The ques­tion of sex ed­u­ca­tion, in a con­sul­ta­tion ques­tion­naire from the Min­istry of Ed­u­ca­tion, has once again stirred the ire of de­nom­i­na­tion­al Ed­u­ca­tion­al Boards.

In a six-page let­ter is­sued to the min­istry yes­ter­day, the Sanatan Dhar­ma Ma­ha Sab­ha raised sev­er­al con­cerns about the min­istry’s ap­proach in­clud­ing con­duct­ing a por­tion of the con­sul­ta­tion while the Hin­du com­mu­ni­ty was prepar­ing for the Di­vali

How­ev­er, the let­ter fo­cused on ques­tions five and nine which asked par­ents about the Con­cor­dat and the teach­ing of sex­u­al ed­u­ca­tion re­spec­tive­ly.

The Ma­ha Sab­ha said the in­clu­sion of these ques­tions seems to sug­gest the min­istry’s in­tent to cir­cum­vent the au­thor­i­ty of de­nom­i­na­tion­al boards, who had pre­vi­ous­ly stat­ed their point of view on the top­ic.

Le­gal ad­vi­sor for the SDMS Di­nesh Ram­bal­ly par­tic­u­lar­ly ques­tioned the in­clu­sion of the query for par­ents of pri­ma­ry schools stu­dents.

“Be­cause in the pri­ma­ry schools, we have al­ways main­tained that is­sues of sex ed­u­ca­tion, sex­u­al­i­ty and sex­u­al health is some­thing that the board is of the view be­cause of re­li­gious un­der­pin­ning that that has to be cul­ti­vat­ed from the home. This is not the first time this de­bate is tak­ing place,” he said.

Ram­bal­ly al­so not­ed that the top­ic had not been list­ed pre­vi­ous­ly, fur­ther rais­ing con­cerns that it was done with­out the de­nom­i­na­tion­al boards be­ing con­sid­ered.

The point of view con­cern­ing the pos­si­ble un­der­min­ing of de­nom­i­na­tion­al ed­u­ca­tion groups was shared by oth­er de­nom­i­na­tion­al boards yes­ter­day.

Chief Ex­ec­u­tive Of­fi­cer of the Catholic Ed­u­ca­tion Board Sharon Man­groo said while she had not been in con­tact with the as­so­ci­a­tion of the boards and very many of the boards would share the same opin­ion.

“Our re­li­gion im­pacts on how we han­dle health and sex ed­u­ca­tion. How we han­dle ed­u­ca­tion about the body,” she said.

AS­JA’s ed­u­ca­tion board chair­man Shamshad Ali said, “the min­istry ap­peared to want to un­der­mine the con­cor­dat at any giv­en junc­ture.

“The po­si­tion of all the boards are the same. The con­cor­dat is there for a rea­son for each of us to guar­an­tee that our child is taught the tenets of our faith,” said Ali, who like the SDMS ques­tioned the de­ci­sion to sud­den­ly in­clude the top­ic.

“For the Gov­ern­ment to im­pose this on us, at least talk to us first,” he said.

The Pres­by­ter­ian Church al­so is­sued a re­lease on the mat­ter, heav­i­ly quot­ing the Con­cor­dat in re­sponse to the ques­tion­naire, stat­ing the agree­ments en­shrined the in the 1960 agree­ment must be main­tained. They placed fo­cus on sec­tion 4 (F) and (H) of the act which states par­ents or guardians have  right to “ pro­vide a  school of his own chose for the ed­u­ca­tion of his child or ward” and “free­dom of con­science and re­li­gious be­liefs and ob­ser­vance.”

In re­sponse to the SDMS’ let­ter, Min­is­ter of Ed­u­ca­tion Dr Nyan Gads­by-Dol­ly said, “The let­ter sets forth a view on Sex Ed­u­ca­tion in schools. This is the point of the con­sul­ta­tion - to get views. All views are wel­come.”