Child protection can146;t be selective

We can8217;t claim sincere commitment to child protection if we focus only on sexual crimes. What about those children who have no one to report the fact that they have gone missing?

In the wake of the brutality perpetrated on the innocents of Nithari, the union government has set up a committee to look into the issue of child protection. The government8217;s ignorance of the issue is evident from the fact that only bureaucrats from the department of women and child constitute the committee and its agenda for 8216;high power8217; deliberation is narrow and tentative: to recommend a policy based on a study of the Noida horror. That the national leaders8217; copycat statements ruing police failure did not criticise the committee8217;s inadequacy, only shows that public administration and the media have no problem squandering large amounts of money on harvesting chaff from the lips of the worthies.

Policy framers should not be circling around the Nithari kind of attacks and administrative failures alone. Their brief should be children at risk and comprehensive child protection strategies. It is not logical to spend 15 days of 8216;high level8217; confabulations, worrying only about the Nithari syndrome, and exclude a range of other crimes perpetrated on children 8212; from kidnapping for ransom to the trafficking of kids. Clearly, the government finds it more politically expedient to react to a particularly brutal event that is in high media focus at the moment, rather than look at the larger picture and come up with a holistic plan of action.

No nation can claim sincere commitment to child protection if it focuses only on sexual crimes perpetrated against the missing 8212; that is, the 8216;reported8217; missing 8212; children. What about those children who have no one to report the fact that they have gone missing? What about children who find themselves disconnected from parents or family members because of their unbearable neglect, maltreatment, abuse, abandonment, sale, consignment to the sex trade or to beggary? A vast number of, if not most, children at risk are not the ones missing from homes 8212; but those in hostels or institutions.

The managements of institutions set up under the Juvenile Justice Act are 8212; going by my experience 8212; never held accountable for crimes against the children in their custody and control. In fact, these children are further victimised if they dare to complain to the authorities. Recently, a judicial officer noticed teeth marks on the neck and shoulder of a boy from a remand home with which the Delhi Police is associated and which had the patronage of a senior police officer. The officer proceeded to move against the warden believed to have perpetrated the attack. Within a short time, there was a warning from the police officer.

In Mumbai I had to file public interest litigation against the Children8217;s Aid Society 8212; CAS 8212; in 1984, 1998 and 1999 because the management and the juvenile court magistrate resorted to all kinds of methods to suppress the information of sexual assault on the resident children. In the case of homosexual assaults on several boys by their doctor in the correctional home, the management withdrew the victims from schools and locked them up in a separate room for a month. They coerced other boys into signing and faxing statements to the then state home minister that the victims were lying about the sex crimes committed on them. Newspapers published independent reports on the torment the boys had undergone. The high court acted against the juvenile court magistrate and the state government sanctioned the prosecution of the CAS management. But medical professionals protected the doctor in question.

I want to ask the government, which hopes to implement child protection measures, some questions. One, will it exclude sexual crimes against institutionalised children from its scrutiny, since they are not in the 8216;reported missing8217; category and are in fact in 8216;safe custody8217;? Two, if larger issues are to be included, would it frame a rigorous regime of accountability against all those involved, including bureaucrats who refuse to sanction prosecution, the Medical Council and the courts? Three, if the answer to these two questions is no, does it not imply exclusion of some important categories of child victims from enjoying their right to justice, in the 8216;larger interest8217; of protecting influential persons of rank and status?

The writer is a well-known child rights activist