Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Musahar community of North India: Bonded to caste slavery
http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=3897#
The Musahar community, in Northern India, is socially and economically one of the most marginalized communities in India and they are poorest amongst poor. The Musahar community falls under the category of the Scheduled Caste.
Although the practice of untouchability is a crime in Indian law the Musahar community is not allowed to enjoy ordinary social life with the mainstream society and to share common amenities in the village.
People from the Musahar community are deprived of owning property, means of livelihood, and education. For their survival they work as laborers in the agricultural fields or do some other hard physical labour. The remuneration for such work is given in kind, mostly discarded food or grains. Due to this they do not have any savings that they could use during times of need. This forces them into starvation at times when they have no regular work.
In such a situation Musahar community largely depends upon the Public Distribution System (PDS) to get food grains at subsidised rate for their survival. But due to corruption in the bureaucracy and due to an almost defunct judiciary, often weaker sections of society are denied of the food grains in the villages because the PDS licensee can easily escape from their criminal offences and malpractices.
Musahars are estimated between 5 lakhs to 7 lakhs in Uttar Pradesh and concentrated in eastern belt of Uttar Pradesh in districts Kushinagar, Maharajganj, Deoria and are also found in Siddharthnagar, Mau, Jaunpur, Chandouli, Gazipur, Mirzapur and Varanasi districts. Exact figures are not available as they are included in SC category in the state but were not counted separately in last census. They are estimated to be closer to 3 millions in Bihar.
For the purpose of the present study villages Dhuriyaghat, Karmaini and Doghra from block Kasaya in district Kushinagar, villages Ledhi and Ramnagar Badiya from block Nichllol in dist Maharajganj and village Ranipur from block Katiya in dist Gopalganj were visited.
A landless community which was traditionally dependent on forest was slowly pushed from the forest areas as forests were nationalized, depleted and land based economy took over. A resource less community found itself on the mercy of landed class which exploited them as bonded labourer for the weeding, harvesting and cleaning the fields. This work of cleaning the field from rats and later using the grain from rats burrow may have given them the name 'Musahars' (musa-rat and ahar-diet) and hence community whose diet is rats.
The community was further pushed towards pauperization as lands were divided and the harvesters were introduced. With the forests out of bound for the community they also lost their supplementary income which they used to get from supplying leaf plates during marriages and community events.
Brahmins, Thakurs, Yadavs are the main land holders in the area. But the landholdings of Musahar community are almost nil or meager. In villages we visited (5 in U.P. and 1 in Bihar) only 25% of people from 2 villages had land and average land holding is not more than 1 to 2 bigha. They got these lands when the Land Ceiling Act was implemented. But in 75% of cases they do not have control over land as original landholders had managed to get stay orders from the court. Plus their land is not irrigated, stony and far away near forest.
Musahars work as agricultural labourers for land holding castes and mainly do weeding and harvesting work. They earn Rs 40/-(men) and Rs 25/-(women) for harvesting and Rs 25/-(men) and Rs 15/-(women) for the weeding work. These wages are far below the minimum wages of Uttar Pradesh which is Rs100/-. Both these jobs are seasonal and give them employment for not more than 3 months in a year.
In rest of the year they either work as casual labourers for both agricultural and non-agricultural works earning not more Rs 40/- to Rs 60/- a day.
Many of them also work in the brick –kilns and earn Rs 70/- a day but here also their incomes are not substantial as none of them are skilled to do work of a fireman which is highly specialized work in the brick-kiln.
In the lean agricultural season due to lack of any other livelihood options Musahars migrate to other parts of the country traveling up to Delhi and Punjab where they work as casual labourers in construction industry earning not more than Rs 70/- to Rs 80/- a day and merely surviving on these wages. Some of them also move towards Jaipur where they are employed in the small textile units to colour the cloth and earn up to Rs 100/- a day. But all these jobs are in unorganized, underpaid sectors and they are part of the vast pool of migrants merely surviving on pittance. As a result none of them are able to break the cycle of bondage and poverty.
The family back home survives on the casual labour and also on debts. Marwaris and Brahmins are the main money lenders in the area. The interest rates are not less than 10% and mounting up to 15% to 20% which binds them to permanent bondage.
The status of Musahars is so pitiable that they do not even own the land on which they have built their kachha houses. They stay on the common lands of gram panchayat on the outskirt of the main village even far off from other SC houses. Devoid of electricity, proper roads, water and sanitation Musahars bastis look like castaway.
In spite of their numerical strength in many villages of eastern Uttar Pradesh they are reduced to inconsequential status as they are neither organized as vote bank nor do they have resources either tangible in terms of land or money nor skills to bargain their position in society.
Traditionally they had voted for the landed class who were their masters in life represented by Congress party but in the last state election they shifted their allegiance to Bahujan Samaj Party. But this shift has largely gone unnoticed in a state where highest numerical caste of 'Chamar' followed by second highest 'Brahmins' have joined hands to form the winning alliance.
The community which has been left behind by the society finds itself at the tail end of all the government schemes. As one of the poorest group who do not have any sustainable livelihood options and hence who faces severe food insecurity, they should have been entitled to receive the maximum benefits of food schemes. But here also they are at the receiving end.
The PDS was initiated in India decades ago to help the marginalised and the poor sections of Indian society. It is a system through which the government distributes rationed articles for subsidised price. However, the PDS shop owners/licensees do not distribute the articles for the poor people, but sell the articles in black market to private hotels.
Illegal dealing in rationed articles is a crime under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, it is for the local police to register a crime and investigate it. But since the police fail to do this duty owing to massive corruption and the rationed articles never reach the needy.
The same long standing question is that why does it happen? Why the people, who are already in a convenient position and enjoying the privileges of good social and economic living conditions, could dig into the resources earmarked for the poor amongst the poorest?
It is possible only because of the endless division of Indian society on the basis of caste and institutionalised corruption. Centralised, complex and absolutely obscure nature of bureaucracy leaves no place for transparency at any level within the system; even the judiciary is no exception to this. In such a situation, the state police have been reduced to a uniformed, but bottom to top corrupt force paid from the government exchequer.
This is probably the reason why in spite of several judgments and directions of Supreme Court of India regarding right to food the judgments failed to have any effect to change the status quo. The plight of 18 Musahar families of Sarai village of Varanasi who are still deprived of the benefit of the social security schemes and right to food is a glaring example.
I urge to Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh to express my concern for the state government''s abject failure to address the ongoing corruption and negligence of district administration at different levels which is causing starvation and malnutrition among Musahar community. I call for investigations and disciplinary action to be taken against the government officials responsible for failure to ensure the right to livelihood of the poor amongst the poorest.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Friday, December 19, 2008
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Uttar Pradesh: Plight of bonded labour and Negligence from administration
http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=10871#
Uttar Pradesh: Plight of bonded labour and Negligence from administration
Manoj Kumar Pandey/Shruti Nagvanshi 2/10/2008 5:23:31 PM(IST)
PVCHR has taken initiative in a matter of bonded labour happening in Choubeypur, Varanasi and send the matter to National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. National Human Rights Commission had registered the case in the case no. 38403/24/2995-2006/M-4 and inquired the matteer through Administration. The Administration showed only formality and did nothing but to take favour of owner. The inquiry was conducted by Sri D K Singh- Assistant Labour Commissioner, Varanasi and two Labour Enforcement Officer Sri Madhuban Ram and Kamalesh Kumar on M/s Shayam Brick Industry, village/post Amoulee, Police Station- Choubeypur, and Varanasi. Its employer is Namavar Yadav son of Ramadhar Yadav resident of village-Amoulee, Police Station-Chuobeypur, Varanasi. He was not present at the time of inquiry. They found no labours working there, whose name were mentioned in the complaint. Munshi Sri Surendra told that all mentioned labour had taken their wages and went their home at the time of Deepawali. The name he had told was as follows:
1. Sri Suresh son of Chandrama, 2. Sri Sitalu son of Munni Lal,3. Sri Jagdish son of Bhagawati, 4. Sri Bhagawati, 5. Sri Munnar, 6. Sri Kashi, 7. Sri Bahadur, 8. Sri Chotu, 9. Smt Kalawati wife of Jagdish, 10. Smt Lalti wife of Bhagwati, 11. Smt Guddi wife of Bahadur, 12. Smt Panchuei wife of Munnar, 13. Shachindra, 14. Smt Kashmiri wife of Chotu, 15. Smt Munni wife of Suresh, 16. Smt Mangari wife of Sitalu, 17. Smt Geeta devi wife of Kashi.
He was unable to tell the present location of those labours. He also told that all mentioned labours had received their wages in his presence. Due to absence of employer they could not inspect the payment receipt.
Other worker who employed recently were present at spot like, Mithai, Jawahir, Dhanesh, Pappu, Rangeeley, Lal Chandra, Sarju, Dharamveer, Suresh, Ramchandra, Amit, Mannu, Sabna Rambriksha, Nandu, Babulal, Karia, had been inquired. They told they had come there in the last week of Nomvber and they had no idea about those victim people.
The inquiry team found no evidence of bonded labour.
However, having seen the above report, it seems that the inquiry team has not done their work seriously. These reasons for this assumption are as follows:-
· The inquiry team asked only to Munsi Surendra and did not ask its employer who was the main informer. They did not take pain to contact to employer, nor did they give any further direction to him. The statement of munshi cannot be considered beyond the proper doubt whereas the possibility is that munshi Surendra will take the favour of employer.
· They did not inspect any document relating to victim labours from which they could find some reliable evidences about the payment of wages to victims. It is the official duty of Munshi to maintain register. The register is always in the possession of Munshi.
· Their report is based on some labour who did not know the victims and whose identity like their father’s name and residence have not been assured. How their statement can be taken in to consideration, if they have no idea about victims.
· They did not take pain to contact to victim labours, whose residence is not very far from place of occurrence and falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station - Choubeypur.
So the work which has been assign to the inquiry team is not performed by them and they did the work which was of no use. They must contact to employer, victims and inspect the register and other documentary record.
The summary of fact is that all the above mentioned 17 labours are the victim of bonded labour and they are exploited by their employer Namavar Yadav owner of brick klin industry. Three persons of Mushar Community named -1. Sri Suresh son of Chandrama, 2. Sri Sitalu son of Munni Lal, both were resident of village Mahasipur, police station Choubeypur, Varanasi and 3. Sri Jagdish son of Bhagawati resident of village Phoolpur, police station Choubeypur, Varanasi, came to the office of PVCHR, Varanasi, and made a complaint that the owner of brick kiln Namavar Yadav and his companion had made hostage to their family members and were beating them by tiding. Any how they managed to escape from their (owner of brick klin and his companion) capture. They (owner) had not given their (labours’) wages on pretext of loan. On one hand all the above mentioned labours were being deprived from their wages and on other hand they were being beaten by their employer. Any how they managed to save their lives after the intervention of PVCHR and AHRC.
However after the report and evidences given by PVCHR, Asian Human Right Commission (AHRC) had issued an urgent appeal on 24th February 2006, http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1553/in which the AHRC condemns the attitudes of Indian authorities towards these atrocious practices. The name of victims and perpetrators and place of incident had been mentioned clearly in this urgent appeal. It had been clearly mentioned in the urgent appeal that Suresh, Sitalu, Jagdish, were offered Rs 1000/ as cash loan by Savaru, Namuna, and Namvar for which they were asked to work at kiln to pay back their debts. They were also forced to bring their family to work at kiln. They were forced to work even if they ill. If they complained, they had been tied up and beaten. If someone tried to pay their debts by other means they were subjected to same treatment. They were never allowed to leave the kiln. They were paid Rs 100/ weekly for their food stay survival of family but it was not sufficient for repayment of their debts. It is alleged that owner of the kiln also sell families to the other kiln owner who are in need of labour.
The labour informed PVCHR that owner agreed to free them if they pay Rs 6000/ per person. PVCHR filed a complaint at Choubeypur police station and also with DM of Varanasi about the case on 19th February, 2006. However, on receipt of complaint, the police on pretext of raiding the kiln to arrest the owner and to free the people took in to custody Sachinder and Chotelal, who were being held under bonded labour. They were taken to the police station where the SO shouted at them, asking them why their colleagues had complained against the owner of the kiln. They were tourtured and threatened. They were released on 20th February, but only after having to pay Rs 250/ to Rs 1000/.
Dr lenin is the member of District Vigilance Committee on bonded labour established under Bonded Labour (Prohibition) Act, 1976 so PVCHR initiated the matter and took Sachinder to District Hospital, Varanasi the next day where the doctor examined him and has provided a medical report detailing his injuries. A complained along with medical report and a narration of fact was immediately faxed to National Human Right Commission. A second complaint and copy of the medical report was lodged to District Magistrate on 21st February, 2006. Yet another complaint was filed with the Senior Superintendent of Police on 22nd February.
The act of the above mentioned perpetrators are the offence under section 371, 374 of Indian Penal Code. As per section 371 if a person exports , imports sells, buys, traffic or deals in slave, he shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment up to ten years and liable to pay fine. As per section 371 if a person compels any person to do labour against his will, he shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year or fine or both.
Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India (AIR 1984, SC 802) held that if a person has taken some amount in advance and he have to do labour to repay his debts, it will come under definition of bonded labour. The act of the police is the direct violation of the ruling given in Neeraja Choudhary Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Air 1984 Sc, 1103, 1104) in which it was held with majority that Magistrate or other higher will initiate the proceeding related with bonded labour and police or other below rank officer do not take initiation because they are considered to be hand in glove with owner and they ask the question whose answer tends against the labour , which is unconstitutional.
UP State Government should strive to eradicate bonded labour if it exists in any form because there is no scarcity of law to prevent bonded labour in India like Bonded Labour (Prohibition) Act, 1976, section 371,374 of Indian Penal Code. In spite of these statutes the Apex Court of India gives its direction from time to time on how to prevent slave like practices and bonded labour. However these statutes and direction are of no use in absence of proper implementation and implementation depends completely upon policing system. Illiteracy is another factor to influent adversely the implementation of this law. Our Apex Court held that article 21 of the constitution direct that Bonded Labour (Prohibition) Act, 1976 was passed to implement the Directive Principle of State Policy by taking in to account the basic needs of bonded labour. If the State fails to implement Bonded Labour (Prohibition) Act, 1976, it will be violation of article 21. Article 21 of the constitution passed this Act by abolishing bonded labour. It is the constitutional duty of under article 23 to welcome all the complaint related with bonded labour.
Taking above mentioned circumstances in to account PVCHR humbly requested to National Human Rights Commission to ask appropriate authority to do the needful urgently so that the victim of bounded labour may become free from the fear of perpetrators and they should be given proper relief along with compensation and their wages. PVCHR also quopted the decission given by Supreme Court in Neeraja Choudhary Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Air 1984 Sc, 1103, 1104) in which Justice Bhagwati held with majority that under the provision of Bonded Labour (Prohibition) Act, 1976 it is not only necessary to detect bonded labour and make them free but also their rehabilitation is more necessary because in lack of this they may become the victim of poverty and exploitation.
