Lost Spring — Stories of Stolen Childhood (Anees Jung) — Practice

Question 1

What is the irony in Saheb-e-Alam's name? How does it reflect the central theme of the essay?

Accepted Answer

'Saheb-e-Alam' means 'Lord of the Universe' in Arabic/Urdu — a magnificent, cosmic name. Yet Saheb is a rag-picker who does not own even a pair of shoes; he scavenges in garbage dumps on the outskirts of Delhi. The irony could not be more complete: the 'Lord of the Universe' is master of nothing, not even his own future. This name-reality gap captures the essay's central theme — that poverty robs children not just of material things but of their POTENTIAL. Saheb could have been anything his name suggests; instead, the system of poverty has ensured he can be nothing beyond a rag-picker.

Question 2

Trace Saheb's journey from rag-picker to tea-stall worker. Is the tea-stall job an improvement in his life? Give reasons.

Accepted Answer

SAHEB'S BACKGROUND: Saheb-e-Alam came from Dhaka, Bangladesh, with his family after storms swept away their home and fields. They settled in Seemapuri — a settlement of ~10,000 rag-pickers on Delhi's periphery, with mud and tarpaulin structures, no sewage, no running water. Saheb scavenged for plastic, paper, glass — anything sellable — for his daily survival. AS A RAG-PICKER: He was poor and had no fixed income, but he was his own master. He wandered freely, answering to no one, his own timetable, his own freedom. Anees Jung notes he 'does not know it' but he IS free — in a limited, precarious sense. THE TEA-STALL 'JOB': Later, Saheb gets employment at a tea stall, earning ₹800 per month plus meals. To an outsider, this looks like progress — a regular income, meals provided. IS IT PROGRESS? Anees Jung says NO. 'The steel canister seems heavier than the plastic bag he would so easily sling over his shoulder.' The canister = the WEIGHT of being someone else's employee. Before: he scavenged for himself; time was his. Now: he works fixed hours, obeys a boss, is no longer his own master. The essay suggests he has exchanged one form of poverty for another, arguably worse — because at least poverty gave him autonomy. Real progress would mean education, rights, and genuine economic opportunities — none of which the tea-stall provides.

Question 3

Anees Jung argues that the poverty of Firozabad's bangle-makers is not karma but injustice. Using evidence from both parts of the essay, examine this argument and discuss what 'Lost Spring' says about the responsibility of society and the state.

Accepted Answer

PART I — SEEMAPURI: The rag-pickers of Seemapuri are Bangladesh refugees pushed out by floods and storms. They had no choice but to live on Delhi's periphery, scavenging to survive. Their poverty is not destiny — it was caused by natural disaster compounded by economic marginalisation and the state's failure to provide housing, education, or rehabilitation. Saheb's school remains a 'distant dream' not because he has no ability to learn but because survival comes before schooling. PART II — FIROZABAD: The bangle-makers tell themselves and their children that this is 'karma' — born in the bangle-maker's house, die in it. Anees Jung meticulously DISMANTLES this narrative. The real causes are: (a) POVERTY: No capital to escape the trade; no education to qualify for other work. (b) TRADITION: Generations told this is their dharma — a culturally enforced passivity. (c) CONTRACTORS AND MIDDLEMEN: They advance money, keep the bangle-makers in debt, and ensure they cannot leave. (d) POLITICIANS: Complicit in allowing child labour to continue because it serves economic interests. (e) POLICE: The threat of harassment hangs over any bangle-maker who tries to organise or resist. The 'karma' narrative is an IDEOLOGY that serves all these powerful interests. If bangle-makers believe their suffering is divine will, they will not resist. THE ESSAY'S ARGUMENT ON RESPONSIBILITY: Anees Jung does not let any section of society off the hook. The school system fails these children. The legal system (Child Labour Act exists but is unenforced) fails them. The economic system — which values cheap bangles but not the children who make them — fails them. MUKESH'S DREAM as evidence: His modest aspiration ('I want to be a motor mechanic') is heroic precisely because the system that surrounds him insists he cannot have it. That his dream persists is the essay's evidence that the children themselves are not broken — the system is. CONCLUSION: 'Lost Spring' argues that the children's stolen childhoods represent not bad karma but a structural failure of Indian society — in law enforcement, education, economic policy, and moral courage. 'God willing, he will go to the garage' — the 'God willing' is not only faith; it is also a CHALLENGE to the reader, the governor, the inspector: if God won't ensure Mukesh's dream, will you?

Practice — Lost Spring — Stories of Stolen Childhood (Anees Jung)

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities