The infant was at Shaheen Bagh because his parents were protesting, and unless you are well-off, reliable childcare is beyond the means of most people. L ike God supposedly does, the Supreme Court of India works in mysterious ways. Even as we lament the fact that it has delayed deciding on important petitions involving the violation of people’s fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has acted upon a letter written by a 12-year-old against the involvement of children in Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh protests. While issuing notices to the Union and Delhi governments after an infant died at the protests, the court asked: “Was a four-month-old child there to protest?” Well, it’s easy to answer why an infant was at the scene of the protests, but harder to answer to what extent should older children make — and be used to make — political and public arguments. The infant was at Shaheen Bagh because his parents were protesting, and unless you are well-off, reliable childcare is beyond the means of most people. That is why we in India are witness — and oblivious — to infants at hazardous locations like construction sites, footpaths and traffic signals. Parents feel their children are safer in such dangerous places than at the alternative, if at all there is one. It is an indictment of both Indian society and the Indian state that this should be the case. The exact sequence of arguments in the Supreme Court is unclear but the advocates for the Shaheen Bagh protesters ought to have argued that the best place for infants is at the side of their breastfeeding mothers.