, which was so difficult that he couldn’t answer even the simplest questions and was beaten with a “bet ko latthi” on his palm until it turned red. The most difficult part was that he couldn’t show this to his parents out of fear of being beaten again at home for not “studying properly.”

In schools, corporal punishment was widely accepted and practiced by teachers as a means to control and discipline students. Methods such as caning, slapping, and making students kneel for extended periods were common. Many Nepali parents also believed that physical punishment was essential for correcting children’s misbehavior and ensuring their future success.

However, many in Nepal still perceive corporal punishment as an effective means of disciplining children, especially in rural areas where educational and awareness programs have not fully penetrated. This belief persists despite the growing evidence of its negative consequences on children’s mental and physical health.

Recent studies and reports have begun to shed light on the detrimental effects of corporal punishment on Nepali children. A study published in the Journal of Child and Family Studies in 2020 explored the relationship between corporal punishment and child behavioral problems in Nepal¹². The study found that children subjected to physical punishment were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. These findings are consistent with global research, which shows that corporal punishment often leads to adverse psychological and behavioral outcomes.

Moreover, research conducted by UNICEF Nepal has highlighted the widespread nature of corporal punishment in the country. According to a 2018 report titled “Eight out of 10 children in Nepal suffer from violent discipline, including psychological and physical punishment”.

Almost every child in Nepal experiences some form of violent discipline by their parents, teachers or caregivers. Violent discipline affects children from rich and poor households alike. The statistics are alarming.  Psychological aggression accounts for over 70 per cent of children, over 50 per cent of children are subjected to general physical punishment and among them, 14 per cent face the more severe forms of physical punishment.  The consequences of these forms of discipline are wide ranging and long term in nature, including: learning disabilities; behavioral disorders; and depression.  In some instances, the physical harm inflicted on children have led tragically to death.

It further states over 80% of children in Nepal have experienced some form of physical punishment at home, and nearly 60% have faced corporal punishment in schools. The report also emphasized that corporal punishment contributes to a cycle of violence, where children who are physically punished are more likely to use violence as a means of resolving conflicts in their own lives.

Legal Reforms and Current Status in Nepal

In response to growing awareness and international pressure, Nepal has taken significant steps to address the issue of corporal punishment. The Constitution of Nepal (2015) guarantees the right of children to protection from violence, exploitation, and abuse, and the government has enacted several laws aimed at curbing corporal punishment. The Children’s Act of 2018 explicitly prohibits corporal punishment in schools, homes, and childcare institutions.

The bill “The Act Relating to Children.” enacted in 2018 defines a child as, “a person who has not completed the age of 18 years.” As per section 66(2)(d) of the Act, “Any person is deemed to have committed violence against the child if the person inflicts physical or mental punishment or behaves in an undignified way whether at home, school, or any other place.” Section 72(3) of the same bill provisions a fine of up to Rs. 50,000.00 and or an imprisonment for up to one year. Section 67 states that the offender shall be deemed not eligible for duty for up to 10 years upon corporal punishment to a minor.

Despite these legal reforms, enforcement remains a challenge, particularly in remote and rural areas where traditional practices and lack of awareness hinder progress. Many schools continue to practice corporal punishment, and parents often resort to physical discipline due to deep-rooted cultural norms and limited knowledge of alternative disciplinary methods.

The harsh realities of corporal punishment have often led to tragic outcomes in Nepal. There have been numerous reported cases where excessive physical punishment resulted in severe injuries, trauma, and even deaths of children. For instance, in 2020, after the bill on criminal liability for corporal punishment was brought there were many cases involving beating by teachers at school. A widely publicized case involved a 6th grade student in Siraha district being beaten by his teacher for not completing his homework¹³. Such incidents have sparked public outrage and prompted discussions about the need to reform disciplinary practices.

Various organizations, both national and international, are working towards eradicating corporal punishment in Nepal. UNICEF Nepal has been at the forefront of advocacy efforts, launching campaigns and educational programs to raise awareness about the harms of corporal punishment and promote positive discipline techniques. The National Child Rights Council (NCRC) in Nepal actively monitors cases of corporal punishment and advocates for stronger enforcement of child protection laws.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) have supported these efforts by providing resources and expertise to help Nepal align its child protection policies with international standards. These organizations emphasize the need for continued public education and legal reform to eliminate corporal punishment and protect the rights and well-being of Nepali children.

Conclusion

Corporal punishment has a long and complex history, rooted in ancient practices of discipline and control. While it was once widely accepted, evolving social values, scientific research, and global human rights movements have led to a significant shift in attitudes towards physical punishment. Today, there is a growing consensus that corporal punishment is harmful and outdated, with many countries and organizations advocating for its complete abolition. As societies continue to prioritize the well-being and rights of children, the move away from corporal punishment is likely to continue, paving the way for more humane and effective forms of discipline.

While significant progress has been made in addressing corporal punishment in Nepal, much work remains to be done. The practice is still prevalent, particularly in rural areas where traditional beliefs and lack of awareness persist. Communities need continued education, existing laws must be enforced, and alternative non-violent methods of discipline should be promoted. By doing so, Nepal can move towards a future where all children are protected from the harms of corporal punishment and can grow up in a safe, nurturing environment.

References

1. Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453–469.
2. Durrant JE. The Swedish Ban on Corporal Punishment: Its History and Effects. In: Frehsee D, Horn W, Bussmann KD, editors. Family Violence Against Children: A Challenge for Society [Internet]. De Gruyter; 2011 [cited 2024 Sep 2]. p. 19–26. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110828030.19/html
3. Digital S. Save the Children’s Resource Centre. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Never Violence: 35 years on from Sweden’s abolition of corporal punishment. Available from: https://resource-centre.savethechildren.net/document/never-violence-35-years-swedens-abolition-corporal-punishment/
4. Durrant, J. E., & Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: Lessons from 20 years of research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(12), 1373–1377.
5. Lansford JE, Dodge KA. Cultural norms for adult corporal punishment of children and societal rates of endorsement and use of violence. Parent Sci Pract. 2008;8(3):257–70.
6. Heilmann A, Mehay A, Watt RG, Kelly Y, Durrant JE, Turnhout J van, et al. Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies. The Lancet. 2021 Jul 24;398(10297):355–64.
7. World Health Organization. (2021). Corporal punishment and its effect on children’s health. Retrieved from WHO website.
8. Krug E., It is time to end corporal punishment everywhere and keep our 2030 promise to children [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/it-is-time-to-end-corporal-punishment-everywhere-and-keep-our-2030-promise-to-children
9. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). General Comment No. 8: The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment. Retrieved from UNICEF website.
10. Cuartas J, Charles McCoy D, Grogan-Kaylor A, Gershoff E. Physical Punishment as a Predictor of Early Cognitive Development: Evidence From Econometric Approaches. Dev Psychol. 2020 Nov;56(11):2013–26.
11. Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A. Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses. J Fam Psychol JFP J Div Fam Psychol Am Psychol Assoc Div 43. 2016 Jun;30(4):453–69.
12. Ma J, Mahat P, Brøndbo PH, Handegård BH, Kvernmo S, Javo AC. Family correlates of emotional and behavioral problems in Nepali school children. PLoS ONE. 2022 Jan 18;17(1):e0262690.
13. The Himalayan Times (Jan 27, 2020). Student thrashed for not doing homework. cited September 2, 2024. Available from https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/student-thrashed-for-not-doing-homework