Indian mom sparks debate after putting son on leash in New York's Times Square: ‘We're not ashamed'
Jagota defended her action, saying it was the most practical way to handle their son's endless energy during the family's NYC vacation. According to her, the leash gave her son the space to explore without the constant worry of him getting lost in the busy streets.
'He's 3.5 and we're not ashamed to say we put him on a leash,' she wrote. 'In a city like New York, this was hands-down the best decision for our trip.'
According to her, the leash made the trip more fun for her son, who imagined he was in charge. 'He called himself the sheriff and us his captives. Honestly, everyone was winning,' she added.
To adjust to different environments, Jagota said they switched between a shorter leash in crowded areas and a longer one where it was safer to let him roam more freely. The approach, she noted, kept things enjoyable for her son while giving the parents some much-needed peace of mind.
A post shared by Shubhangi Jagota (@katchmyparty)
The video went viral and many netizens shared their opinions on it. An Instagram user wrote, 'That actually helps a lot. Handling kids outside is not easy. No matter what other says but this is the wisest decision.'
Another user supported this and commented, 'We know our kids better than anyone else. And I for sure know my kid is naughty and always over excited! And I will do what I can, to keep him safe !! It's absolutely NONE of anybody's business!'
A third individual added, 'I used to judge before I was a parent but now I get it.'
A fourth person had a different opinion and wrote, 'Yeah cause educating your kid to stay with you and hold your hand is overrated now and nobody wants to actually do it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
As population peaks, India's families shrink: Choice, cost and careers reshape households across generations
In an apartment in Mumbai, three generations of the Mullick-Mehrishi family sit together, reflecting on how their household—and Indian families at large—have evolved across decades. The contrast within their household puts focus on a deeper demographic shift unfolding across India. Dr Avinash Chandra Mullick, 82, the youngest of nine siblings, recalls his pre-Independence childhood in Allahabad as chaotic but close-knit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo 'Six to eight children was normal. No one discussed family planning,' he says. His grandson Advay, 14, is growing up as an only child. India, now the world's most populous country, is witnessing a paradox. While its headcount has overtaken China's, the total fertility rate (TFR) has dropped to 2.0—below the replacement level of 2.1. Families are shrinking, shaped not only by economics but also by evolving personal priorities and greater autonomy, especially for women. Live Events 'In my time, large families were the default,' says Dr Mullick. But by the 1980s, he saw the tide turning. National campaigns like 'Hum Do, Hamare Do' and the rising cost of living led to smaller families. 'Expenses were going up. Children needed more. We chose to stop at two. 'Hum Do, Hamare Do' made sense.' His daughter, Abhilasha Mullick Mehrishi, 48, took a further step. A counsellor and former HR professional, she and her husband decided to raise just one child. 'It wasn't about inability, it was a conscious decision. We thought about time, energy, and the kind of parenting we wanted to give,' she says. For her, it was also about exercising agency. 'My grandmother had no say. My mother had some. I had complete choice,' she says. 'It's about more than birth control; it's about control over your life.' Across the city, 29-year-old Adarsh Olivera shares a similar story. An only child himself, he and his wife—both working professionals—are contemplating a future without children. 'There is an increase in the adoption of DINK (Double Income, No Kids), and it's no more just a trend but a reality for many people my age,' he says. Adarsh's grandfather, Clement Olivera, migrated from Mangalore to Mumbai with his wife and five children, and worked in Saudi Arabia to support the family. His father, Libert, ran small businesses before switching to freelance real estate. Adarsh grew up in a nuclear setup. 'I had aunts and cousins around, but I always knew I'd prefer a smaller family of my own,' he says. Raising a child in Mumbai, he adds, is increasingly out of reach. 'In any other city, we'd be able to afford school fees, housing, and quality child care. Hence, I feel the only solution would be in a way moving out of Mumbai, to any city, probably even Mangalore to raise my family.' In a twist of generational irony, he adds, 'My grandparents moved to Mumbai, to provide for a better life. I might have to move back, for my family, to provide them a better life.' While money and career goals play a significant role in shaping family size, caregiving responsibilities can also weigh heavily. Businessman Karan Lekhraj, 45, who has an 11-year-old daughter, says, 'We wanted more, but my father's Alzheimer's meant we had to prioritise caregiving.' His family's history shows the same generational downsizing—his grandfather had five children, his father four, and Karan has one. Even so, concerns about emotional loss or loneliness in smaller families are not universal. 'My mom tells stories about growing up with her brother, swimming in the bathroom, building paper boats. I love hearing them. But I don't feel I've missed out,' says 14-year-old Advay. 'With more people, we shared everything—space, food, time. Today, I see less compromise, but also more clarity. People know what they want," sayd Dr Mullick.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka employee with ‘North Indian colleagues' alleges discrimination at new workplace
A professional from Karnataka has shared an emotional account alleging workplace exclusion after switching companies. The post has sparked a heated conversation on language, bias, and inclusivity in Indian offices. A man claimed that he thinks his 'North Indian colleagues' are avoiding him because he's from Karnataka. (Representational image). (Unsplash/Towfiqu barbhuiya) "Workplace discrimination,' the Reddit user wrote, adding, ''I'm a Kannadiga who's recently switched companies. It's been two weeks in this new company, and I haven't been able to make a single friend yet. The people who sit next to me don't bother to say hi unless I initiate the conversation.' The employee then claimed, 'I'm from Karnataka, and most of my colleagues here are from North Indian states, which makes me wonder if that's why I'm being excluded.' However, the individual adds that they also had colleagues from that region in India in their previous company. Take a look at the post: What did social media say? An individual posted, 'I'm not from Karnataka, and I faced the same issues from my Kannadiga colleagues when I moved to Bengaluru. You need to make peace with it and make connections outside your workplace, too.' Another suggested, 'Be on good behaviour, your usual self and things will gradually improve. You had a good bond with the previous team, and that void can't be filled overnight. Give it time and things will be alright.' A third commented, 'When people hear that they are from the same place or they have the same mother tongue, they will become close to each other very soon. I am Kannadiga, and I work in Bengaluru. But most of my teammates are from Andhra and have chosen Bengaluru for work, and they do exactly the same as your North Indian colleagues. They speak in Telugu every time they are at the office. Every time (yes, every time), I initiate the talk, ask them to go out for a break etc. Sometimes, I go outside the building, stating I am feeling cold from ACs, and literally tell them to inform me when they are going to take a break to join them. But to date, they haven't done that. They go together & come together without me. So, I completely understand your thoughts on this being Kannadiga in IT. Sometimes I feel the same, but can't help.' OP responded, 'Thank you for sharing this brother. I hope you're able to make some connections soon. While some believe the office is solely for work, I believe brief social interactions can boost morale and productivity. It's indeed frustrating when you lack someone to share a laugh or light moment with during work hours.' A fourth wrote, 'You are there to work. Earn money and make friends somewhere else. Most work friendships are pretentious, and it ends the moment you leave the company.'
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
NDTV Decodes: Engines Shut, Fuel Cut Off - Inside Doomed Air India Flight
New Delhi: On June 12, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, departed Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at 1:39 pm, bound for London Gatwick. Within 32 seconds of takeoff, the aircraft crashed into a medical hostel near the airport, killing 241 of the 242 passengers and crew on board and 19 people on the ground. The sole survivor was a British-Indian man seated in row 11A. This was the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787 since its commercial debut in 2011. A probe report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) was released last night. The report points to a series of possibilities and also raises multiple questions on what transpired inside the doomed flight. Add image caption here The Takeoff and Aftermath According to data extracted from the aircraft's Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR), commonly referred to as the black box, Flight 171 carried out a routine takeoff. The Dreamliner accelerated to a takeoff speed of 153 knots or roughly 283 kmph. It then reached a maximum airspeed of 180 knots or roughly 333 kmph, climbing steadily as expected. The flap setting was recorded at five degrees, and the landing gear lever remained in the 'DOWN' position, both standard takeoff procedures. Weather conditions posed no threat, skies were clear, visibility was good, and winds were light. Yet, within seconds, the fuel control switches for Engine 1 and Engine 2 moved from the "RUN" to "CUTOFF" position, one after the other, within a one-second interval. These switches govern the flow of fuel to the engines, and their transition to "CUTOFF" halted the supply, causing both engines to lose thrust. The black box data shows that thrust levels began to decrease from their takeoff values almost immediately, triggering a rapid de-throttling process. The Cockpit Exchange The cockpit voice recorder (CVR), one of two black box components, captured a brief exchange between the pilots. Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, the commander and pilot monitoring (PM), and First Officer Clive Kunder, the pilot flying (PF), were both experienced and medically fit, with no reported issues that could have compromised their flying. As the engines faltered, one pilot -- identity unconfirmed -- asked, "Why did you cut off?" The other responded, "I didn't." This dialogue is now at the centre of the investigation. Was it a misunderstanding, an unacknowledged action, or an external factor beyond the pilots' control? The fuel control switches on a Boeing 787 are not simple toggles. Each switch features a guard rail. To move a switch from "RUN" (forward) to "CUTOFF" (aft), a pilot must lift and shift it downward. This design minimises the risk of accidental movement, such as a hand brushing against it during flight. The switches for Engine 1 and Engine 2 are spaced approximately two to three inches apart, making it improbable for both to be moved simultaneously without intent. Yet, the data confirms that both transitioned to "CUTOFF" within a single second. The Pilots' Response As thrust diminished, the aircraft's altitude began to drop. The black box indicates that the pilots acted swiftly, moving both fuel control switches back to the "RUN" position. This action, executed approximately 10 seconds after the initial cutoff, aimed to restore fuel flow and restart the engines. Engine 1 responded and its core speed deceleration halted, reversed, and began to recover, with thrust levels rising. Engine 2 also relit, but its core speed continued to decelerate despite repeated attempts to reintroduce fuel and accelerate recovery. The thrust levers, found near idle in the wreckage, had remained forward until impact, per the flight data recorder (FDR). Simultaneously, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a small propeller deployed automatically in the event of dual engine failure, extended from the fuselage during takeoff. CCTV footage from the airport captured this deployment. The RAT provides emergency power to sustain critical systems, but it cannot generate thrust. With the aircraft barely a few hundred feet above ground, the partial recovery of Engine 1 proved insufficient. At 1:39:32 pm, Flight 171 struck the hostel, sparking a fireball that devastated the site. The Key Focus The AAIB's preliminary report, spanning dozens of pages, drew on data extracted from the heavily damaged black box units, one located in the forward section, the other in the rear. These devices, designed to withstand extreme temperatures and impact, house memory chips that record flight data. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States provided specialised equipment to retrieve this data. The investigation now centres on the fuel control switches. Three primary theories are under scrutiny: Human Action: Did one pilot deliberately or inadvertently move the switches? The cockpit exchange suggests neither accepted responsibility. "No pilot in their right mind would do this. The switches require intentional effort-lifting and moving them past a guard rail. It's not a light switch you flick by mistake," Captain Saurabh Bhatnagar, a former senior commander at Air India Express, told NDTV. Mechanical Failure: Could a defect have caused the switches to move independently? External Factors: Could fuel flow have ceased despite the switches remaining in "RUN"? The report finds no evidence of this. The AAIB has ruled out other variables. No significant bird activity was detected, negating a bird strike theory. The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), a rear-mounted mini jet engine, was operational and attempted an autostart to assist engine relight, but its role was secondary to the switches' position. Crucially, the report states there is "no immediate evidence of sabotage."
