Global Alliance against Forced Labour

By: Abdullah Khoso
On 11 May 2005, the International Labor Organization’s has released its report “a Global Alliance against Forced Labour”. The report provides a wide range of estimates of human rights violations in terms of forced labor under the human trafficking (a new ugly face in modern world) and other traditional forms of brutal crimes thought out the world. Where it estimates to highlight severity of ‘a social evil’ and brings in uncountable issues onto its papers there it lacks some of the very important things related to Pakistan and Sindh. Here it is dared to put forward some points on the basis of first hand experience comprised of more than one and half year interaction with bonded labourers in Sindh and relevant literature. Besides, some suggestions are pen downed, and as student of political economy of bondage put forwarded few questions.

The very odd thing to astonish the reader of the report is that report’s estimates are based on ‘unreliable’ secondary data. It writes “in the absence of reliable and widely accepted national estimates, the ILO methodology relies on a particular statistical method described as double sampling.” Since there is no reliable estimates then how a human made methodology can give at least minimum ensured figure to its reader.

In order to confirm and compare reliability of data, we should look at the illuminations of figures in local reports. Global report writes that according to Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s Special Task Force of Sindh (STFS) province, just under 19,000 bonded hari sharecroppers were released from the period between January 2000 and June 2004. While from the HRCP’s Annual Reports from 1988 to March 2003 it is known that about 8,500 Haris have been liberated from the system of bondage, through different sources.

Moreover, there are several cases of Haris’s release in 2003, while ILO writes “ legal released peaked in 2000 and 2001, but appear to have dramatically declined since with no Haris released through the Sindh High Court in 2003”. Whereas HRCPs annual report of 2003 ‘State of Human Rights 2003’ has reported, “according to data complied by the HRCP’s STFS the courts had released 1,322 Haris over the year.” Besides, STFS’s report mentions a case of release of Haris. The case was filed by Chunnu, a victim of bondage. It is reported like this “the SHC had order the release of these Haris.”

Another source to judge the reliability of data is that ILO has put other’s work into credit of National Rural Support Program (NRSP). Whereas, it is the Green Rural Development Organization (GRDO) that has helped 1050 from all camps in getting National Identity Cards (NICs). It is indeed a very difficult task like other task of rehabilitation after emancipation.

Where several other interventions are mentioned there the issue of advance (taqavi) in the report is not highlighted. The advance is prohibited under the Bonded Labour Abolition Act, 1992 but allowed in Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, while Haris themselves are against to the prohibition of advance. It is, indeed, considered a sole thing in the absence of all basic protective mechanism and life facilities in their lives. Whereas it does not seem valued issue at ILO except the compliance of recently made laws against forced labour. In other words, it does not propose or facilitate to resolve conflict or contradiction between local laws and states policies, and between the policies of state and aspiration of Haris and labourers.

With given problem of advance, the problem of labour and hari is pivotal in the case but not stated in the report and even no strategy or imperative is given into the report. Hari is not considered labour hence Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1992, is not applicable and courts do not entertain cases of haris under the Act. Therefore, there must be emphasis by ILO for sector specific forced labour Acts, because each sector has its own nature of work, market and mechanism. Similarly, besides Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 there must be another law/act which directly should address the issue of forced labour, while there are no directions in Tenancy Act to address forced labour in agriculture sector. Or efforts should be taken to amend Tenancy Act according to ILO’s core principles. For this role of ILO is missing.

Again with regard to interventions, ILO report has missed to mention an uncertain situation created in the dealing of bonded labour cases due to the transfer of habeas corpus law at district level. In December 2002, in the article 199 of the constitution amendment was made by Government of Pakistan to authorize the Session Courts to also look into the cases of detention and illegal confinement under the criminal procedure court (CRPC)-491. After amendment, Haris and also many Lawyers are afraid to writ petition at High Courts because their petitions are not entertained. And Session Courts’ judges are not given as much importance and they are also in the reach of influential landlords. For a landlord, it is very difficult to influence judges of high court immediately.

With regard to the programs to abolish forced labour from the countries. Report mention like this “the poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSP) highlights bonded labor as priority issue”. Interestingly, neither Pakistan PRSPs mention bonded labour into its list of contents nor it talked in detail on subsequent pages. PRSP just gives the aims of Government of Pakistan about the future activities on bonded labour issue. What Government has done so far is not part of that text and it seems that it is just written to fulfill formality. Also there is no account of a very serious issue of trafficking in human, a new form of forced labour, in PRSPs. For ILO, it is very horrible crime, and taking place also in Pakistan in the shape of camel jockey.

In the release of Haris from detention report does not give account about some of the very positive happenings through NGOs, lawyers, activist, also through the involvement of hari groups. These need appreciation for their work, and ILO in its report can extend such hand of appreciation.

Looking at the ground realities, we will find that ILO does not mention in its report about the failure of its supported project active from April 2002 in seven camps near Hyderabad in Sindh province. By providing an easy access to micro credit, National Rural Support Program (NRSP) under the ILO supported project claims that it has enabled people to develop self-employment opportunities and saved them to be again indebted of landlords. However, firsthand experience corroborates something else.

NRSP emphasizes only on hundred percent recovery of loan at camps. By this they prove that they have attained goal of prevention of family indebtedness at camps through delivery of credit service and hundred percent recovery. For instance, they showed that a woman (Mehni Kolhi) at Hosri camp due to the credit facility by NRSP and her family has been saved to be indebted of landlord again because she has been empowered socially and economically and was fine each month in giving back installments. NRSP made her case study and presented it at United Nations Global Micro-Entrepreneurship Awards program 2005. In result, that woman was given reward in cash.

Interestingly, Mehni describes differently. According to her, she had got credit for goat but from total given amount major part she had spent on her family daily needs; she also bought a goat worth of few hundreds and also had opened a shop at camp. She was suppose to pay back loan on monthly installments but after two three months she could not manage to give back; she also sold her goat and closed shop. In order to pay back credit, she went Shahdadpur for picking cotton at landlord. And she after many months working at landlord collected money and returned to NRSP. Mehni said “we still after liberation are living like slave (assen aj be zamendaran ji gand ghulami kariyon tha).” Shockingly, this is the ILO supported project that aimed ‘to prevent freed haris (farmers) and other vulnerable families falling back into bondage by reducing their economic and social vulnerability principally through provision of microfinance services.’

A last point for this article (there are still several other missing points in the report) is that while reading definition of Forced Labour a very confusing issue encountered. It is, when ILO says in its article 1 of abolition of forced labour convention 1957 that forced labour cannot be used for the purpose of “economic development or as a means of political education, discrimination, labour discipline, or punishment for having participated in strikes,” it means there is possibility to exact forced labour for some of the purposes excluding these. Forced labour is forced labour that should be prohibited in all uses; therefore, it must not be categorized in some of these purposes.

Now on the basis understanding some suggestions are put forward to ILO. In order to solve forced labour issues in Sindh, ILO should help to create a movement at gross root level, need not to bring Haris away from lands where they are bonded but, besides education programs of bureaucrats, should help bonded Haris by involving labour and Hari councilors and other supportive mechanism; sensitization of such councilors is very necessary. On priority basis labour councilors in forced-labour prone-districts should be trained about the issue and its legal aspects.

As there is no word about the role of some other organizations and individuals in release and rehabilitation process, therefore, other organizations should do on priority basis be morally supported, and these reports when mention their names it is considered regard for them and they work on the issue by heart.

Also ILO reps must have continuous contacts with victims. They also should speak to them and tell them things in their own language, not in alien one. As couple of weeks back ILO’s adviser to the ministry of labour, in a workshop convened by SPARC (Society for the Protection of Children Rights) discussed main findings of ILO’s report on ‘Global Alliance Force Labour’ mainly into English while the participants’ majority belongs to camps, they did not know English. Also a very bureaucratic attitude of ILO rep came into notice through the participants.

In order to resolve issue of reliability of data (the data which happens to be the foundation of ILO instruments) ILO in future, therefore, should have its own independent body in each state or country (especially in Pakistan) to carry surveys and long duration qualitative research programs rather then relying on the exaggerated rapid assessments done through armchair consultants and rely on the news reports of some specific NGOs and on unreliable national estimates. Such surveys and qualitative research should be carried out after each five year span with the involvement of highly trained students in research. Also ILO may ask government to put some relevant questions in its large scale surveys done after years.

To date we have seen lot of remarkable happenings in our country in favor of Haris and labourers through ILO’s written text (instruments) but in order to relegate forced labour ‘social evil,’ to history, there is also dire need of commitment and attention by ILO rather written formalities. Indeed, with the help of ILO’s committed programs, political will and global commitment for just and fair society for all is not big deal. End