A PROFILE OF CHILDREN’S PLAY IN

URBAN INDIA

MEERA OKE, ARCHNA KHATTAR,
PRARTHANA PANT
AND T.S. SARASWATHI
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
India
Key words:
play, urban child, urban India
Mailing address:
T.S. Saraswathi
Department of Human Development and
Family Studies, Faculty of Home Sci-
ence, M.S. University of
Baroda, Baroda, 390 002 India
[email:
mps.kon@rmc.sprintrpg.ems.vsnl.net.in]
Childhood [0907-5682(199905)6:2]
Copyright © 1999 SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi)
Vol. 6(2): 207–219; 008139
This article attempts to present an overview of the
situational analysis of play in the urban setting in a
developing country (India), substantiated by the
results of empirical investigations conducted in
Baroda and the metropolitan city of Bombay. The
observations highlight the universal features of play
and also their cultural specificity conditioned by
ecological factors, social class and gender. The
ecological constraints of crowding, the high-rise
buildings, unsafe streets, scarce open spaces, the
preoccupation with the ‘idiot-box’, all seem to
conspire against the urban child’s natural propensity
to play with joyous spontaneity. On the flip side of
the coin, of course, are the conscious endeavours by
the urban community to recognize children’s need
for play and to create play environments in the form
of parks, children’s museums, play centres and the
commercial ‘fun-worlds’. In such a context, what is
most impressive and heartening is children’s
remarkable ability to create their own play space, be
it in crowded hovels, community lanes and alleys,
construction sites or even the traffic-infested streets,
improvising play materials with whatever is
accessible in their environments, be it sticks and
stones, or tins and trash.

Play is a universal phenomenon and for children in particular it is an integral

part of their life experience. Even a snap-shot observation of children’s
behaviour indicates that they readily convert almost any activity into ‘play’.
Whether it is a routine chore like sweeping and dusting, or cooking and eat-
ing food, or even washing one’s hands, children can transform the dull rou-
tine into pleasurable play. Play appears to be children’s lifeline, the very
meaning of their existence.
In the last decade or so, particularly in the western world, the phenom-
enon of play has been of academic interest for researchers. A review of liter-
ature reveals various theories and research evidence related to the role of
play in the development of children, including various factors influencing

207
 CHILDHOOD 6(2)

play such as tools used for play, adult/peer participation and play spaces.
The contributions and values of play have been recognized in the enhance-
ment of physical, psychosocial and cognitive skills in children (see Rubin et
al., 1983; Sutton-Smith and Roberts, 1981; see also Block and Pellegrini,
1989, for discussions on the ecological context of play). Studies in India
have examined the use of play materials (Dave, 1984); play preferences
(Muralidharan and Bannerji, 1972; and traditional games and toys (Khanna,
1983, 1993). Despite some universal features of children’s play, the value
and place ascribed to ‘play’ in the Indian context presents a somewhat differ-
ent world view.

Philosophical roots and historical traditions in India

At the micro level, in daily life, play is considered to be an essential feature
or characteristic of childhood (bal leela1). At the macro level, it is viewed
philosophically, as a metaphor to help one to understand the very meaning of
human existence! In fact the entire world or universe itself is seen as a cre-
ation and ‘play’ (leela) of a cosmic power or force (maya2). Material goods,
the flow and ebb of life, nature and its beauty are all seen as the leela of the
energy of God (maya). The Hindu scriptures like the Bhagwadgeeta, Bhag-
wat and Vedas and their derivations like Viveka chudamani, Upanishads,
Brahmasutra and Amrutaanubha all document and describe in detail this
leela of God. Vivid analogies have been drawn from children’s play to
exemplify and illustrate the goals of socialization, that is to live in the world,
enjoy its pleasures and suffer its displeasures, in an involved yet detached
manner. Children’s play seems to illustrate this point. In their commentaries
and analysis of the scriptures, Madhavananda (1978), Nikhilananda (1987),
White (1994) and Parthasarthy (1990), together with poets like Tagore
(1962), have referred to children’s play with philosophical underpinnings.
There are two perspectives that have been used by these authors and poets.
One eulogizes play as children’s wisdom in the manner in which they assign
minimal importance to the outcomes of their play, and the ease with which
they ‘get into’ and ‘get out of’ play. The other perspective emphasizes the
innocence and ignorance of children in the way in which they are totally
immersed and absorbed in play, almost completely oblivious of their sur-
roundings and themselves.
The significance of play is also well illustrated through some artefacts
of ancient civilization that have been unearthed in various archaeological
excavations, as well as the existence of traditional folk toys in different parts
of the country.
The artefacts obtained from the Indus valley civilization at Harappa
and Mohenjodaro (around 2500–1700 BC) provide evidence exemplifying
that play has always been recognized as part of the natural behavioural
repertoire of the child, and that society made clear provisions for children’s

208
 OKE ET AL.: CHILDREN’S PLAY IN URBAN INDIA

play (Kaul, 1993). The terracotta toys that are unearthed were miniature
objects of daily use like bullock carts, kitchen vessels and dolls. The other
evidence of the historical significance of play in India is in the presence of
traditional toys, some of whose dates of origin are still unknown (Khanna,
1983, 1993). The interesting feature of these toys is that they are indige-
nously prepared from naturally available materials like sticks, clay, leaves,
etc. and function on some scientific principle; for instance the wind-blown
wheel or chidia3 (for further details see Khanna, 1983, 1993). From these
artefacts and illustrations it is evident that in India artisans have long toyed
with children’s play materials. Some toys like the ‘snake toy’ take on ritual-
istic associations (nagpuja4); others are for pure amusement, like the jump-
ing monkey or acrobat. These play things, designed by rural artisans, can be
seen at melas.5 They are inexpensive and easily available. It is evident from
these illustrations that play in the Indian context, has been viewed as a
microcosm of an experimental theatre, wherein children learn adult rules and
norms of behaviour appropriate to the cultural context.

The contemporary scene in urban India

Urbanization has led to many structural as well as sociocultural changes in
living conditions and human behaviour. High density in population, concrete
jungles of high-rise buildings, consequent slum and ghetto settlements, con-
gested vehicular movement on the roads, restricted open spaces, alarmingly
high levels of pollution and an onslaught of media messages characterize
most urban settings. Plastic and other ‘throw away’ packaging material like
tetrapacks and empty cartons litter the cities and spill over garbage dumps.
Disposable, but non-biodegradable materials are the gifts of modern urban
life style. There are an estimated 75 million children (under the age of 15
years) who live in urban India (Bose, 1992). This article addresses some of
the issues relevant to the phenomena of their play. The focus is primarily on
the play profile of middle- and lower-class children with occasional refer-
ence to upper-class children for comparison purposes.

Methodology
This study explains the effect of urban environment on children’s play. It
also focuses on how children utilize environmental restrictions as well as
facilities in their play since we presume that the natural propensity to play in
children will try to overcome any restrictions posed by the environment.
The specific objectives of the study were:

• To study the patterns of children’s play in urban settings;

• To study the restriction, hazards posed, as well as facilities offered
by an urban environment;

209
 CHILDHOOD 6(2)

• To study the manner in which children make creative adaptations of

their environment.

The empirical findings presented in this article are based on ethnographic

accounts of 340 episodes of child-structured play or spontaneous play in the
metropolis of Mumbai (Oke, 1993) and 121 spontaneous play activities in a
satellite urban city of Vadodara (Khattar and Pant, 1997), both in western
India. Observations (participant as well as non-participant) were made of
children playing at specific settings. These settings included (1) high- and
low-SES (socioeconomic status) residential areas; (2) building construction
sites; (3) municipal school and adjacent open spaces; (4) public parks and
(5) government and non-government organizations which cater for chil-
dren’s play space and facilities. Besides observations, interviews of children
and significant others (teachers, parents, other adults present) were also con-
ducted in order to supplement and validate the observation data. Interview
items related to names of games played; rules and their adaptation; and per-
ceptions regarding time, space and materials available for play.

Sample
Mumbai (Oke, 1993)
Two-hundred-and-forty children (130 boys and 110 girls) of ages 6–12 were
observed as members of varied play groups, essentially during the midday
school break. The sampling technique used was instantaneous sampling,
which involves the recording of current activity observed at a given time.
Activity sampling was also done of unorganized group play of children to
ensure representation of play activities. Adult members present, especially
teachers, were also observed for their direct or indirect participation in chil-
dren’s play.
A subsample of 72 children – an equal number of boys and girls – and
their five teachers were interviewed to obtain information on their percep-
tion of children’s play behaviour. The school setting was Marathi medium
schools catering to the majority of Bombay’s middle- and lower middle-
class population.

Vadodara (Khattar and Pant, 1997)

Sixteen sets of half-hour observations were recorded, four observations in
each of the following settings: parks; middle-SES residential areas; building
construction sites; lower-SES residential areas.
The choice of these settings was guided by the fact that these are
the typical urban settings where children play and are also easily accessible
for naturalistic observation. The groups varied in size from single children
playing alone to groups of nine to ten children, averaging about five per
observation.

210
 OKE ET AL.: CHILDREN’S PLAY IN URBAN INDIA

Data were later analysed to provide a description of play and play

spaces available in the urban settings. The findings have been examined in
the light of: what, how, with what, where and with whom children play.
Community efforts towards providing infrastructure facilities for children’s
play are also described.

What do children play?

Irrespective of whether children have space, material or other children to
play with, play is an integral part of a child’s daily life. Children convert
almost anything they can lay their hands on into play materials or into a play
activity. For instance, a parked car becomes an object for jumping and
climbing upon, or a traffic signal, a pole to run around.
In the school setting alone, despite the overloaded school bag, and no
adult-designed play material, 41 varieties of play activities were observed
(see Table 1). The play reflects some of the traditional games played the
world over, like tag, hide and seek and ball and stick games, while others are
modifications of those games, or constructions of a theme from material
available/discovered in the environment, like plastic bags, empty tins, peb-
bles, sticks, leaves, discarded paper or a chance cycle tyre.
The modifications of the games usually occurred as a response to the
restrictions posed by the environments. For instance, the traditional game of
tag (pakda-pakdi), where whoever is ‘It’ catches all the players, until the last
player is declared the winner, was modified to a game of ‘quick tag’ (jhatta
patti). In this modification, ‘It’ catches one child who in turn catches
another, and the game continues and everyone gets to play all the time. The
children used their judgement to restructure the game owing to less space
being available for running and the need to stretch the time available for
spontaneous play to its maximum.
The content of pretend play provides snippets of urban life. The chil-
dren pretend to be film stars and use dialogues from the films, interspersed
with songs. Even while enacting festival rituals like Ganapati (in honour of
the elephant-headed god) and Navratri (invocation of the goddess Durga for
nine nights), they sing fast beat cinema songs to contrast the lyrical tradi-
tional songs. Children’s drawings also reflect urban life – they draw match
box buildings, with vehicles on the roads.
Another feature of the play activities is most (75 percent) of the play
involved physical movement, sometimes vigorous, like, for instance, chas-
ing, jumping over obstacles like a wall or a puddle of water, racing, dancing,
hopping and masti (horse play), despite inadequate space. The more seden-
tary play included singing songs, rhyming with the last word of each earlier
song, making mud/sand pies and houses, or rearranging twigs, beans, stones
or trash present in the environment.
The play of children in groups essentially revolved around a central

211
 CHILDHOOD 6(2)

Table 1 Types of play activities in urban India (and percentage of time devoted)

Types of play Variations of play Time (%)

1. Catch/tag Pakda-pakdi, vis-amrut, chor-police, jhatta-patti, 28

dongar ki pani, tala-chabi, talat-malat,
jodi-jodi, sakhli, langdi, langdi parti, chikadgunda.

2. Hide and seek Andhali koshimbir, lappa-chappi, dabba phodi, 3

lingorcha.

3. Ball and stick Abba dubi, lakad-udi, table tennis, cricket, 4

badminton.

4. Jumping/skipping/dancing
Rassi, chapti/hop-scotch, phugdi, bus phugdi, 22
jhimpori jhim, garba, ghisbai ghis, phubai phu,
elastic.

5. Paper and pencil Range rang konta, drawing, names of animals, 1

places, etc.

6. Singing Antakshari. 2

7. Pretending Becoming animals, chuk chuk gadi, teacher, 5

ganpati, film sequence.

8. Masti/horse play Play fighting, teasing. 35

Source: Oke (1993).

person. Two-thirds of the child-structured play requires a single leader, who

usually initiates the game. Team games, which require more space and
sometimes equipment, were not common (17 percent).
Disregarding the setting and its constraints, children’s natural propen-
sity to play is so strong that the child’s ‘work’ does not preclude child play.
It is not uncommon to see a girl, with her sibling on her hips, coming down a
slide at a public park, or rag pickers on the streets chasing one another in
play, even while engaged in picking rags.
Even a child helping her mother wash vessels or clothes lingers during
the task at hand, playing with the water, splashing it with her hands or feet.
The time available for play may be reduced for a child wage earner, but the
child still snatches an opportunity to play whenever possible. The content of
the play is certainly defined by the environment that the child lives in. For
instance, at a construction site children use the gate for swinging and bricks
for balancing precariously.

212
 OKE ET AL.: CHILDREN’S PLAY IN URBAN INDIA

How do children play?

Although children play in any given situation, how and with what they play
seems to differ according to the context. When in groups, play usually fol-
lows a specific pattern. The games designed by children themselves proceed
in five steps (Oke, 1993).

1. The first step consists of ‘starting the game’, which involves initiat-
ing activities; for example, a child sings a rhyme belonging to a partic-
ular game, and other children gather together (e.g. ‘Tu, tu tu’ – for a
catching game), or a child displays an object that he or she is holding
(like a crumpled paper ball), or someone makes a suggestion and the
rest accept readily.
2. The next step involves choosing, defining roles and trying to get the
best role. The selection is made by using a method of chance. Jingles
or rhymes are used to find the odd person out like ‘in pin safety pin’
(the influence of urban living!). In some games motor skills like speed
determine the players’ roles. For instance, all participants place their
foot on a marked circle, and at a signal all the children remove their
foot, the last person to remove their foot is ‘It’.
3. The next step involves ‘marking the boundaries’ and defining the
limits of behaviour for the players. Children structure their play
according to available space and events around them. For instance, one
of the rules for playing ‘teacher-teacher’ is that the teacher is not
allowed to smile (some reflection of Indian school teachers!). Accor-
dance with the rules determines whether the player continues to play
or not. The adherence to rules and restructuring them often become a
source of disagreement among the players.
4. The next step usually merges with the earlier one and involves the
actual ‘playing of the game’, going beyond setting the stage for play
and working out the rules of the game. It is usually accompanied by a
lot of high-pitched voices, and concentrated moves and strategies.
5. The last step involves the ‘dissolution of the game’, which is usu-
ally the result of either an internal conflict among the players or ‘time
up’, or interference from some external source. These processes at
times occur rapidly, and children change games fluidly, moving from
one to the next, the time duration ranging from a few seconds to half
an hour.

With what do children play?

In two of the observed settings, that is at the parks and among high-SES
children, play was influenced by the presence of fixed equipment for play
and the presence of adults. Swings, slides and the jungle gym were incorpo-

213
 CHILDHOOD 6(2)

Table 2 Taxonomy of play material used in an urban setting

Materials for play

Designed for play Not designed for play
Fixed Commercially
available Rubbish

Swings Marbles, Plastic rings, wooden planks, coconut shells,

Slides dolls, board tin boxes, polythene bags, scraps of cloth,
See-saws games, balls, thread, plastic bottles, tobacco packs/
Jungle gyms tricycle, ropes, wrappers, bottle tops, cardboard, scraps of
Merry-go-round bats, stuffed toys paper, torn balloons, broken bangles, etc.

Vehicles
Parked cars, scooters, trucks, railway vans,
etc.

Physical setting
Railway tracks, benches, walls, broken
furniture, telegraph/traffic light poles, gates,
railings, plastic and cement pipes,
abandoned buildings, etc.

Household and personal material

Utensils, slippers, clothes

Construction material
Sand and cement mixers, bricks, stored
water, iron rods, broken paving, etc.

Nature’s bounty
Trees, plants, leaves, twigs, beans, grass,
sand, mud, stones, etc.

rated in play. Contrary to these two settings, the materials that children
among the urban poor used are seldom designed for play. They used a wide
variety of materials, ranging from usable rubbish littering the surroundings
to the physical setting itself (see Table 2). The rubbish included plastic bags,
bottles, rings, wooden planks, broken coconut shells, empty tins and boxes,
thread/string, scraps of paper, candy/chocolate wrappers, etc.
Children from the ‘disadvantaged’ settings seem to play more imagina-
tively than children from socioeconomically advantaged families or settings.
The ‘denseness’ of the construction site and the lower-SES residential areas
offer a richness in the possibility for play. There are a variety of textures,

214
 OKE ET AL.: CHILDREN’S PLAY IN URBAN INDIA

Table 3 Use of materials: nature of play

Park with
Construction play
Use of materials site equipment Lower SES Higher SES

Innovative 55 (84.6%) 11 (52.4%) 31 (88.6%) 19 (54.3%)

Intended 10 (15.4%) 10 (47.6%) 4 (11.4%) 16 (45.7%)

Total 65 21 35 35
Source: Khattar and Pant (1997).

materials to explore, and a number of corners, heights and depths within the
physical setting, safe or otherwise, where children hide, jump, climb
and slide down. These two settings appear to encourage children to use
indigenous material and be innovative in their play, in contrast with the
structured spaces and play material available to children in the higher social
class. This is dramatically illustrated in Table 3, which presents a disaggre-
gation of data by play space and SES (Khattar and Pant, 1997).

Where do children play?

By and large children in urban settings play in spaces that are not specifi-
cally designed for play, like building sites, pavements and pathways, squares
and roundabouts at traffic signals and crossroads, staircases and corridors of
abandoned buildings, near or even on railway tracks, in parking areas and
school compounds. Though these spaces offer a great variety for play, they
are not always safe for children. Often heavy traffic, overflowing rubbish
tips and broken glass are located close to the spaces where children play. For
instance, at the construction sites, a common urban sight, materials used for
construction are generally scattered around in adjacent vacant spaces or
spread over the road. There are bricks, piles of sand, crushed stones, cement
bags, iron bars, wooden scaffolding, open water tanks, along with machines
for mixing cement and concrete, as well as bare electrical wires.
In the slums inhabited by low-income families, the houses constitute a
single small room, constructed out of katcha6 material. These homes are
clustered together, usually by the side of the road. The sewage flows in open
drains very close to the houses. The scarcity of space compels people to
carry out their daily chores in the open by the roadside. They wash
dishes/clothes at a community tap or by using water stored in front of their
homes, near the open drains. Often a bamboo cot is placed outside the house
where the men sit. In many places vehicles like trucks and tempos are
parked on the street further reducing the space available for movement. Chil-
dren are busy playing at these locations, in close proximity to this booming,
bustling spate of activities, often without footwear for protection.

215
 CHILDHOOD 6(2)

In the higher-SES residential areas, sometimes there are swings and

small soft grass lawns provided for children. Usually, due to the high-rise
complexes, these spaces are inadequate and children extend their play area
to the parking space, and sometimes outside the boundary wall, onto the
roads.
What is evident among both the higher- and lower-SES groups is that
children structure their own play space.

With whom do children play?

When not alone, children play in the company of other children or in the
presence of or with adults and also with animals. Although children indicate
a clear preference to play with homogeneous age and gender groups, in real-
ity they play with whoever is available, be it human or animal, boy or girl,
older or younger than them.

Age mix and patterning in play activities

Other than in the school setting, children rarely get a chance to play with
single-age peers. Multi-age groups play together. In their play, the younger,
inexperienced players are assigned insignificant roles (katcha limboo7). This
role enables the children to learn the game by first watching and being
around. Children learn the rules of the game by being apprentices. When
asked ‘Who taught you the rules of the game?’ most of them replied,
‘Nobody taught us, we just know’!

Gender segregation and differences in play

Gender differences were observed not only in the nature and content of the
play activities, but in the space used for play as well. Girls and boys pre-
ferred play in segregated gender groups, the only exception being when the
older girls had their younger brother on their hips (this is typical of the
Indian setting, where a girl usually takes on the role of care-giving while still
a child herself).
Clear gender differences were observed in play: girls played hop-
scotch or four corners, played with dolls, sang and danced; whereas boys
played cricket, kho-kho, ball games, cops and robbers, etc. Even in the slum
settings, boys played ball games, climbed onto parked vehicles and bound-
ary markers like fences and walls, while girls played with miniature house-
hold articles, dolls and skipping ropes (often made from material found
around them).
There were marked gender differences in the use of space for play
(Oke, 1993). Girls typically marked out the boundaries first, before initiat-
ing play, and used available enclosed spaces like corners in a classroom,

216
 OKE ET AL.: CHILDREN’S PLAY IN URBAN INDIA

particularly behind the door, close to the teacher’s table, or an enclosure near
a water tank in the school compound or home setting. Boys on the other
hand created the boundaries as the game proceeded, and usually chose open
spaces for play. The boundaries for play were adapted to the capacities of the
players; for instance, in the game of cricket, the boundary for play depended
on how far the players could run. In slum settings girls were observed to
play around their homes; the space for movement was limited and restricted
because they had to take care of younger siblings and other household
chores.
The age mix and gender differences in play clearly reflect the distinct
socialization of children. Girls tend to conform to the rules of the game, and
enforce the rules as well; whereas boys use flexible rules, and change them
at their convenience.

Adult involvement in the play of children

Adults, whenever present, played three kinds of roles: instructive (directly
telling the child what to do); restrictive (cautioning and protecting them
from harm); and participative (playing with the children). Adults were
observed to accompany children to the public gardens, and be around in the
slum and school settings. The most frequently observed role was restrictive
(79 percent), which may in a way be limiting children’s willingness to
experiment.

Community efforts towards making provision for play

Despite the constraints, the urban scene also provides available recreation
centres (bal bhavans), public parks, museums (accessible to children of all
social classes) and ‘fun-worlds’ or amusement parks (accessible mainly to
children from higher income groups). These settings, though few in number,
have large open spaces with permanent equipment like swings, slides, see-
saws, jungle gyms, etc., and are usually fenced off for protection against
traffic and stray animals. Recreation centres provide other facilities like the
opportunity to play tennis, badminton and cricket, as well as clay modelling,
collage making and toy libraries at a low fee. The commercial amusement
parks are located a little away from the main cities, and offer a variety of
rides like roller coasters, giant swings, racing cars, adventure sports and pic-
nic areas, at a fee that not everyone can afford and hence accessible only to
the well-to-do. Children need to be escorted to these places; but for those
who can afford them, it is fun.
With a concern towards making open areas (designed by municipal
authorities as playgrounds) more child friendly, in Mumbai the International
Playground Association (IPA) has been redesigning and renovating these
areas. Some of the areas have been cleared; the rubbish tips have been

217
 CHILDHOOD 6(2)

removed and swings made from old tyres and sand pits make the place child
friendly. Others still await their turn for transformation. Recently, in an
UNESCO-sponsored international seminar cum workshop on ‘affordable
spaces for education of children’, held at Mumbai in August 1996, students
of architecture reported on projects undertaken to redesign existing open
spaces for children. Some of these have been sponsored by the industrial and
corporate sectors. Such efforts are indeed encouraging exercises towards
building challenging, safe and interesting play spaces for children.

Conclusion
To conclude, observations of play in a variety of settings reveal how intense
and absorbing play can be for children. They play in close proximity to the
contexts of adults’ daily lives and childhood and play enjoy a synergistic
relation.
One would expect that the social ills like child labour, prostitution,
overcrowding and hectic lifestyle that plague children’s lives in urban India
would impose restrictions on children’s spontaneous play behaviour. How-
ever, it is heartening to note that while operating within these limitations,
children snatch their time and space to play by restructuring the content to
the context and innovating upon whatever is available to them.
While empirical data highlight the universal prevalence of play and the
commonality in games such as hop-scotch, tag and hide and seek, they also
draw attention to some culturally unique games and context-specific play
activities and adaptations. The role of the adults in children’s play in urban
India is essentially restrictive, i.e. to protect the child from hazardous activ-
ity and/or to minimize adult discomfort by keeping noise and movement at a
low level. The adult role in facilitating and promoting children’s play is min-
imal (such as accompanying children to parks), if not entirely absent.
The use of play spaces and materials by children merits special atten-
tion. Observations reveal that the spaces and materials which provide maxi-
mum opportunity for innovation, such as those available in slums and
construction sites, are not particularly safe for children, and the safe environ-
ments provided by the adults such as parks with structured play equipment
are not particularly stimulating. The challenge is to create play spaces that
are safe, inexpensive and yet with scope for innovation and fun, fostering the
spirit of playfulness in childhood. This was Tagore’s dream for children, a
dream so vividly captured in his poem, which serves as an apt conclusion to
this article:
On the seashore of endless worlds the children meet with shouts and dances.
They build their houses with sand and they play with empty shells.
With withered leaves they weave their boats and smilingly float them on the
vast deep.
Children have their play on the seashore of worlds. (Tagore, 1962: 54–5)

218
 OKE ET AL.: CHILDREN’S PLAY IN URBAN INDIA

Notes
1. Bal leela: children’s play – the contextual meaning of leela is play acting.
2. Maya is a term used to describe the power or force that deludes humans into believing
the unreal as real.
3. Chidia: a sparrow.
4. Nagpuja: praying to the cobra.
5. Mela: a local fair for people of all age groups.
6. Katcha: literally ‘unbaked’ material used to build make-shift dwellings (not
made from brick and mortar).
7. Katcha limboo: literally means unripe lemon, implying that the child was not a
full-fledged participant in the game.

References
Block, M.N. and A.D. Pellegrini (1989) ‘Ways of Looking at Children, Context and Play‘, in
M.N. Block and A.D. Pellegrini (eds) The Ecological Context of Children’s Play, pp.
1–15. Norwood, NY: Ablex.
Bose, A.B. (1992) The Disadvantaged Urban Child in India, Innocenti occasional papers. Flo-
rence: International Child Development Centre/UNICEF.
Dave (1984) ‘Need for Parent Education and Involvement with Reference to Play and Play
Material for Children’, Play and Child Development. New Delhi: National Institute of
Public Cooperation and Child Development..
Kaul, V. (1993) ‘Play – An Instrument of Child Growth’, paper presented at the joint Indo-
Swedish Conference on the Child’s Right to Play, Pune, 1–4 June.
Khanna, S. (1983) Dynamic Folk Toys. New Delhi: Government of India.
Khanna, S. (1993) ‘Indigenous Indian Toys : Learning More from Less’, paper presented at the
joint Indo-Swedish Conference on the Child’s Right to Play, Pune, 1–4 June.
Khattar, A. and P. Pant (1997) ‘Children’s Interaction with Urban Indian Environment during
Play: An Ethnographic Study’, unpublished document, M.S. University of Baroda,
Vadodara, India.
Madhavananda (1978) Vivekacudamani of sri Sankaracharya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashram.
Muralidharan, R. and U. Bannerji (1972) ‘Play Preferences of Nursery School Children’,
Indian Educational Review 7(2): 66–77.
Nikhilananda (1987) Atmabodh (Self-knowledge). Madras: Ramakrishna Math.
Oke, M. (1993) ‘Group Play Patterns of Children as a Potential for the Development of Man-
agement Skills’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bombay, Mumbai, India.
Parthasarthy, A. (1990) Atmabodh by Sri Adi Sankaracharya. Mumbai: Vedanta Life Institute.
Rubin, K.H., G. Fein and B. Vandenberg (1983) ‘Play’, in P.H. Mussen (ed.) Handbook of
Child Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 693–755. New York: John Wiley.
Sutton-Smith, B. and J.M. Roberts (1981) ‘Play, Games and Sports’, in H.C. Triandis and A.
Herron (eds) Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 425–71. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tagore, R. (1962) Gitanjali. London: Macmillan. (Originally published in 1913.)
White, S.J. (1994) Liberation of the Soul. Amritsar: Radha Soami Satsang, Beas.

219