Numerous schemes on education are rolled out with much fan-fare, with the most well-known being the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan(SSA), and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) which aim to universalise elementary education in India. Numerous reports however highlight that child labour is still rampant in India.¹  Here, I am going to highlight how sometimes certain actions taken by the state in the child’s “best” interest can become counter-productive.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000 (henceforth, JJ Act) permits state intervention in cases where children are in need of state care and protection.² If a child is working, begging, being ill-treated, performing acrobatics, the Act deems his/her parents unfit to bring up the child and seeks to provide for a system which will protect the interest of the child. Once the child is caught in the system, it becomes a long and arduous task for the parents to get them out. Often, they are unable to prove their identity as parents.³ Any police officer, government employee, social worker, public-spirited citizen, Non-governmental organization (NGO) can produce a child before the Child Welfare Committee(CWC), constituted under the Act. The complainants can bring instances mentioned above, to the attention of the CWC, stating that the child is in need of care and protection.

The CWC’s constituted in each district under the JJ Act are required to complete an enquiry (to establish the identity of parents and deem them fit to take charge of their children) within 4 months, albeit with some exceptions.⁴However, this “exception” provision has permitted most cases to languish in the system much beyond 4 months, some-times for years.⁵ In many cases the enquires remain pending beyond the stipulated period because the committees have no means to determine who the parents are because the child is unable to identify his complete address. According to the Ministry of Women and Child Development the problem becomes compounded as some districts, and sometimes all districts in a state haven’t constituted CWCs.⁶ (The JJ Act stipulates transfer of the child to a CWC with jurisdiction in the area where the child originally hails from; but at the same time it merely stipulates that State Government may make rules to ensure effective linkages). This lack of institutional capacity results in inordinate delays. These problems can be alleviated if we have a centralized data-base of CWC’s and of the children picked up under the JJ Act. It should be password-protected to prevent misuse but should be accessible by an authorised CWC member from the district under their jurisdiction. A centralised data-base would also help those parents who do not know where their children are.⁷This simple use of technology could save many parents and children the agony of being separated for prolonged periods.

In the period between the enquiry and the submission of the final report, the child is entrusted to the care of an over-crowded “home” which serves as an interim shelter.⁸   Since this is a temporary measure, children have nothing to occupy themselves with, as more often than not, formal arrangements to educate children in care are not provided.⁹ The Central RTE rules provide that wherever a birth certificate under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Certification Act, 1886 is not available, an Anganwadi record,an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife(ANM) record, or a declaration of the age of the child by the parent or guardian would be deemed to be proof of age. This would facilitate the enrollment of the child in an age-appropriate class.¹⁰ In those cases where the status of the parent itself is questionable children mostly get left out of school. On who does the onus of the child’s education lie? The RTE mandates that no child be left out of a formal elementary education for want of documents and states it is the responsibility of the parents, guardian or local authority to ensure the child goes to school.¹¹ Which party is to be hauled up under the RTE if the child is not going to school in such a case is not clear. The JJ Act itself has not made it mandatory for any party to ensure that the child is enrolled in school. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and the State Education Departments do not even have data with respect to this category of children, let alone a strategic plan in place to address related concerns.

Moreover, the standards of the “homes” that the children are kept in, is appalling. What kind of development can we expect for the child, when some don’t have basic facilities like a bed and children sleep on the floor ?¹² But there are more unspeakable horrors than poor infrastructure. These homes meant for “protective custody”, are to be supervised by CWC’s. According to a report published by the Ministry of Women and Child Development a mind-numbing 70.21% of the total children in these homes, reported having faced physical abuse. In the same report a shockingly high 47% reported having faced sexual abuse.¹³ Are we justified in separating them forcibly from their parents and putting them in such places? Who is responsible for helping these children overcome the trauma they suffer at such a tender age? Moreover, the abuse faced by them in institutions may antagonize them further and their attitude towards society might become more hostile, making their rehabilitation more difficult.

The parents should be given a deadline to enroll the child in a school of their choice if found violating norms of RTE after which the child will be put in a school by the local authorities. We should not simply snatch their children away, leaving both the parents and children completely bewildered and helpless in the face of a mismanaged system which doesn’t have the time or sympathy for their plight. In the best case we are forcing a child to live separately, go to school and study in an alien environment when he is pining for his parents. Migrant children often do not understand the local language. Some speak in different dialects and communication becomes difficult, even for those who know the language of the state. The children end up having a broken education if at all and the purpose for which the child is put under state care, is defeated. Isn’t it too much to expect the child to understand what is taught in school (if he/she is even put in one) if he cannot understand his surroundings?  Can he be expected to learn anything if he is always treated as an “outsider” in that school ?¹⁴ The social stigma of having no one to talk to and constant humiliation when teachers scold him for lack of comprehension, may leave the child scarred for life. Such a child may develop a deep-seated fear of the institution of school and may not resume his education even if he is re-united with his parents and put in a school where he can comprehend the language. There are too many issues regarding migrant children in state care under the JJ Act and they need to be addressed.

“So long as little children are allowed to suffer, there is no true love in this world.”

References:

1^{. The International Labor Organization has found that India has 12.6 million labourers between the ages of 5 and 14, with roughly 20 % working as domestic help. Other groups place the figure at 45 million or higher. UNICEF has said India has more child labourers than any other country in the world.}

2. http://www.childlineindia.org.in/CP-CR-Downloads/JJAct2006.pdf

3. ^{Of the estimated 26.2 million people born in the country 7.6 million reportedly go unregistered.}

4. http://wcd.nic.in/childprot/jjact2000.pdf

5. http://www.educationworldonline.net/index.php/page-article-choice-more-id-3176

^{There is no official data on how long the transfer of a child to his parents takes place. This is an unofficial data gathered by correspondents posing as social workers because the homes are unwilling to share data.}

6. http://www.indg.in/social-sector/women-and-child-development/the_integrated_child_protection_scheme_icps.pdf

7. www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2834936.ece

8. http://nipccd.nic.in/reports/dsmdata.pdf

9. ^{In one home the probation officer admitted to no formal education being provided in the home although a “full-time teacher” had been appointed to “teach the alphabet and numbers, and conduct storytelling, games and other activities”.}

10. http://www.ssa.tn.nic.in/Docu/Framework%20final%20approved.pdf

11. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/free_and_compulsory09.pdf

12. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-10-16/mumbai/28242298_1_orphanages-suo-motu-shelter

13. http://wcd.nic.in/childabuse.pdf

14. http://www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/PTA28.pdf