| Font Size |
NEW DELHI
Sex education “promotes promiscuity”, there is “no justification” or need to teach HIV/AIDS to school children in the 14-18 age group, sex education “incites stimulation of instincts which is detrimental to society”, basic human “instincts like food, fear, greed, coitus etc need not be taught, rather control of these should be the subject of education”. With these remarks, the Committee on Petitions, comprising Rajya Sabha members and headed by BJP’s Venkaiah Naidu, has recommended that “there should be no sex education in schools” since “our country’s social and cultural ethos are such that sex education has absolutely no place in it”.The committee, which deliberated on an August 2007 petition calling for a debate on implementation of sex education in schools, held its last meeting in March this year. It slammed the Human Resource Development Ministry’s Adult Education Programme (AEP), launched in 2005, as a “cleverly used euphemism whose real objective was to impart sex education in schools and promote promiscuity”.
The committee ruled that children must be given the message that sex before marriage is “immoral, unethical and unhealthy” and sex outside marriage is “against social ethos of the country and that consensual sex before 16 years amounts to rape”. Advocating “instinct control” and “dignity of restraint”, the committee called for a new curriculum to include material on lives and teaching of saints, spiritual leaders, freedom fighters and national heroes to “re-inculcate in children our national ideals and values which would also neutralize the impact of cultural invasion from various sources”.
Other than Venkaiah Naidu, the committee comprises Congress’s Vijay J Darda, Dharam Pal Sabharwal, Ram Chandra Khuntia, RJD’s Subhash Prasad Yadav, LJP’s Sabir Ali, CPM’s Shyamal Chakraborty, BJP’s Maya Singh and AIADMK’s N R Govindarajar.
While other committee members were unavailable for comment, Congress’s Ram Chandra Khuntia confirmed he had backed the recommendations. “I have not disagreed with the committee¿ that means I am in agreement with what it has decided,” Khuntia told The Indian Express.
Incidentally, among the “witnesses” who appeared before the committee on this issue was former CBI chief Joginder Singh who said that sex education would lead to a rise in incidents of rape and in crime in general; former Ambassador O P Gupta who was against sex education; former NCERT director J S Rajput — he was heading it when Murli Manohar Joshi was HRD Minister — who described sex education a “misadventure” that could disintegrate the family system; Dinanath Batra of Vidya Bharati and Shiksha Bachao Andolan who called it a “disastrous” move; former Ambassador Vidya Sagar Verma who feared that such education could lead to sexual harassment in classrooms by teachers or fellow students.
Objecting to the AEP focus on prevention of HIV through use of condoms, the committee said it found no credible survey or study to establish that school children in the 14-18 age group were a high-risk group and needed education on HIV prevention. It recommended that HIV/STD-related education should not be permitted before the 10+2 stage in the biology syllabus and frowned on the close involvement of the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) in framing this curriculum, saying this was the HRD Ministry’s job.
The committee said chapters on Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Unani and Yoga and moral values should be made integral parts of the syllabus to enable “total development of the child”. Chapters like “Physical and Mental Development in Adolescents” and “HIV/AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases” and related topics should be removed from the curriculum and incorporated in biology books only at the 10+2 stage.
Claiming that its members were highly embarrassed by “indecent” power point presentations on the AEP that the Delhi government brought out, the committee said it was shocked by the negative effect that such education would have on children.
Asked to comment on the recommendations, NACO secretary K Sujatha Rao said: “It’s a Ram Sene type of understanding. I cannot comment on the report as I have not read it. As far as sex education is concerned, it is very important. There is a lot of evidence that supports imparting life skills education. In fact, the 15-20 age group contributes about 30-35 per cent of the HIV epidemic. A study has been done by the Population Council which suggests that adolescents are at risk.”
Discuss this story on expressindia forums
|
|
There are two fundamental assumptions made by the committee it seems. One, given the recommendation that sex education be only introduced in the "plus two" stage, it supposes that adolescents are not smart enough to understand these matters. Which is contrary to what the actual academic curricula of most school boards believe, going by their syllabus. At the same time, this age group would be having access to other sexual and pornographic content (if nothing else, over the internet), which could be misleading, in terms of a sexual relationship. Which makes it logical to introduce a deeper understanding of sex and its associated concerns at a younger age.Second, it states that "there should be no sex before marriage which is immoral, unethical and unhealthy". The terms immoral and unethical are up for debate, but is it really unhealthy? Is their valid medical and statistical proof that it is so? As the article does not say anything about the committee mentioning "safe sex" (even after marriage), it could be true that unprotected safe could be unhealthy. All the more reason why safe-sex education is more important at an earlier age, than no sex education at all.Another (un)ethical issue with that statement, is the encroachment of the political administration on personal lives of citizens. Where the personal and individual views on sexual lives of a person are assumed to be aligned with theirs.
Information wants to be free. In this internet age, children will by design or default will get access to all kinds of informations from growing marijuana and processing it to hardcore pornography which is purely for masturbation and not for emulation. If AEP goes full swing, children will get right kind of tips to deal with sexual abuse,use of contraceptives , gender sensitization etc.. A huge opportunity is lost I would say. Another route is Taliban way ..shutting down every entertainment avenue..and that will result in men like in Egypt and Saudi Arabia..who are so sexually frustrated that sexual abuse of women is a day-to-day activity..So lets try and go down that road..good luck fellow indians..
There seems to be strong merit in the argument against teaching of sex education in age group of 14-18. We should not blindly copy western ethos where children are generally brought up without much parent's guidance. Imparting sex education to vulnerable group tentamounts to raising their curousity towards sex leading to unwanted problems. So, prevention is better than cure.
I am glad that some sense had prevailed with this committee. Sex education is better taught by parents to their children that at school. May be the schools can have a training session for parents as to how they should handle some awkward questions and how they should teach the children properly.
There is something like the theory of naturalism in education. Also some other theories are there. I think in case of sex education we should follow the theory of naturalism. If we come out successful in moral education then evils sex can automatically be resisted.
When the use of condoms are promoted as shown in the school walls and other hoardings and bill boards and lots of money spent in this endeavor,for how long can sex and sex education be treated as a taboo.Education is education,compartmentalisation is done just for convenience and detailed focus.What is the harm in telling that a female anatomy to be fully developed is age related ,so is safe motherhood and sex.Sex is age related and is a responsible act.Education,job and a successful carrier 1st,sex and marriage next.Sex is an act which takes place between two mature persons without fear andwith social sanction.
And what exactly is wrong with promiscuity ?