THE LAST two decades of the last century were marked with the high-profile human rights consciousness and activism across the globe, and Pakistan was no exception. Accordingly, in the wake of the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in 1989 regarding the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the bonded labour in brick kiln industry, parliament passed the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act in 1992.

The Act defined the key concepts of “bonded labour system”, “bonded labour” and “bonded labourer” at great length. The Act was to assume powers overriding all other laws in effect and in fact, Section 4 heralded the abolition of bonded labour system in the country.

It was followed by a set of rules called the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Rules 1995 whose main feature was the constitution and functioning of the vigilance committees. Such a committee is to have 17 members coming from different backgrounds. Its complex composition suggested that the government was perhaps conscious of the difficulties in implementing the law because of ground realities of the socio-economic life of the people.

According to the report by an HRCP committee formed in May 1996, the incidence of bonded labour was widespread on agriculture farms in Sindh and the problem was very serious in Sanghar, Mirpurkhas, Hyderabad, Badin and Thatta districts.

It may be added here that human rights activists have found the role of government functionaries, including the judiciary, specially at the lower, lacking in concern or understanding about bonded labour. They point to numerous cases of extreme oppression such as complaints of severe starvation, shackled in chains, physical torture, trafficking of families, and even sexual abuse of womenfolk of the bonded family.

Since figures about how many complaints were lodged by the affected bonded families on their own or through the courtesy of the vigilance committees, it is fair to assume that most of the cases were brought to the notice of the authorities or the courts by the agents of familiar NGOs.

It is important to note that the human rights activists have been fighting the war on behalf of the bonded labour which they identified largely in the agriculture sector and, through the press, have been successfully campaigning that it amounted to violation of Article 25 of ILO convention which prohibited forced or compulsory labour and that it was punishable as penal offence.

Against the rising crescendo of public opinion, most landlords / agriculturists who were generally held responsible for this situation remained dumbfounded and demoralized as some of them had to face the court litigations and a few were sent behind the bars. But very few of them mustered courage to plead their cases before the competent authorities, where they argued that the Bonded Labour Act 1992 could not be extended to the agricultural workers because strictly speaking they were not labour as per definition and meaning assigned to the term “labour” under various labour laws of the country. And as for the Bonded Labour Act, they said it nowhere mentioned agriculture labourer.

They argued that the agricultural worker is expressly covered under the tenancy laws and, hence, it is the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 which regulates or governs the relations between the tenants, (agricultural workers) and the landowners (agriculturists).

Of late the above viewpoint of the landowners has, more or less, been vindicated by the superior judiciary. As reported in Dawn, Aug 5, 2000:

The Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Circuit Bench, fined a hari, Rano Bheel, Rs15,000 for filing a false habeas corpus application in the court pertaining to the alleged wrongful detention of 67 haris. Justice Leghari held that it was not a case of illegal or unlawful detention, but a dispute between the landlord and the hari, which was governed by the Sindh Tenancy Act. The court observed that the tenancy tribunal would decide the case within two months.

From the above it is clear that it would be too simplistic, rather dangerous, to equate the tenant, share-cropper or hari with bonded labour. There is, therefore, a need and rationale to look at the problem of bonded labour in the agriculture sector by once again bringing major changes in the tenancy laws. The following are some of the recommendations:

i) Tenancy laws be revised and updated in consultation with all the stake-holders, reflecting the true spirit of tripartism, i.e. government, landowners and haris’ representatives to evolve consensus on the main issues.

ii) The definition of tenant be made broadbased and replaced with ‘agricultural worker’ so that it involves share-cropper, seasonal worker, etc., but then their duties and rights will vary accordingly.

iii) No loan shall be advanced by the landowner excepting in writing through an agreement. The agreement to be signed before the revenue functionary.

iv) The upper ceiling of the loan shall be fixed keeping in view the production capacity of an individual and productivity of the area in which the lands are situated. This limit may vary from Rs3,000 to Rs5,000 per annum per head of the agricultural worker.

v) For proper account-keeping purpose, Hari passbook will have to be introduced wherein all the entries of transactions shall be made.

vi) According to the present tenancy law, it is mandatory to enter the name of a permanent hari in Record of Rights, i.e. VF-VII and that of other tenants in Field Book VI-A and Khasra VI-B. Non-entry of the name of agricultural worker may be made a punishable offence.

vii) The main cause of the so-called bonded labour in agriculture is the poverty and lack of alternative resources to raise loans. Thus the state may create such institutions as are specialized in micro-loans and are ready to advance at the doorstep of the needy people.

viii) At present the tenancy tribunal comprises the taluka officer only who is a mukhtiarkar. This may be replaced by a higher-level officer, that is he should be the assistant commissioner or who is now deputy district officer at the taluka level.

ix) The new local government system has made the labour representation possible at the union council level. The tribunal can easily be constituted on a tripartite basis.

x) As a long-term measure, the right of association of haris will have to be recognized, though not necessary on the same lines as the labour unions are in the industrial sector.