Now India’s children have a right to receive at least eight years of education, the gnawing question is whether’ it will remain ‘on paper’ or ‘become a reality. One hardly needs a reminder that this right is different from the others enshrined in the Constitution, that the beneficiary–a six-year-old child cannot demand it, nor can she or he fight a legal battle when the right is denied or violated. In all cases, it is the adult society which must act on behalf of the child. In another peculiarity, where a child’s right to education is denied, no compensation offered later can be adequate or relevant. This is so because childhood does not last. If a legal battle fought on behalf of a child is eventually won, it may be of little use to the boy or girl because the opportunity missed at school during childhood cannot serve the same purpose later in life. This may be painfully true for girls because our society permits them only a short childhood, if at all. The Right to Education (RTE) has become law at a point in India’s history when the ghastly practice of female infanticide has resurfaced in the form of foeticide. This is “symptomatic of a deeper turmoil” in society which is compounding the traditional obstacles to the education of girls. “Tenacious prejudice against the intellectual potential of girls runs across our cultural diversity and the system of education has not been able to address it.
With reference to the passage, consider the following statements :
1. When children are denied education, adult society does not act on behalf of them.
2. Right to Education as a law cannot be enforced in the country.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?