Campuses with No Touch Policy

Indian education system has always been about making the students excel in their academic path. The best way for which is making the students disciplined. The act of making them disciplined has been a part of Indian educational system since time immemorial. Quite often in such an endeavour it involves a teacher beating the student as a form of punishment known as corporal punishment which can be either physically or mentally, a practice which had been followed and was normalized and in fact was even endorsed by many schools and hostels.

 It wasn’t until the NCPR survey in 2009- 10 which reviewed that the use of physical punishments was rampant in Indian schools and as brutal as cane beatings were a common practice being inflicted upon young students. Even though there is prevalence of laws to prohibit such an act covered in Cr Pc, Juvenile act etc. yet its roots are so deeply engraved in the education system that the students find themselves in thraldom of physical assault just to make them “well- disciplined”.

 Furthermore there have been cases like sexual assault, bullying and physical violence have been on an upsurge in many universities across India indicating a steep administrative failure. Can then the “no touch” policy be implemented to overcome this hurdle and insure a safe and protected environment for the campuses in India as well as a means for the young students to set themselves free from the clutches of corporal punishment?

The ‘no touch’ policy when implemented in any organization or campus discourages any sort of physical touch including hugging and horseplay. Violators of such a policy face the threat of suspension or even expulsion on these grounds if the accusations filed against them are found to be true.

However, rather than being as a relief measure and a firm stance of the administration against corporal punishment, this policy extends to all the people in that school or campus. This ‘no touch’ policy gradually has started being implemented in many schools internationally.

Parents are relieved about a safe and secure environment for the children whereas teachers have a chance to prove their worth and excel in their career as through such a policy in place, it reduces the amount of false accusations and name blaming by the students of having been physically or sexually harassed. This might also lead to a drastic reduction in the number of cases of sexual and physical harassment taking place on school grounds. However, such a policy is not devoid of its disadvantages. Instead this policy might as very well prove to be a double edged sword.

   Due to such a policy any physical touch which might be necessary under any uncertain or unwarranted circumstance like a medical emergency where physical touch is necessary or during P.E activities or music lessons, might prove to be inappropriate and give a wrong impression thereby creating a negative atmosphere rather than creating a positive impact in the bodies present at school.

 According to child psychologist Sean Cameron, “What’s missing is recognition of how important touch is. And that withholding touch is in itself of form of psychological abuse.” In today’s atmosphere and environment it is more than necessary to impart correct sexual education; its importance can never be stressed enough. Parents and educational institutions play a primary role in articulating this knowledge.

 However, this might all go all down the hill if there is adherence to such type of policy as it will only cause a psychological hindrance for them. The whole difference between what is a safe touch and what is an inappropriate touch will become a blurry concept for them as the environment in which they are growing up plays a centrifugal premise in their understanding capacity. 

This policy might dazzle the eyes in a first glance but in reality it is nothing but just another form of hindrance in letting the children grow in a proper environment and substantive environment, such a policy might create a negative feeling towards any sort of touch made by the opposite sex and might even lead to a disruptive response of any sort of human touch.

India’s youth suicide rate is among the world’s highest. Thereby, a no touch policy in campus might seem as an adequate step and a head- strong decision in the direction to overcome this social problem in the society as even Combating physical violence and bullying is indeed a difficult obstacle to overcome.

However is physical violence, bullying etc. one of the major contributors of causing and un- cohesive environment among these students in campus to such an extent that it plays a role in student suicide rate and for which ‘no touch’ policy might seem the absolute option?

    Almost all students in the country face a tremendous amount of pressure from family members to excel in their academic life in such a coat throat competing academic structure , adopting such a policy will act as a catalyst in detailing their mental health. It needs to be understood that adolescence is a tender age, it is an age where they want to revolt against any sort of tradition or rules set by the society which might seem to hinder their personal liberty or might seem orthodox.

Already as per the set guidelines of UGC the student’s activities are already being monitored through CCTV cameras, security check posts, random checking etc. a regressive policy like this might lead to an aggressive revolt, which shall be nothing but prove to be bane for the university administration as well as in student’s well-being.

As stated earlier the causes for student suicide are family problems, drug addiction etc. rather than addressing these problems, a ‘no- touch’ policy is nothing but a hasty step and a vague attempt in understanding the youth’s problems reasoned by bigot understanding of the situation at hand. What needs to be noted is that    

Clearly, such a policy is just a digressive way and does not even address the problem at hand that is prevalent in today’s youth culture. For the children at school so much more can be done.

The principals or the dean can send out a strong message showing zero tolerance over corporal punishment, conducting seminars and campaigns and imparting sex- education in the best way possible from an early age. With regular parents- teacher meet or conducting seminars for parents even they can get involved with their child’s performance and behaviour at school grounds and looking at rather corporal punishment, coming up with other means and effective tools to make them disciplined. Whereas in the university campuses such a regressive policy has no grounds.

The cases of bullying or physical or sexual harassment can be combatted with a strict and active student as well as administrative councils, where the administration staff with a healthy discussion with the student body can come up with strong policies, to combat such hurdles.

Hence, a ‘no touch’ policy in campuses holds no substantive grounds and should be left to just theory rather than coming up with steps on how to implement it effectively.