United Nations Commission on Human Rights
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery
25th Session

Geneva, 14-23 June 2000
Debt bondage in India, Nepal and Pakistan
Since 1975, Anti-Slavery has made over 30 submissions to the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery regarding debt bondage (also referred to as bonded labour), much of which has focussed on South Asia and in particular India, Nepal and Pakistan. Our submission this year is intended to focus attention on why debt bondage persists in these three countries and what action can be taken to try and eliminate it.

Debt bondage is specifically defined as a practice similar to slavery in Article 1 (a) of the 1956 UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Bonded labour is prohibited under the 1956 Supplementary Convention, as well as under Article 4 of the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights and by the International Labour Organisation Convention No.29 on the use of forced labour.

Debt bondage violates a range of basic human rights to which all persons are entitled, including: the right to liberty and security of person; the right to free choice of employment; the right to equal pay for equal work; the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunal for acts violating their fundamental rights granted by law; and frequently, the right to health and the right to education.

Despite some significant progress against bonded labour in the last 25 years, this form of slavery continues to thrive. The Working Group itself recognised in its report on its 24th session (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/17) that some 20 million people are still held in debt bondage around the world and that existing laws and international agreements concerning debt bondage are not being implemented effectively.

The scale of the problem in South Asia: the statistics debate

While it is accepted that debt bondage exists in India, Nepal and Pakistan, there continues to be considerable controversy regarding the number of people actually held in bonded labour.

In India, estimates vary between Human Rights Watch¹s appraisal in 1999 of 40 million bonded labourers and the 280,340 which were identified by the Indian Government as of 31 March 1999.

The Indian Government's figure seems seriously to underestimate the scale of the problem. The 1978-79 survey, which was carried out jointly by the Gandhi Peace Foundation and the National Labour Institute, estimated that there were 2,617,000 bonded labourers in the ten states surveyed. It should be stressed that this survey only looked at bonded labour used in the agricultural sector. The more recent report submitted to the Supreme Court by the Commission on Bonded Labour in Tamil Nadu (31 October 1995) estimated that there were approximately 1,250,000 bonded labourers in Tamil Nadu alone.

Similarly, in Pakistan, the non-governmental organisation (NGO), the Bonded Labour Liberation Front, estimated in a previous submission to the UN that there were 20 million bonded labourers in Pakistan. A representative of the Government of Pakistan recently stated that the total number of bonded labourers was between 5,000 and 7,000.

The Pakistan Government's estimate seems to be an unrealistic appraisal of the situation. In January 1999, a leading human rights lawyer, Asma Jahangir, estimated that there were 50,000 bonded labourers in southern Sindh alone. Separate studies of working conditions in agriculture, brick kilns and carpet weaving all found high incidences of debt bondage in these sectors.

We are not aware that the Government of Nepal has made any estimate of the total number of bonded labourers in that country. However, some NGO research has been done on a particular form of bonded labour known as kamaiya which exclusively affects the Tharu indigenous group. Based on three studies carried out by different organisations in 1992, 1994 and 1995 it can be estimated that between 70,000 and 110,000 Nepalese are bonded in five districts (Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke and Dang) under the kamaiya system. This figure does not include the more common form of bonded labour, haliya.

The Working Group called for an in-depth global study of debt bondage to be carried out as early as 1978, but the UN Secretariat said that the resources were not available. This year's Report of the ILO Committee of Experts, has once again urged the Indian and Pakistani Governments to undertake a comprehensive survey of both child and adult bonded labour in their countries and has encouraged them to make use of an independent body to assist in the survey.

Legislation to prohibit debt bondage

To their credit, both the Governments of India and Pakistan have passed domestic legislation which prohibits the use of bonded labour in their countries. In India bonded labour is specifically outlawed under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. In Pakistan, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Rules 1995 make bonded labour illegal.

In Nepal, Article 20 of the 1991 Constitution states that "slavery, serfdom or forced labour in any form is prohibited", but no specific legislation to define the offence of debt bondage and provide for the punishment of those responsible has been passed. A recent Anti-Slavery delegation to Nepal (4-8 January 2000) discussed this issue with the then Prime Minister, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai. On 5 January, the Prime Minister announced publicly that the Government would sponsor a Bill to abolish bonded labour. We now urge the new Government to make the introduction of this law a priority in its legislative programme for this year and also to ratify ILO Convention No.29 on forced labour.

Ineffective implementation of domestic legislation

While the introduction of domestic legislation is a prerequisite for tackling bonded labour, it is not sufficient in itself to ensure that it is effectively eliminated, as the following case studies from India and Pakistan illustrate.

On 13 November 1999, the Indian human rights organisation, Volunteers for Social Justice identified dozens of people being held as bonded labourers in the villages of Kili Nahal Singh Wala and Buraj Mehma in Punjab State, and filed a number of test cases with the District Magistrate. The cases consisted of 11 women who became bonded labourers after taking loans ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 rupees (US$70-$230).

When the landlords heard of the cases that had been filed against them, they threatened to kill the women and destroy their property unless the complaints were withdrawn. One of the bonded labourers who refused to do this, Dheer Kaur, said that on the morning of 10 December 1999, she was forced by the landlords to put her thumbprint on a pre-written statement which said that she was dropping her complaint.

Anti-Slavery took up this case with the Indian authorities in January 2000. However, to the best of our knowledge, the bonded labourers have not been released and prosecutions have not been initiated against the landlords in this case, either for illegally employing bonded labourers or for using threats and intimidation to try to persuade them to abandon their attempts to free themselves. The failure of the State to intervene promptly in such cases is a substantial disincentive to other bonded labourers to seek their own release, as they can see that the authorities do nothing to prevent intimidation and actual reprisals being taken against those who seek release.

In Pakistan, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's Special Task Force for Sindh (STFS), brought to Anti-Slavery's attention the case of the Munoo familiy. Eight members of this family worked as bonded labourers for the landlord Abdur Rehman Murri in Sindh's Sanghar District until they were released by STFS in 1996. Two years later, on 4 May 1998, Abdur Rehman Murri and six other men were identified as being responsible for abducting them at gunpoint from the farm where they were working. During the abduction other labourers were beaten and at least one was seriously injured.

The case was registered with the local police (official reference FIR No.35, 1998) and, on 26 May 1998, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Sanghar stated that he had inquired into the matter and had not been able to locate the abducted labourers.

Since that time, STFS has written numerous letters to officials urging them to take action to locate and free the Munoo family, and to bring the abductors to justice. The case is currently pending in the High Court of Sindh, but as far as we are aware it has not been heard due to a number of postponements.

Anti-Slavery took up this case in April 2000. We wrote to the Pakastani authorities to ask what action is being taken to locate and free the eight people who were forcibly abducted on 4 May 1998 and whether charges have been brought against anyone either for the abductions or for employing bonded labourers. As yet we have received no response.

These two cases illustrate the ways in which the legislation is failing people trapped in slavery. In neither case have the individuals involved been freed, despite the fact that the cases were officially registered several months or even years before. In both cases landlords used intimidation and violence to ensure that the bonded labourers did not obtain or retain their freedom. They have acted with impunity as no charges have been filed against them for the use of intimidation and violence, or for using bonded labour in the first place. It is also important to note that in these cases the role of identifying and attempting to free bonded labourers has not been filled by vigilance committees or District Magistrates in either country, even though these are the institutions required to perform these roles.

As cited earlier, the lack of reliable statistics regarding the numbers of bonded labourers in India, Nepal and Pakistan is a serious impediment to eliminating this contemporary form of slavery. An accurate assessment of the number of people who are bonded, particularly at a local level, is clearly vital if governments are to develop appropriate action plans to address the problem. Apart from action to identify, release and rehabilitate those in debt bondage, these plans should also include public information campaigns to inform people of their rights; support for development programmes which provide education and heath care and economic alternatives to bonded labour.

It is also vital that data collection is not simply limited to the total number of bonded labourers which exist at one time. Statutory registers must be properly maintained and include the release date and compensation paid to former bonded labourers. Reviews should also be carried out to see whether there is any relapse into bondage. The number of prosecutions brought, successful convictions and sentences passed against those using bonded labourers should also be recorded and made publicly available. In this way it will be far easier to monitor progress and problems in implementing the law on a local and national level.

Discrimination ­ an additional factor preventing implementation

It is no coincidence that those subjected to this form of slavery frequently belong to minority groups who are victims of discrimination, particular indigenous people and those of 'low' caste status.

In Nepal, the estimated 70,000 to 110,000 Nepalese who are victims of a form of debt bondage known as kamaiya are exclusively from the Tharu indigenous group. The other common form of bonded labour in Nepal, haliya, principally affects the 'untouchable' castes in Nepal.

In India, research carried out this year by the Indian NGO Mine Labour Protection Campaign (MLPC), found that there is a high incidence of bonded labour amongst the three million mine and quarry workers in Rajasthan and that approximately 95 per cent of them are dalits or adivasis (these are 'low' caste or indigenous groups which are also referred to as 'scheduled castes' and 'scheduled tribes'). The Gandhi Peace Foundation's detailed research indicated a similar pattern in agriculture with 87 per cent of bonded labourers being dalits or adivasis.

According to the 1991 census, dalits or adivasis make up 24 per cent of the population of India (16 per cent are scheduled castes and eight per cent are scheduled tribes). It is clear from these figures that a disproportionate number of dalits and adivasis are enslaved under the bonded labour system. The situation in Pakistan is not dissimilar with a significant proportion of bonded labourers coming from indigenous groups or 'low' caste groups, including those who have converted to Christianity.

The evidence suggests that societal discrimination against minority groups in these countries is an important factor in explaining why indigenous groups and those of low caste status are disproportionately subjected to debt bondage and also why this human rights violation persists in the face of comprehensive legislation which prohibits it. The fact that so many bonded labourers have such difficulty in freeing themselves from a system that is illegal while the vast majority of those who enslave them seem to evade the sanctions set out in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Acts, begs the question as to whether bonded labourers from indigenous and 'low' caste groups enjoy equal and effective protection before the law.

Recommendations

In view of the above Anti-Slavery recommends that:

1. The Government of Nepal introduces domestic legislation to prohibit and punish the use of bonded labour by the end of this year and subsequently ratifys ILO Convention No.29.

2. The Governments of India, Nepal and Pakistan undertake comprehensive national surveys into the total number of bonded labourers in their countries. The surveys should use valid statistical methodology and utilise the services of an independent body to assist in developing the methodology and conducting the survey, as recommended by the ILO Committee of Experts in their report for this year.

3. That governments develop regional action plans to identify, release and rehabilitate those in debt bondage. Statutory registers must record the release date and compensation paid to former bonded labourers. Reviews should also be carried out to see whether there is any relapse into bondage. Action plans should include preventive measures such as public information campaigns regarding the law; economic alternatives to bonded labour (eg the development and implementation of minimum wage legislation and the provision of rural credit facilities); and access to education and basic health care.

4. Prosecutions must be initiated against those who use debt bondage and against those use intimidation and violence to retain people as bonded labourers. The number of prosecutions brought, successful convictions and sentences passed against those using bonded labourers should also be recorded and made publicly available.

5. A Special Rapporteur should be appointed to update and extend Mr Abdul Waab Bouhdiba¹s report on the exploitation of child labour to include the issue of debt bondage, as approved by the Commission on Human Rights in 1993.

6. That the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance carry out field missions, with the agreements of the governments, to review why there is a disproportionate number of dalits and adivasis who are forced into debt bondage in India, Nepal and Pakistan.

7. That the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery invites representatives from the Governments of India, Nepal and Pakistan to present detailed information to future sessions of the Working Group on progress made towards eliminating bonded labour in their countries.