Nava Thakuria
October 28, 2007, Updated: Bangladesh Time 12:00 AM
Trafficking in human beings, especially women and children, is a heinous crime that violates all tenets of human rights and dignity-that is how the Indian Women and Child Development minister Renuka Chowdhury expressed her reaction while attending a South Asia regional conference in New Delhi recently. The three-day regional conference was organized by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in collaboration with the government of India, where hundreds participants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka and India rubbed soldiers to discuss about the burning issue of trafficking.
The issue of human trafficking that is identified as a serious crime in the human society and a billion dollar global illicit trade came out for rigorous discussion in the conference. Various speakers in the conference reaffirmed their point of views terming human trafficking as a multi-faceted problem, often associated with illiteracy, poverty, lack of employment and also cultural practices.
The United Nations describes trafficking in persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of a threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud for the purpose of exploitation. Trafficking is primarily done for sexual exploitation, but many times trafficked victims are used for forced labour, organ removal and marriage or adoption.
According to the UN understanding, human trafficking that involves the illicit and clandestine movements of persons across national borders is a booming illegal international trade (after arms and drugs trafficking), making an estimated USD 32 billion annually at the expense of millions of victims, who are victims of sexual exploitation and forced labour. It is also estimated that nearly 1,50,000 people, mostly young women and children are trafficked within South Asia annually with promises of a good job, a good marriage, or stardom in the entertainment industries.
"Human trafficking is world's third largest profit-making illicit industry and the South Asia has emerged as the home to the second largest numbers of internationally trafficked persons (after Southeast Asia)," informed Gary Lewis, Representative (South Asia) of UNODC. South Asia is otherwise home to one-fifth of the world's population and nearly 500 million people of the underdeveloped region live in poverty (surviving with less than a dollar a day).
The head of UNODC, Delhi office also acknowledged, "Poverty is the primary cause of trafficking in the region." Revealing that India had emerged as the favoured destinations in South Asia, Mr Lewis informed that over 25,000 women and children are trafficked from Bangladesh annually to India. The share from Nepal is likely to be 15,000, who are brought illegally for the primary purpose of prostitution and slavery, he added.
Porous borders with economically poorer Bangladesh and Nepal (from where none need visa to visit India) aggravate the problem of cross-border trafficking. Bangladesh remained a source country for women and children for a quite a long time, traffickers target their preys in the poverty stricken rural areas.
On the other hand, Nepal is identified as a source country in the region. Fair looking Nepali young women are the primary victims of the trafficking, though new trend emerges with attraction for boys too. Unconfirmed statistics reveal that in average 12,000 Nepali women with minors are trafficked every year for sexual exploitation in outer countries. Most of the trafficked women from Nepal were later found infected with HIV/AIDS and also tuberculosis.
India with over a billion populations also remained a state of origin and transit country for trafficking in persons. It is estimated that that 90 per cent of India's sex trafficking is internal, where States like Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal and the Northeast contribute their shares. But often, women and children, trafficked from neighbouring countries, are sent to the Middle East, Gulf countries and even to the Europe. Pakistan and Sri Lanka have also lately joined in the circuit.
Addressing the conference, the minister Ms Chowdhury also argued that trafficking is by and large a gendered phenomenon. The trafficking in India is primarily for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. There are nearly three million sex workers in India and 40 per cent of them are children or adolescent girls. Statistics reveal that children below the age of 10 years are also found in the brothel of Indian cities like Mumbai and Delhi now a day, the minister disclosed.
"Many believe that having sex with young and virgin girls would cure them of diseases. It is nonsense," Ms Chowdhury uttered. She emphasized on reducing the demand for prostitutes, engagement of children in workplaces, use of forced labour and empowering all collaborative efforts of governments, NGOs and other institutions to deal with the situation.
Ms Chowdhury also informed that New Delhi was formulating a joint action plan with Bangladesh and Nepal to combat the growing tendency of human trafficking in the region. "We are working for a joint effort (with Dhaka and Kathmandu) to formulate policies ensuring quick and safe return of the cross-border trafficked victims," added the minister.
The ministry of Women and Child Development (in India) was actively engaged in organizing the conference on October 9,10,11 in New Delhi that brought together nearly 700 delegates representatives of government, civil societies, private sectors, film industries, media and partnering UN agencies. The regional conference under the global initiative to fight trafficking (UN.GIFT) concluded with a Delhi Declaration at Vigyan Bhawan highlighting the seriousness and magnitude of the crime with a series of focus areas to deal with the issue effectively.
The 19-point declaration, which was read out in presence of many high profile Indian ministers, Afghan deputy Labour minister Wasil Noor (Muhmand) with other dignitaries, resolved to 'call upon all concerned including police, prosecutors and judiciary to undertake concerted action in law enforcement so that offenders are punished quickly, certainly and severely in a time bound manner'.
The declaration also urged upon the States to ratify the UN Transnational Organized Crime Convention and its supplementary protocols to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants. While encouraging 'all efforts towards evolving a synergistic approach in dealing with trafficking issue', it also stressed on working 'towards systemic training and capacity building of all stakeholders'.
The role of youths is recognized as change agents in the declaration with an aim to promote education of the girl child that would finally empower the women 'to their full participation in economic life and decision making'. Identifying 'inter-state and intra-state source, transit and destination routes for forced labour' as a focus area in the declaration, where it was also emphasized on promoting the mode of safe migration.
One important point of the declaration includes building 'a coalition of media partners and popular personalities to advocate for the prevention of trafficking. Mentionable that a good number of media persons and many Bollywood (Indian commercial film industry based in Mumbai) personalities including John Abraham, Amisha Patel, Kiran Kher, Mita Vashisht, Meghna Gulzar with Usha Utthup, Talat Aziz, AK Bir joined the conference and interacted with the vibrant audience that ended in stimulating debates.
Addressing the conference, where officials of UNFPA, UNDP, UNIFEM, UNICEF, ILO and several law officials participated, the Labour minister Oscar Fernandes described forced labour as a global menace that is prevalent in many countries. "Trafficking plays a major role in this exercise, which forces millions of people into the clutches of traffickers," affirmed the minister.
Kiran Bedi (director general, Bureau of Police Research and Development) and Vijay Shankar (director, Central Bureau of Investigation), who were part of a panel discussion during the conference, emphasized on evolving a synergistic approach to all the efforts with an aim to combat the human trafficking effectively. Others who supported the move included David Arkless (corporate affairs officlal, Manpower Inc), Kailash Satyarthi (chairman, Global March against Child Labour) and Carmen Madrinan (executive director, ECPAT).
An UNODC official informed, around 10,000 human trafficking victims, mostly women and young girls, were rescued annually from traffickers in India. At the same time, thousands traffickers with customers were also arrested. "Corporate sector can make an invaluable contribution in curbing trafficking by creating livelihood opportunities and supporting organizations which prosecute traffickers and protect rescued victims," Jeff Avina, director of operations with UNODC in Vienna argued while addressing the assembly that included participants from distinguished companies like Tata Steel, Microsoft, HSBC, Reliance Health etc.
The Indian Home (Interior) minister Shivraj Patil assured the gathering in the valedictory function that New Delhi would support all international efforts to fight against human trafficking in the region. While describing the problem as old, complicated and difficult to get resolved, the important minister in Dr Manmohan Singh's cabinet stressed on modification of existing laws and empowering law-enforcing machineries to efficiently deal with the trafficking issue. He concluded emphasizing on a comprehensive policy with national, regional and international perspectives to efficiently deal with the trafficking issue in the trouble torn South Asia.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Register all marriages: Supreme Court
Order covers all religions across the length and breadth of the country
J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered compulsory registration of marriages of couples belonging to all religions across the country. It directed States and Union Territories which have not enacted rules to this effect so far as per its 2006 orders to frame the necessary rules within three months.
A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice P. Sathasivam passed this order on a petition filed by a divorcee, Seema, seeking directions for making registration of marriage compulsory. The Bench reiterated that marriages should be compulsorily registered “in respect of persons who are citizens of India even if they belonged to various religions”.
In February last year the Court had held that compulsory registration of marriages of all religions would be a step in the right direction for prevention of child marriage – a practice still prevalent in many parts of the country. The Court had said that one way to curb the practice was to make it mandatory legally for all to register their marriage, mentioning their age at the time of marriage.
The Court agreed with the National Commission for Women that compulsory registration of marriages would be of critical importance to various women-related issues such as prevention of child marriage and ensuring a minimum age of marriage; prevention of marriages without the consent of parties; checking illegal bigamy/polygamy; enabling married women to claim their right to live in the matrimonial home, maintenance, etc.
In July this year the Court was informed by the amicus curiae assisting it that though some States had framed the rules, it had been done only for Hindu marriages and not in respect of all religions. Accordingly the Court granted three months to the States and Union Territories to frame rules to cover marriages of all religions.
“It appears that the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tripura have complied with the direction,” it said on Thursday.In West Bengal, it added, changes had been made to the West Bengal Special Marriages Rules, 1969, Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registration Rules and Registration Rules of Hindu Marriage Act for making registration of marriages compulsory and providing for consequences for not doing it.
“So far as other States and UTs are concerned, some of them have not filed any affidavit, and in respect of others the directions have been complied with in respect of Hindus. The directions given by the order dated February 14, 2006, have not been fully complied with. We, therefore, direct that the States and UTs which have not acted in line with the directions given on February 14, 2006, shall forthwith do it and in no case later than three months from today. Place this matter after four months. The affidavits indicating compliance shall be filed before the next date of hearing.”
J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered compulsory registration of marriages of couples belonging to all religions across the country. It directed States and Union Territories which have not enacted rules to this effect so far as per its 2006 orders to frame the necessary rules within three months.
A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice P. Sathasivam passed this order on a petition filed by a divorcee, Seema, seeking directions for making registration of marriage compulsory. The Bench reiterated that marriages should be compulsorily registered “in respect of persons who are citizens of India even if they belonged to various religions”.
In February last year the Court had held that compulsory registration of marriages of all religions would be a step in the right direction for prevention of child marriage – a practice still prevalent in many parts of the country. The Court had said that one way to curb the practice was to make it mandatory legally for all to register their marriage, mentioning their age at the time of marriage.
The Court agreed with the National Commission for Women that compulsory registration of marriages would be of critical importance to various women-related issues such as prevention of child marriage and ensuring a minimum age of marriage; prevention of marriages without the consent of parties; checking illegal bigamy/polygamy; enabling married women to claim their right to live in the matrimonial home, maintenance, etc.
In July this year the Court was informed by the amicus curiae assisting it that though some States had framed the rules, it had been done only for Hindu marriages and not in respect of all religions. Accordingly the Court granted three months to the States and Union Territories to frame rules to cover marriages of all religions.
“It appears that the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tripura have complied with the direction,” it said on Thursday.In West Bengal, it added, changes had been made to the West Bengal Special Marriages Rules, 1969, Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registration Rules and Registration Rules of Hindu Marriage Act for making registration of marriages compulsory and providing for consequences for not doing it.
“So far as other States and UTs are concerned, some of them have not filed any affidavit, and in respect of others the directions have been complied with in respect of Hindus. The directions given by the order dated February 14, 2006, have not been fully complied with. We, therefore, direct that the States and UTs which have not acted in line with the directions given on February 14, 2006, shall forthwith do it and in no case later than three months from today. Place this matter after four months. The affidavits indicating compliance shall be filed before the next date of hearing.”
Family against woman
Indira Jaising
Posted online: Friday, October 26, 2007 at 0000 hrs
A year after the law to protect women from domestic violence was enacted, it continues to be defeated by social prejudice and blindspots
October 26 marks the first anniversary of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The law was conceived as a civil law as distinct from the existing criminal law: Section 498A IPC. It was often said that criminal law had no space for settlement of disputes and could give no relief beyond a conviction. It was to meet this need that the new law was passed.
It provided for the right to residence in the shared household, the right to protection orders, gave power to courts to restrain alienation of assets, mandated return of stridhan and other significant reliefs. It defines violence in all its dimensions, from the physical to the sexual and economic. This definition was taken from the UN Model Code on domestic violence and from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women, to which India is a party. It applies not only to married women but also women in live-in relationships, daughters/mothers facing violence in domestic relationships.
One year is an appropriate time to evaluate the functioning of a law. However, there are no systems to do this on a systematic basis since there are no computerised data bases of orders and judgments. Given this, the Lawyers Collective, which was largely involved with this law in its formative stages, undertook the task of evaluating enforcement, using available data. The chief justice of India facilitated the collection of data from different high courts. Our report, ‘Staying Alive’, is based on this.
The report shows that the law’s main users are women in matrimonial relationships. A few widows have been able to prevent dispossession by using the law, and some young girls have prevented forcible marriages by fathers. The major breakthrough the law achieved was the declaration of the right to reside in the shared household. Surprisingly, it took independent India 60 years to ensure this right. The law makes a clear distinction between the ownership of the shared household and the right to reside in it. What the law does is to grant the right to reside and not to be dispossessed, except by authority of law. It thus prevents forcible dispossession.
This provision suffered a major setback at the hands of the judiciary. The Supreme Court, even before the ink on the Act was dry, declared in a judgment that a woman could claim this right only in relation to a household owned/ rented by her husband. This means that even if her husband lives with his parents and she has her matrimonial residence there, she cannot claim right to residence there. The judgment not only overlooks the law itself, it also overlooks the existing social reality of the joint family, which continues to be the predominant pattern. The report documents how several courts have been refusing relief to women based on this judgment. It demonstrates that in India women have lesser protection than tenants, who cannot be evicted except by procedure established by law.
There have been major protests around this law. Organisations to ‘Save the Indian Family’ have been formed; women who campaign for the law are being told that they are ‘frustrated’ and are ‘home breakers’. It is obvious that respect for human rights of women in domestic relationships — the premise on which the law is based — is not something intrinsic to the ‘Indian Family’. The right to live with dignity is not conceded to women in the private domain. These attitudes predominate at all levels, particularly in the upper classes, among bureaucrats and decision-makers. They have determined the terms of this debate ignoring the Constitution’s egalitarian values. It is therefore not surprising that the law is not implemented, even when the conferment of rights is explicit in letter and spirit. One of the major recommendations of the ‘Staying Alive’ report is that the Supreme Court judgment be reviewed, to restore the right to residence.
The number of cases filed in different states varies greatly. If 3,440 cases were filed in Rajasthan, Haryana had only 235 cases till July 2007. Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh have none in the same period. Some states have figures varying from 5 to 65. These figures may or may not reflect levels of violence in the state against women. They may reflect a combination of higher levels of violence combined with greater awareness of the law. Certainly, in Rajasthan, that seems to be the case. The Northeast continues to use tribal customary forums and has not used the law. No data is available for UP, since the high court there did not send the information.
The law envisages the appointment of protection officers on a full-time basis to record incidents and support women in distress. Interestingly Rajasthan, which has the highest number of cases, has not made such appointments and continues to rely on the police to perform this function, defeating, to a large extent, the need for a multi-agency response to stop violence. Other states have simply designated health workers as protection officers. Most states have appointed protection officers only at the district level, leaving a big gap between the users of the law and the courts. When asked to explain this shortcoming, states have claimed there is no budget for this.
Middle and upper class women continue to be the main users of the law. Working class women are not using it or are unable to access privatised services or lawyers. Also, every state has reported dowry as a major factor in the breakdown of relationships.
By far the most interesting example comes from Andhra which, early on, put in place multiple agencies to activate the law. The police have been sensitised to inform women of their rights. Protection officers work full-time to record complaints of violence and file applications. Legal aid is being given invariably. Why has this not happened in other states? Difficult to say, but clearly Andhra has a better system of management of case work and documents.
All said and done, freedom from violence in the private domain still remains a distant dream for women in domestic relationships, a year after this revolutionary law came into the statute books.
The writer is director, Lawyers Collective, Womens’ Rights Initiative
Posted online: Friday, October 26, 2007 at 0000 hrs
A year after the law to protect women from domestic violence was enacted, it continues to be defeated by social prejudice and blindspots
October 26 marks the first anniversary of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The law was conceived as a civil law as distinct from the existing criminal law: Section 498A IPC. It was often said that criminal law had no space for settlement of disputes and could give no relief beyond a conviction. It was to meet this need that the new law was passed.
It provided for the right to residence in the shared household, the right to protection orders, gave power to courts to restrain alienation of assets, mandated return of stridhan and other significant reliefs. It defines violence in all its dimensions, from the physical to the sexual and economic. This definition was taken from the UN Model Code on domestic violence and from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women, to which India is a party. It applies not only to married women but also women in live-in relationships, daughters/mothers facing violence in domestic relationships.
One year is an appropriate time to evaluate the functioning of a law. However, there are no systems to do this on a systematic basis since there are no computerised data bases of orders and judgments. Given this, the Lawyers Collective, which was largely involved with this law in its formative stages, undertook the task of evaluating enforcement, using available data. The chief justice of India facilitated the collection of data from different high courts. Our report, ‘Staying Alive’, is based on this.
The report shows that the law’s main users are women in matrimonial relationships. A few widows have been able to prevent dispossession by using the law, and some young girls have prevented forcible marriages by fathers. The major breakthrough the law achieved was the declaration of the right to reside in the shared household. Surprisingly, it took independent India 60 years to ensure this right. The law makes a clear distinction between the ownership of the shared household and the right to reside in it. What the law does is to grant the right to reside and not to be dispossessed, except by authority of law. It thus prevents forcible dispossession.
This provision suffered a major setback at the hands of the judiciary. The Supreme Court, even before the ink on the Act was dry, declared in a judgment that a woman could claim this right only in relation to a household owned/ rented by her husband. This means that even if her husband lives with his parents and she has her matrimonial residence there, she cannot claim right to residence there. The judgment not only overlooks the law itself, it also overlooks the existing social reality of the joint family, which continues to be the predominant pattern. The report documents how several courts have been refusing relief to women based on this judgment. It demonstrates that in India women have lesser protection than tenants, who cannot be evicted except by procedure established by law.
There have been major protests around this law. Organisations to ‘Save the Indian Family’ have been formed; women who campaign for the law are being told that they are ‘frustrated’ and are ‘home breakers’. It is obvious that respect for human rights of women in domestic relationships — the premise on which the law is based — is not something intrinsic to the ‘Indian Family’. The right to live with dignity is not conceded to women in the private domain. These attitudes predominate at all levels, particularly in the upper classes, among bureaucrats and decision-makers. They have determined the terms of this debate ignoring the Constitution’s egalitarian values. It is therefore not surprising that the law is not implemented, even when the conferment of rights is explicit in letter and spirit. One of the major recommendations of the ‘Staying Alive’ report is that the Supreme Court judgment be reviewed, to restore the right to residence.
The number of cases filed in different states varies greatly. If 3,440 cases were filed in Rajasthan, Haryana had only 235 cases till July 2007. Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh have none in the same period. Some states have figures varying from 5 to 65. These figures may or may not reflect levels of violence in the state against women. They may reflect a combination of higher levels of violence combined with greater awareness of the law. Certainly, in Rajasthan, that seems to be the case. The Northeast continues to use tribal customary forums and has not used the law. No data is available for UP, since the high court there did not send the information.
The law envisages the appointment of protection officers on a full-time basis to record incidents and support women in distress. Interestingly Rajasthan, which has the highest number of cases, has not made such appointments and continues to rely on the police to perform this function, defeating, to a large extent, the need for a multi-agency response to stop violence. Other states have simply designated health workers as protection officers. Most states have appointed protection officers only at the district level, leaving a big gap between the users of the law and the courts. When asked to explain this shortcoming, states have claimed there is no budget for this.
Middle and upper class women continue to be the main users of the law. Working class women are not using it or are unable to access privatised services or lawyers. Also, every state has reported dowry as a major factor in the breakdown of relationships.
By far the most interesting example comes from Andhra which, early on, put in place multiple agencies to activate the law. The police have been sensitised to inform women of their rights. Protection officers work full-time to record complaints of violence and file applications. Legal aid is being given invariably. Why has this not happened in other states? Difficult to say, but clearly Andhra has a better system of management of case work and documents.
All said and done, freedom from violence in the private domain still remains a distant dream for women in domestic relationships, a year after this revolutionary law came into the statute books.
The writer is director, Lawyers Collective, Womens’ Rights Initiative
Child slavery thriving in Indian cotton industry
Anusha Lall
OneWorld South Asia
26 October 2007
India has distinction of having the largest area under cotton cultivation in the world and has been a pioneer in developing hybrid cotton seeds for commercial use. The Indian cottonseed industry is also marked by the highest proportion of child labour in its workforce.
The local seed farmer justifies the continued and increasing employment of children, particularly girls.
'Cross- pollination work [with reference to cottonseed cultivation in India] is very labour intensive and a large number of labourers [are] required to do this work. It is also delicate work and needs to be handled carefully. We prefer young girl children for this task because with their delicate fingers (nimble fingers) they can handle this work better than adults. They also work more intensively than adults. We can control them easily. They listen to us and do what ever we ask them to do.
‘The most important thing is labour costs. Nearly half of our investment goes towards payment of labour charges. The wage rates for children are far lower than adult wages. We can reduce our labour costs considerably if we hire girl children. If we want to hire adult labour we have to pay higher wages. With current the procurement price we get from the seed companies we can not afford to pay higher wages to the labourers.'
- Sivaramakrishna, (Seed Farmer), Mahaboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh
Thus the majority of the labour force in this labour intensive sector is children, primarily girls, preferred on counts of minimising costs (as labour costs account for about 50% of total cultivation costs in the industry) through low wages (well below market and official minimum standards), higher levels of productivity that can be extracted from children by way of longer hours (8 to 12 hours) and more intensive work regimes, and also effective control.
The situation is rendered more complex with reference to the elements of bonded labour, the role of large national and multinational companies and of the contract farmers, etc.
Citing a recent report, the exploitation of child labour in the industry is linked with larger market forces; a multi-tiered, complex economic relationship, masking social and legal responsibility. The nature and the scale of the problem also hold implications for child trafficking, and conditions of migrant workers.
The children for most part are employed on a long-term contract basis through advances and loans extended to their parents by local seed producers, who have agreements with the large multinational and national seed companies. Most of these children belong to the disadvantaged sections as the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the Other Backward Classes, and 90 per cent are either school dropouts or have never attended schools.
The situation of these children is further characterised by unsafe and exploitative conditions, which can be exemplified by reference to the regular resort to verbal abuse and physical violence by the employers, and a report of the brutal rape and killing of two minor girls in Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.
Another condition specific to the cottonseed cultivation industry is the exposure of the children to poisonous pesticides used in high quantities. This exposure to health risks was also cited in the report of Physicians for Human Rights, 2003. The general health problems reported by children working in this industry were seen to include severe headaches, nausea, weakness, convulsions and respiratory depression. A few child deaths due to pesticide exposure were also reported in Andhra Pradesh.
Some facts and figures further highlight the entrenchment of the problems in the Indian economy and the role of the various players. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in South India and Gujarat and Maharashtra in Central India account for nearly 95 per cent of total cottonseed production in the country. In 2006-07 nearly 416, 460 children under the age of 18 (54% of which were under the age of 14) were employed on cottonseed farms in these states (with the exception of Maharashtra).
The role of several Indian companies (Nuziveedu, Raasi, Ankur and Mahyco – the last a joint venture partner of multinational company Monsanto) can be presented as prominent examples, and multinationals (for example Monsanto, Bayer) can be identified in making use of 200,000 children employed by farmers sub-contracted for BT cottonseed cultivation.
The increasing area coverage under commercial cotton and cottonseed production, with especial reference to the substantial increase in the area under BT hybrid cotton has resulted in the growing control of multinational companies in the industry (for instance Monsanto has patent right over BT gene, therefore indirect control through sub-licence agreements with Indian seed companies).
The strength of the concern for the issue of child labour in the face of large scale-violations has led to growing pressure from national and international civil society. This has resulted in some proactive initiatives (including initiatives by seed companies in their production farms) as well as interventions (especially in the state of Andhra Pradesh) by the government, NGOs (such as the MV Foundation), and other organisations (such as ILO-IPEC, UNICEF).
NGO interventions have focused on bringing girl children back to mainstream education, campaigns against child labour, etc. while the overall response of state and central governments as well as the seed industry remain wanting, whereby the impact of interventions becomes diffused.
Existing employment practices in cottonseed cultivation are in denial of rights of children and in violation of national laws and international conventions (denial of children's rights to education, health and safe living).
This form of bonded labour, work conditions and low wages are also in contravention of the national Children (Pledging for Labour) Act 1933, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, Article 21A of the Indian Constitution which guarantees every child the right to free and compulsory education up to the age of 14 years, ILO Conventions Number 138 and 182 regarding minimum age for admission to employment and the prohibition of worst forms of child labour respectively as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This piece is informed by Davaluri Venkateswarlu’s recent report on 'Child Bondage Continues in Indian Cotton Supply Chain: More than 400,000 children in India involved in hybrid cottonseed cultivation' (Commissioned Study by India Committee of Netherlands, and OECD et al, September 2007) and proceeding reports highlighting the problem.
OneWorld South Asia
26 October 2007
India has distinction of having the largest area under cotton cultivation in the world and has been a pioneer in developing hybrid cotton seeds for commercial use. The Indian cottonseed industry is also marked by the highest proportion of child labour in its workforce.
The local seed farmer justifies the continued and increasing employment of children, particularly girls.
'Cross- pollination work [with reference to cottonseed cultivation in India] is very labour intensive and a large number of labourers [are] required to do this work. It is also delicate work and needs to be handled carefully. We prefer young girl children for this task because with their delicate fingers (nimble fingers) they can handle this work better than adults. They also work more intensively than adults. We can control them easily. They listen to us and do what ever we ask them to do.
‘The most important thing is labour costs. Nearly half of our investment goes towards payment of labour charges. The wage rates for children are far lower than adult wages. We can reduce our labour costs considerably if we hire girl children. If we want to hire adult labour we have to pay higher wages. With current the procurement price we get from the seed companies we can not afford to pay higher wages to the labourers.'
- Sivaramakrishna, (Seed Farmer), Mahaboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh
Thus the majority of the labour force in this labour intensive sector is children, primarily girls, preferred on counts of minimising costs (as labour costs account for about 50% of total cultivation costs in the industry) through low wages (well below market and official minimum standards), higher levels of productivity that can be extracted from children by way of longer hours (8 to 12 hours) and more intensive work regimes, and also effective control.
The situation is rendered more complex with reference to the elements of bonded labour, the role of large national and multinational companies and of the contract farmers, etc.
Citing a recent report, the exploitation of child labour in the industry is linked with larger market forces; a multi-tiered, complex economic relationship, masking social and legal responsibility. The nature and the scale of the problem also hold implications for child trafficking, and conditions of migrant workers.
The children for most part are employed on a long-term contract basis through advances and loans extended to their parents by local seed producers, who have agreements with the large multinational and national seed companies. Most of these children belong to the disadvantaged sections as the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the Other Backward Classes, and 90 per cent are either school dropouts or have never attended schools.
The situation of these children is further characterised by unsafe and exploitative conditions, which can be exemplified by reference to the regular resort to verbal abuse and physical violence by the employers, and a report of the brutal rape and killing of two minor girls in Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.
Another condition specific to the cottonseed cultivation industry is the exposure of the children to poisonous pesticides used in high quantities. This exposure to health risks was also cited in the report of Physicians for Human Rights, 2003. The general health problems reported by children working in this industry were seen to include severe headaches, nausea, weakness, convulsions and respiratory depression. A few child deaths due to pesticide exposure were also reported in Andhra Pradesh.
Some facts and figures further highlight the entrenchment of the problems in the Indian economy and the role of the various players. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in South India and Gujarat and Maharashtra in Central India account for nearly 95 per cent of total cottonseed production in the country. In 2006-07 nearly 416, 460 children under the age of 18 (54% of which were under the age of 14) were employed on cottonseed farms in these states (with the exception of Maharashtra).
The role of several Indian companies (Nuziveedu, Raasi, Ankur and Mahyco – the last a joint venture partner of multinational company Monsanto) can be presented as prominent examples, and multinationals (for example Monsanto, Bayer) can be identified in making use of 200,000 children employed by farmers sub-contracted for BT cottonseed cultivation.
The increasing area coverage under commercial cotton and cottonseed production, with especial reference to the substantial increase in the area under BT hybrid cotton has resulted in the growing control of multinational companies in the industry (for instance Monsanto has patent right over BT gene, therefore indirect control through sub-licence agreements with Indian seed companies).
The strength of the concern for the issue of child labour in the face of large scale-violations has led to growing pressure from national and international civil society. This has resulted in some proactive initiatives (including initiatives by seed companies in their production farms) as well as interventions (especially in the state of Andhra Pradesh) by the government, NGOs (such as the MV Foundation), and other organisations (such as ILO-IPEC, UNICEF).
NGO interventions have focused on bringing girl children back to mainstream education, campaigns against child labour, etc. while the overall response of state and central governments as well as the seed industry remain wanting, whereby the impact of interventions becomes diffused.
Existing employment practices in cottonseed cultivation are in denial of rights of children and in violation of national laws and international conventions (denial of children's rights to education, health and safe living).
This form of bonded labour, work conditions and low wages are also in contravention of the national Children (Pledging for Labour) Act 1933, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, Article 21A of the Indian Constitution which guarantees every child the right to free and compulsory education up to the age of 14 years, ILO Conventions Number 138 and 182 regarding minimum age for admission to employment and the prohibition of worst forms of child labour respectively as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This piece is informed by Davaluri Venkateswarlu’s recent report on 'Child Bondage Continues in Indian Cotton Supply Chain: More than 400,000 children in India involved in hybrid cottonseed cultivation' (Commissioned Study by India Committee of Netherlands, and OECD et al, September 2007) and proceeding reports highlighting the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)