Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 1991, publiée 78ème session CIT (1991)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Inde (Ratification: 1954)

Referring to its previous comments on the situation in law and in practice concerning the abolition of bonded labour, the Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending June 1989, including extracts of the report by a subcommittee of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee attached to the Ministry of Labour, as well as the discussion which took place in the Conference Committee in June 1989. It has also taken note of the discussions in the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery of the United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities at its 14th and 15th Sessions, 1989 and 1990.

Abolition of bonded labour

1. Scope of the legislation. The Committee has previously noted that under article 23(1) of the Constitution of India, traffic in human beings and "begar" and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and punishable in accordance with the law. Under section 4(1) of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, No. 19 of 1976 the bonded labour system shall stand abolished and every bonded labourer shall stand freed and discharged from any obligation to render any bonded labour; under section 2(f) "bonded labourer" means a labourer who incurs, or has incurred, a bonded debt, i.e. an advance obtained, or presumed to have been obtained, by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of the bonded labour system (section 2(d)); the definition of "bonded labour system" given in section 2(g) refers, inter alia, to customary or social obligations and birth in any particular caste or community as possible reasons for bondage. In its judgement of 16 December 1983, the Supreme Court of India rejected the argument by the State of Haryana that in the absence of a debt certain labourers may be providing forced labour, but are not bonded labourers within the meaning of the 1976 Act, and the State would thus not be compelled to rehabilitate them. The Supreme Court pointed out that under section 12 of the Act it shall be the duty of every District Magistrate to inquire whether any bonded labour system or other form of forced labour is exacted and, if so, to take the necessary action to eradicate such forced labour. The scope of the Act was further clarified by amendments adopted in 1985. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in relation to the scope of legislation on the abolition of bonded labour.

2. Identification, freeing and rehabilitation of bonded labourers. Concerning the number of bonded labourers the Committee referred previously to estimates made in 1981 by the Gandhi Peace Foundation in co-operation with the National Labour Institute which held that there were some 2.6 million bonded labourers in the agricultural sector alone (in 11 out of 21 States) and to the 1979 report of the Subcommission on Bonded Labour set up by the Central Standing Committee on Rural Unorganised Labour, which referred to some two million bonded labourers in the rural sector. The Committee also noted that the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes considered that the practice of bonded labour existed also in other areas than in agriculture such as quarrying, weaving, domestic services, etc. The existence of bonded labour in quarrying and weaving was confirmed by the above-mentioned Supreme Court judgement of 16 December 1983 and the report of the Commissioner appointed by the Supreme Court on the working conditions of child labour in the carpet units of Mirzapur.

The Committee notes the Government's renewed statement in its report and to the Conference Committee in 1989 that it has not accepted any of the estimates of the number of bonded labourers inter alia because there had been wide variations in the interpretation of the scope of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, all the estimates having been made before the adoption of the amendments to clarify the Act. The Committee notes however in this connection that the Supreme Court's judgement of December 1983 and the 1985 amendments, far from restricting the scope of the Act, have, on the contrary, stated that forced labour also comes under the purview of the Act. Thus they would tend to revise the earlier estimates upwards rather than downwards.

The Government indicated to the Conference Committee in 1989 that 242,532 bonded labourers had been identified, among whom 218,272 had been rehabilitated as of March 1989, the Government's target being to rehabilitate all the identified bonded labourers by March 1990; if new bonded labourers were identified they would be cases of new bondage or old cases which did not come to light before, despite the Government's efforts. According to the latest figures submitted by the Government to the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery at its 15th Session in July 1990, the total number of identified and freed bonded labourers was 242,160 as of 31 March 1990 of whom 210,091 had been rehabilitated. In its report the Government reiterates its commitment to the eradication of the bonded labour system; it also states that, as previously indicated, State Governments are competent to implement the 1976 Act and are primarily responsible for identification and rehabilitation, that they have been unable to ascertain the real situation and that active involvement of trade unions and social organisations is crucially important.

The Committee recalls that it previously took note of a certain number of plans and schemes adopted for the identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, either directed specifically towards bonded labour or integrating bonded labour as one of their components, namely the following: the 1986 20-Points Programme which provides, inter alia, for full implementation of laws abolishing bonded labour and involvement of voluntary agencies in the rehabilitation programme; the centrally sponsored scheme for rehabilitation and the Central Government's instructions to integrate this scheme with other anti-poverty programmes; the establishment in 1987 of the National Commission on Rural Labour, which has responsibility for bonded labour. In regard to the implementaion of the 1976 Act, in particular in relation to these different programmes and initiatives, the Committee notes the following points, taking into account the extracts from the report by the Subcommittee of the Parliamentary Committee attached to the Ministry of Labour, which were communicated by the Government:

(a) Identification and the role of vigilance committees. The Committee observes that the Parliamentary Subcommittee notes in its report that the process of identification, which the Government itself considers as the first basic step in addressing the problem of bonded labour, was in 1986-87 slow as compared to previous years; no targets are set to State Governments for identification (while targets for rehabilitation are set in the 20-Points Programme) - criticism is raised that the number of bonded labourers in the country is much larger than the identification made and that the process of identification is slow. The Parliamentary Subcommittee stresses the importance of surveys to be conducted for identification and emphasises the importance of vigilance committees, in particular as they are meant to secure the involvement of non-officials in the work of identification and rehabilitation; in the course of field visits it noted that vigilance committees had not been constituted and/or reconstituted in all districts and subdivisions where the problem of bonded labour is known to exist, and, where constituted, their meetings were not always held on a regular basis.

The Committee recalls that under section 14 of the 1976 Act vigilance committees are inter alia to advise on proper implementation of the Act, provide for economic and social rehabilitation of the freed labourers, co-ordinate the functions of rural banks and co-operative societies with a view to providing adequate credit to the freed labourers, etc. Under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Rules, 1976, the registers to be maintained by the vigilance committees include in particular the names and addresses of the freed bonded labourers, details of the benefits which they receive, including benefits in the form of land, inputs in agriculture, training in handicrafts and allied occupations, and loans. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned report of the Parliamentary Subcommittee and noting the indication by the Government that State Governments have been asked to ensure that vigilance committees are constituted, hold regular meetings and maintain and keep registers, the Committee requests the Government to provide full and detailed information: on the number of vigilance committees constituted and/or reconstituted in each State in comparison with the number of districts and subdivisions; on their activities, in particular on the results achieved in identification and rehabilitation where such committees exist; on the problems encountered and remedies suggested or introduced (for instance participation in these committees, methods of work); and on any proposals made for improvement so as to allow these committees to exist, function effectively and contribute to the abolition of the bonded labour system. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken, including any written instructions given or incentives made available by the Central Government to the State Governments, and to support and promote activities of the vigilance committees as well as steps taken by State Governments in this regard. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on any recent studies and surveys, whether at the union or state level, conducted to ascertain the real number of bonded labourers which remain to be identified and rehabilitated.

(b) Scheme for the involvement of voluntary agencies. As regards the scheme providing for the involvement of voluntary agencies in the identification and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning subsidies paid to such agencies: a voluntary agency is given a lump sum of Rs.5,000 as a managerial subsidy; for each release order in excess of 20 it will receive an additional amount of Rs.100 as an incentive up to a maximum amount of Rs.5,000; the total amount of a subsidy can thus not exceed Rs.10,000. According to the Government this maximum has been fixed to avoid any misuse of the scheme; however there is no maximum limit in regard to rehabilitation. Noting also the Government's statement in its report that the scheme was launched on 30 October 1987 and that it was too early to assess its functioning, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the operation of the scheme and on the results achieved, indicating in particular to what extent this scheme has accelerated the process of identification and rehabilitation, its efficiency, improvements envisaged and any comments and suggestions made by the voluntary agencies concerned, such as the Bonded Labour Liberation Front, including reports by such agencies or from official sources.

(c) Scheme for rehabilitation. The Committee notes that under the centrally sponsored scheme for rehabilitation of bonded labour a sum of Rs.6,250 is to be spent for the rehabilitation of each bonded labourer. Out of this sum Rs.500 are meant to be given in cash to the bonded labourer soon after his release to enable him to tide over the period till his rehabilitation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether such a sum has proved sufficient to avoid the newly freed labourer falling back into bondage on account of the lack of means of subsistence, given in particular the fact that a long period of time elapses between his release and his rehabilitation. The report by the Parliamentary Subcommittee indicates that there is often a very long gap between identification and rehabilitation: the target for 1987-88 for the rehabilitation of bonded labour in respect of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Rajasthan is less than the number of bonded labourers who had been identified but had not yet been rehabilitated as of 31 March 1987. The Subcommittee considers that in the context of the large backlog of identified bonded labour which still remains to be rehabilitated, it is abnormal that the annual targets for rehabilitation of bonded labour have been going down gradually. The Subcommittee stresses that every effort should be made to rehabilitate by the end of 1988-89 all bonded labourers who had been identified.

Since the timely rehabilitation of identified and freed bonded labourers is of the utmost importance, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to accelerate the process of rehabilition of the identified bonded labourers, in order, in particular, to reduce the danger that a newly freed bonded labourer may fall back into bondage through lack of means of subsistence.

(d) Integration of the scheme for rehabilitation with other anti-poverty schemes. In relation to the Central Government's instructions that the centrally sponsored scheme for rehabilitation of bonded labour be integrated with other anti-poverty programmes, the Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the results are difficult to assess. The Committee notes however the information contained in the report of the Parliamentary Subcommittee on the functioning of some of these schemes. According to the report, the Department of Rural Development has issued instructions that houses constructed under the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) and the Rural Landless Employment Generation Programme (RLEGP) should be made available to released bonded labourers free of cost; however the Subcommittee found in the course of its field visits that although some efforts at integration had been made, a lot remained to be done to provide houses to all released bonded labourers. As regards integration with other anti-poverty programmes such as the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) the Subcommittee considered that generally action plans had not been drawn up to ensure the integration of the centrally sponsored scheme with other anti-poverty programmes.

The Parliamentary Subcommittee states in its report that the centrally sponsored scheme envisages land-based and non-land-based patterns of assistance; complaints have been voiced that the land-based schemes are not useful where the land distributed is non-cultivable; similarly, in regard to non-land-based schemes, it has been alleged that sometimes cattle are of bad quality; in addition, according to the Planning Commission, 42 per cent of the beneficiaries have reported that the schemes were not of their choice but had been thrust on them.

Since the nature and the adequacy of rehabilitation is extremely important, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any action plans adopted to promote the integration of the bonded labour scheme with other anti-poverty schemes, on measures effectively carried out and on results achieved. (e) Proposal for the institution of a National Commission on Bonded Labour. The Committee notes that during the discussions in the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery during its 15th Session, July 1990, Anti-Slavery International stated that the continued gravity and magnitude of the bonded labour system was partly the result of the central weakness in the design and functioning of the machinery for the implementation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. It called for the establishment of a National Commission on Bonded Labour. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information in relation to this proposal.

3. Enforcement of sanctions. Under Article 25 of the Convention, the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and the Government must ensure that penalties imposed by law are really adequate and strictly enforced. Under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, compulsion to render bonded labour, advancement of bonded debt, enforcement of any custom, tradition, contract, agreement or other instrument requiring any service to be rendered under the bonded labour system are punishable with imprisonment for up to three years and a fine of up to Rs.2,000 (sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act); the Act provides for various measures to be taken by state authorities to ensure punishment of offenders. In its previous observation the Committee noted however that few cases of imprisonment had been reported and it requested the Government, in view of the gravity of the problem, to take effective measures to secure the rigourous application of the laws prohibiting and punishing bonded labour.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the Union Labour Minister has stressed to the State Governments the need to launch prosecutions against bonded labour keepers immediately after identification and release of bonded labourers and that in order to avoid any misuse of the allocation of the pecuniary grants, the Union Government has made it clear that if a fresh identification of bonded labour is not accompanied by the launching of prosecution against the bonded labour keeper, the Government may refuse to pay its share of money for rehabilitation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved by these measures which are intended to avoid corruption and misappropriation of funds but which at the same time must not adversely affect the process of identification and freeing of bonded labour.

4. The Committee has also taken note of the information provided to the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery at its 14th Session concerning actions brought before the Supreme Court of India by social action groups which resulted for instance in the release of several thousand bonded labourers in April-May 1988 in the district of Raipur. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the actions brought before the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts of the different States concerning bonded labour, the decisions taken by the Courts and the implementation of these decisions by state authorities. It also requests the Government to provide information including statistics on the number of prosecutions made, sanctions imposed and any other relevant information permitting the Committee to assess the efficiency of the enforcement mechanisms.

Child bonded labour

5. The Committee has taken note of the discussions in the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery of the United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities at its 14th and 15th Sessions, 1989 and 1990. The Committee notes that the reports of the Working group (doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/39 of 28 August 1989 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/44 of 23 August 1990) refer to information provided by Anti-Slavery International concerning child labour in relation to debt bondage in the South Asian countries; this information is set out in the report of the South Asian Seminar on Child Servitude held in June-July 1989 and attended by representatives of non-governmental organisations from five countries. In relation to the situation in India, the report refers to children in bondage in numerous occupations, working under inhuman and hazardous conditions. This report states that debt bondage, force or compulsion is common in almost all categories of child labour. A semi-feudal master-servant relationship supplemented by the vicious circle of indebtedness, and caste structure creates the most exploitative form of child servitude, which prevails in the agrarian as well as in other sectors. According to the estimates contained in the report several million children, between the ages of 5 and 14, are in chronic bondage in agriculture; around a million in the brick kiln, stone quarry and construction industries; hundreds of thousands in carpet-weaving, handlooms, match and fire works, glass bangles, diamond-cutting and polishing, as well as in lock-making. Child bondage and forced labour is connected with the trafficking and kidnapping of children, repression, beating, sex abuse, starvation, abnormal working hours, no freedom of movement, unhygienic and dangerous working conditions, and exposure of the children to grave health hazards.

According to the report, constitutional and legislative provisions adopted to protect the children exist, but are not applied. The Committee notes that Article 24 of the Constitution of India provides that no child below the age of 14 years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or employed in any hazardous employment; under Article 39 the State shall direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of children is not abused and that chidren are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. Provisions enacted for the welfare of children establishing a minimum age for employment, prohibiting night work and requiring medical examinations are contained in a series of legislative texts, in particular in the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, No. 61 of 1986. The child bonded labour system was declared an offence for the first time in 1933 under the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, and, as mentioned above, the bonded labour system was outlawed in 1976 under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act No. 19 of 1976.

The report of the seminar alleges that despite protective legislation, the situation in practice of bonded children is not improving: for instance in the Mirzapur Bhadohi belt, the carpet-weaving region in Uttar Pradesh, despite the 1983 judgement of the Supreme Court of India and the report by the Commissioner designated by the Court and the subsequent release of more than 1,000 bonded children, child welfare legislation continues to be openly violated, and organised rackets of kidnapping or luring away of children and forcing them to weave are continuing. The Committee notes that in a Government of India project document made available to the ILO (ILO, Conditions of Work Digest, Vol. 7, No. 1/1988 p. 125) it is stated that despite the 1986 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, under which carpet weaving continues to be a prohibited activity for children, children are still employed in a clandestine manner; there are three catagories of child workers: children of the loom-owners themselves; children from neighbouring areas; and children sent from distant places, some of whom have been sold by their parents or by unscrupulous middlemen and therefore work as bonded labourers. The project provides that priority education will be given to young children and children from other States who are either working as bonded labourers or who have lost contact with their families.

The report of the seminar further alleges that despite sanctions provided for in legislation, exploiters have no fear of being punished or penalised, the enforcement machinery is weak and the indolence of the authorities, and collusion and corruption hamper identification, release and rehabilitation of the bonded children. As regards, in particular, rehabilitation, the report calls for a more global approach including measures such as a separate rehabilitation scheme for child bonded labourers, and free and compulsory education at least for bonded children.

The Committee recalls that under Article 25 of the Convention the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence and the Government must ensure that penalties imposed by law are really adequate and strictly enforced. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed comments on the allegations referred to above, as well as full information on measures adopted or contemplated to eradicate in practice the exploitation of child labour including child bonded labour. Noting that under section 16 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, any person, police officer or inspector may file a complaint of the commission of an offence under the Act, the Committee would appreciate information on the complaints filed, in particular, in regard to bonded child labourers, prosecutions launched, penalties imposed including copies of court decisions. It also requests the Government to indicate to what extent it was possible to take advantage of complaints and/or prosecutions initiated under the 1986 Act to initiate also proceedings under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 so as to identify, free and rehabilitate the bonded children concerned. The Committee recalls in this connection that under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the penalty provided for is imprisonment for up to three years and a fine up to Rs.2,000 while under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, such penalty is imprisonment between three months and one year or a fine between Rs.10,000 to Rs.20,000.

6. The Committee notes with interest the National Policy on Child Labour and different projects and initiatives related to child labour which are referred to in the ILO "Conditions of Work Digest", Vol. 7, No. 1/1988. The Committee notes in particular with interest that the National Policy on Child Labour includes a legislative action plan, an anti-poverty oriented development programme, and an area-specific plan of action. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the action already taken to put into practice this national policy and on results achieved as well as on any further concrete steps envisaged in the near future.