ACCORDING to a government report, the number of street children in Dhaka was about 25,000 in 2004. Statistics show that the total number of beggars all over the country is about 900,000. Among them, 100,000 live in Dhaka and 4,000-6,000 are with disability. To rehabilitate these vagrant people, there is a law — the Rehabilitation of Vagabonds Act 1943. As per the definition given by this law, a vagabond is a person who begs at an open place or by looking him/her it would arise in mind that he/she may run his/her life by begging. Yet, the literal meaning of vagabond indicates a person who has the capacity to work but is not doing so. It further includes a person who has no specific place of residence.
Thus, above mentioned definitions of a vagabond appear contradictory to the right to life and freedom of movement, which are guaranteed as fundamental rights by our constitution. It threatens the right to life and freedom of movement of the helpless citizens. Each citizen has the right to move anywhere without anyone’s permission within the territory of Bangladesh. The law’s main victims are persons with physical disability (the differently able persons). In these circumstances, enacting a law to prevent this type of activities would rather conceal the real socioeconomic scenario of Bangladesh.
For the rehabilitation of vagabonds, the government has already established six rehabilitation centres and for socially deprived women, it has also established six training and rehabilitation centres. Vagrant shelter homes are in Dhaka, Narayanganj, Gazipur, Manikganj and Mymensingh and training and rehabilitation centres in Bogra, Brahmanbaria, Faridpur, Kushtia, Barisal and Sylhet. The total capacity of these shelter and rehabilitation centres is 2,400. On December 31, 2006, there were 1,480 detainees at these centres.
By the abuse of the law, these helpless people are kept imprisoned at these centres and treated as criminals. The state is constitutionally responsible to meet the basic needs of the underprivileged citizens. The detainees face a lot of repression. Even the food and the living space allotted to them are not adequate. They also have no scope to visit their family. They do not get legal aid from these shelter centres. Consequently, they feel depressed, helpless and vulnerable.
There are allegations of physical, mental and even sexual torture against these shelter centres. Allegation has been raised that a group of staff along with some external agents arrested women to involve them in prostitution. The residents of these shelter centres are barred from getting legal aids. The magistrate concerned allegedly does not attend the session to hear the detainees.
Of the detainees, 80 per cent are less than 18 years old and yet receive no right provided under the Child Right Act, 1974. Sometimes garment workers, hawkers and domestic labours are forcibly kept at these centres. The only means to find the address of the arrested vagabonds is postal letter. If the letter is undelivered, then there is no alternative to identify his/her address. Then they are declared vagabonds and detained indefinitely. The police personnel who arrested them may not provide ample information about their address. Again, the police have no clear idea about the characteristics or definition of a vagabond.
The 1943 law on vagabond has the following loopholes:
* In Children Act, the age of children is determined at below 16, whereas in the Vagabond Act it is 14.
* There is no specified time period of imprisonment.
* An arrested adult person has no opportunity to become free by self bond.
* This law has a provision that the property of the vagabond will be used for the benefit of other vagabonds.
* The purpose of this law is to rehabilitate and not to arrest as criminals. Yet the police have the authority to arrest perceived vagabonds. It indicates that poverty is curse for them.
* According to the provision of this law, rejecting an offer of job from the home is an offence, which is contradictory to the principle of right to choose profession.
* The following recommendations may be followed to address these limitations:
* Determining proper definition of ‘vagabond’ and arranging proper rehabilitation for them.
* Not treating beggars as vagabonds.
* Not arresting sexual workers/addicted men/children in the name of vagabond law.
* Giving power to social welfare officers instead of the police to send vagabonds to centres.
* Determining a particular time period to detain them at the shelter centre.
* Depositing any kind of property of the arrested person to the caretaker of the shelter centre.
* Allowing adult vagabonds to arrange for bond to get out.
The government recently took initiative to amend the law, but the anticipated amendments do not reflect all these recommendations. Rather they define vagabond in such a manner where suspicious person or persons can fall under the category. That is why the opportunity of abusing this law may increase. Vagabonds ought to be treated as vulnerable people and not as criminals. That’s why involvement of a social welfare officer is more desirable than a police. However, this new law retains the authority of the police to arrest. Again, no specific time period of detention is determined, which is a complete violation of one’s right of free movement. There is no opportunity to get self bond for an adult person. The provision of forced work under the centre, an infringement of a person’s right to choose profession, has been reinserted.
Key objective of the vagabond act ought to be the welfare of the underprivileged community. It should not treat them as criminals. Nevertheless, both the act of 1943 and draft law of 2010 utterly fail to meet that expectation. Hopefully, the government will enact laws for the betterment of the members of the disadvantageous community and protect their legal rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment