HIV or not:

All kids should be in school

by Husna Inayathulllah

In the wake of a heartbreaking story of a six-year-old being denied admission to a school in Kuliyapitiya comes this shining example from Bogashandiya in Anuradhapura. These villagers too ostracized the child, in the belief that his mother had died of HIV/AIDS.

Yet, after a short awareness session by a medical consultant from the Anuradhapura Hospital, they altered their views. If the Kuliyapitiya example was harsh, people of Bogashandiya, a village some 40 km south of Anuradhapura, set a truly humane example, collectively lobbying for the kid’s admission to the village school.

According to Dr Ajith Karawita, Consultant, STDs and HIV Medicine, Anuradhapura Teaching Hospital, the five-year-old was denied admission to Bogashandiya Gamini Vidyalaya in Anuradhapura in 2015.

“People were harsh and ignorant towards the Kuliyapitiya kid and those People from Bogashandiya were no different, initially. But once they were sensitized, they wanted the kid to be admitted to the village school without further delay,” he said.

First, the village was agog with rumours about his mother’s cause of death.

Students’ parents were up in arms against the child’s potential admission to Bogashandiya Gamini Vidyalaya and were threatening to remove their own children from the school, if the principal dared to admit the child.

His heart broke for the ostracized child but his likely admission could have resulted in the closure of the school, if parents carried out the threat and had their children removed from the school. With just a student population of about 200, there was every possibility that losing more students would mean closure.

In the meantime, the school principal and the tutorial staff soon began consulting Dr. Karawita and the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) for advice. The STD clinic at the hospital assured that the child suffered no infection, offering them a glimmer of hope.

With this news, Dr. Karawita was invited to organise a meeting with the parents.

Dr. Ajith Karawita

With no reference being made to the ostracized child, he made a presentation on HIV transmission to a captivated audience. He cleared many myths and offered answers to worried parents.

“They were able to grasp the scientific explanation and were full of regret about their own reaction to a little boy from the same village. They wanted to rectify the mistake and uphold the child’s right to education. They stood by the principles of humanity and the child began schooling,” he said, adding that awareness creation ensured a happy ending to this tale.

Right to education

Meanwhile, following the Kuliyapitiya saga where even the Minister of Education, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam was seen to be taking the side of his constituents to deny a village kid the right to enter the nearly school, three lawyers have successfully defended all Sri Lankan kids’ right to enter a government school: with or without HIV.

Lawyers Kamani Jinadasa, Senany Dayaratne and Thishya Weragoda made history when they defended the right of the Kuliyapitiya child to be educated at a government school. His mother petitioned the Supreme Court, requiring Court to uphold the child’s right to a legal remedy and unobstructed education in a government school.

Chief Justice K. Sripavan ruled that every citizen over the age of five years had a right to education at any government school in the country: whether living with HIV or not.

The lawyers, Kamani Jinadasa, Senany Dayaratne and Thishya Weragoda

One of the lawyers who appeared for the child from Kuliyapitiya told the Sunday Observer: “It is regressive and completely medieval to deny children their education in this manner.

Such behaviour finds no space in any civilized society. We are governed by the Rule of Law and there is no way to punish or ostracize a child just because the parents are living with HIV or not. The matter was not fully argued on the basis that he is already admitted to Trinity College. The Supreme Court delivered an ‘order,’ which can take place at any point in a case.

The Court, whilst terminating proceedings on the basis that the substantive relief had been granted, also very significantly made two far-reaching observations in the course of the said order.”

The young lawyer added that the particular case demonstrated the potential for progressive judicial activism in rights cases and it augured well for the future.

“The circumstances surrounding the case also exemplifies how powerful public opinion and positive persuasion at all levels could be.

It was a victory for the proposition that ultimately, the people still have the power to make positive interventions,” he added.

The lawyer said that public awareness can only be achieved through the wide dissemination of information relating to the existing laws and its implications. “Ideally, such programs should be launched in the wake of the cases such as this, hilst it’s uppermost in people’s minds,” he added. Offering an explanation to the possibility of claiming compensation, he said it was complicated and no possibly the best course of action in this instance.

“The mother was not looking for monetary compensation but to have her child admitted to a school. She has succeeded in achieving her goal, “he said.