|
For the past three years, information has been submitted to this
Working Group on the plight of bonded labourers in Pakistan. During
this time there has been no substantive improvement in the position
of bonded labourers and in Sindh Province the situation has seriously
deteriorated as a result of the recent High Court ruling.
According to research carried out for the Government of Sindh and
the Asian Development Bank 1 there are some
1.7 million landless agricultural workers (haris) and sharecroppers
in five districts of Sindh Province (Thatta, Dadu, Badin, Mirpurkhas
and Umerkot). The report notes that most of these people are in
debt bondage.
While bonded labour exists throughout Sindh Province, the majority
of those bonded in the north belong to the Muslim majority, while
most of the bonded agricultural labourers in southern Sindh Province
belong to dalit 2 (untouchable) and
to tribal communities who have migrated from the drought-prone area
of Tharparkar desert. Poverty and starvation have forced these communities
to accept the landlords' cash advances, and to be available for
work from dawn to dusk. Bonded labourers may be detained or guarded
to stop them escaping and in these situations of total ownership
rape of women is not uncommon.
Many bonded labourers work for no wages, and food and clothing provided
are added to their debt along with interest payments on the loan,
thus increasing the debt on a daily basis. Most are forced to provide
begar, a form of forced, unpaid labour, on top of the tasks
assigned against the debt. Trafficking in bonded labourers who are
unable to pay their debts is a common practice among landlords.
Bonded labourers are sold by one landlord to another, usually for
a price higher than the debt they had with their previous landlord
thereby increasing the bonded labourer's debt.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) Special Task Force
on Sindh has worked successfully for the release of some 15,000
men, women and children who were being held as bonded labourers,
some of whom have been bonded to the same landlords for three generations.
Temporary shelter has been provided to them in seven camps around
Hyderabad City. Living conditions in the camps are totally inadequate,
but neither the government nor any other agency has offered to provide
any support. These families remain vulnerable to reprisals, including
threats and kidnapping, from their former landlords. The kidnapping
and disappearance of the family of Munoo Bheel on 4 May 1988 is
a case in point. Their former landlord, Abdur Rehman Murri and six
other men were identified by witnesses as being responsible for
abducting the family and the case was registered with the local
police (official reference FIR No.35, 1988). Despite this the authorities
have not taken action to locate and free the Munoo family or to
bring the perpetrators to justice. 3
In theory, all bonded labourers should have been freed under the
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 and those responsible
for keeping them in bondage should have been prosecuted. However,
in practice the political and financial strength of the landlords
in Sindh Province allows them to continue using bonded labourers
with impunity. Some landlords have even successfully filed charges
against bonded labourers with the police, leading to the imprisonment
of some 40 haris.
The High Court of Sindh (Circuit Bench at Hyderabad) Judgement,
9 January 2002
The situation of bonded labourers in Sindh deteriorated still further
on 9 January 2002 when the High Court of Sindh dismissed 94 petitions
for the release of bonded labourers declaring that they were disputes
between landlords and haris over debts and should be settled under
the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950.
The HRCP has outlined a number of inconsistencies in this judgement
in a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (No. K 343
of 2002) which are highlighted below.
On 19 October 2001, the High Court decided to consider all of the
petitions together, this included the 94 cases filed by HRCP and
cases filed by landlords against bonded labourers. It did not consider
the facts and circumstances relating to each case before it and
the Court reserved judgement without giving the HRCP or its Counsel
the opportunity to address the Court.
On 10 January 2002, the High Court declared its judgement. It dismissed
all of the 94 cases filed for the release of bonded labourers along
with cases filed by the landlords. The court remarked that "living
beyond ones means and being in a state of continuous debt has become
the main reason for such disputes and the resultant emergence of
petitions." It declared that the cases were disputes between
landlords and haris over debts and should be settled under
the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950. However, the Court made no reference
to the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 which should
take precedence in this matter and would require the loans to be
nullified and the bonded labourers to be freed.
The Court also referred to other Court judgements to support its
findings, but in all the cases it referred to the bonded labourers
and haris were ordered to be released. Indeed one of the judgements
that the High Court of Sindh refers to support its findings (a case
decided by the Lahore High Court - Lahore 428) the judgement specifically
refers to the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992,
indicating the 1992 Act's importance in reaching the decision to
release the bonded labourers.
The Court also stated that "all applications centered around
Mirpurkhas, Sanghar and Umerkot. In no other areas of Sindh such
applications were made." This is not the case as large numbers
of bonded laborers from other districts of Sindh (e.g. Thatta, Hyderabad,
Badin, Tharparkar and Nawabshah) have filed cases with the Sindh
High Court and many of them were released by the Hyderabad Court
itself.
The ruling also states that cases of this nature should be settled
by mukhtiarkars. These officials are responsible for keeping
the records of tenants and tenancies. However, they are not authorised
to settle cases under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act
1992 and they do not appear willing to confront local landlords,
as witnessed by the fact that proper records have not been maintained.
The HRCP is not aware that any of the haris in the petition
were registered under Section 9 of the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950
as is required.
Since this judgement was announced, new petitions for the release
of bonded labourers filed in the Sindh High Court have been rejected.
The ruling effectively negates the Bonded Labour System (Abolition)
Act 1992. If this Court's view is upheld by the Supreme Court of
Pakistan it would completely undermine the Government of Pakistan's
proposals to abolish bonded labour as outlined in the National Policy
and Plan of Action for the Abolition of Bonded Labour and Rehabilitation
of Freed Bonded Labourers.
Recommendations
The Government of Pakistan should make clear that the Bonded
Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 should take precedence over
the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 whenever there appears to be a
conflict in the interpretation of the law. It should also consider
whether the relevant sections of the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950
need to be repealed.
We call on the Government to acknowledge the scale of the problem
of bonded labour as outlined in the research for the Government
of Sindh and the Asian Development Bank. We also urge the Government
to give priority to fully implementing its National Plan of Action
and in this context to pay particular attention to initiating prosecutions
and establishing independent mechanisms for the registration and
liberation of bonded labourers.
1 Final Report - Sindh Rural Development Project
(TA3132-Pak), prepared by Agrodev Canada Inc. for Planning and
Development - the Government of Sindh and the Asian Development Bank,
October 2000.
2 "Untouchable" according to Indian, Hindu religious tradition.
3 See Anti-Slavery's submission to the Working Groups 25th Session
(June 2000), Debt bondage in India, Nepal and Pakistan. |
