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