On July 30, 1988, the Supreme Court of Pakistan received a telegram with the following complaint[s]/plea[s]:
"Chief Justice of Pakistan, Supreme Court, Rawalpindi. We plead for the protection and bread for our family we are brick kiln bonded labourers. We have been set at liberty through the Court. And now three amongst us have been abducted by our owners. Our children and women are living in danger. We have filed complaint. No action taken. We are hiding like animals without protection or food. We are afraid and hungry. Please help us. We can be contacted through our counsel Asma Jehangir. Our state can be inspected. We want to live like human beings. The law gives no protection to us.
Darshan Masih (Rehmatay) and 20 companions with women and children Main Market, Gulberg, Lahore”
Thereafter, a series of events was triggered: the application was marked to a senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Afzal Zullah on the same day; it was immediately marked as ‘urgent’ and relayed to Inspector General, Punjab Police with instructions to conduct preliminary investigation; the Inspector General immediately delegated the responsibility to a Deputy Inspector General who assigned it to police officers further down the institutional hierarchy; not less than two weeks later, it transpired that the complaints were, bona fide. Then, bhatta owners were arrested, bailed, day-to-day trials were ordered; committees was formed (sans Ms. Jehangir, the complainants’ counsel); pragmatic suggestions/solutions were fielded; and a plethora of reports was submitted, including one by Ms Jehangir, which was all-inclusive of the physical and mental ordeal suffered by women and children.
After entertainment of a number of reports and passage of more than eighteen months, bonded labour was proscribed and legislative measures were directed. Legislative reform soon followed with the introduction of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 to the liberation of the bonded labourers.
Amidst the process of instituting reform, it surfaced that of the 89 detenue labourers, 31 were children, their Constitutional protections per Article 3 and Article 11 of the Constitution non-existent. Of all the committees formed, one was specifically formed to investigate and suggest ameliorative measures for the conditions of Women and Children.
Resultantly, a more transcendent legislation was proposed for protection of children and the Employment of Children Act, intended to curb child endangerment by hazardous employment, was soon etched into the Official Gazette of Pakistan on April 6, 1991. The legislation prohibits children’s employment in an array of hazardous environments including industries, ports, railway stations etc. though its implementation is far from exemplary.
Now three decades later, children belonging to lower class families hardly fare better. Today child employment remains rampant, in early childhood, middle childhood and adolescent stages of child-life. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, in its State of Pakistan Annual Report 2019, accounts that child employment is as prevalent as ever.
Easy to forget, that it was not until March 24, 2016 that cruelty on these children workers was formally recognized as a crime by way of amendment to the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
Also easy to forget that it was two years ago to last Thursday i.e. June 11, 2020 that the Islamabad High Court imposed three years’ imprisonment terms on Raja Khurram Ali Khan, a judicial officer and Maheen Zafar, his wife, for their cruel treatment of Tayyaba Bibi (a domestic worker/housemaid). Perhaps that cruelty may too have gone unavenged but for a media frenzy, the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s suo motu supervision and, of course, enormous public outcry. Like most parents of child victims, Muhammad Azam, Tayyaba’s father was not swayed by public backlash. According to him, Tayyaba had never reported any ill-treatment, and had suffered accidental injuries, and that the offenders were altruists for they had offered Tayyaba a better life. Not only was he taken to task by the prosecutor, the trial court declared him hostile, for not being desirous of telling the truth to the court, facts all part of the public record.
Although the three years’ prison sentence was reverted to one year on appeal, albeit on procedural grounds, Tayyaba Bibi’s case marks the only notable punishment since the 2016 legislation came into force. Almost two years later, Zohra Shah’s murder sparks similar, if not more, outrage. Without delving into the heart-wrenching brutality (already extensively documented) in either case, which incites anger and indignation, Tayyaba’s and Zohra’s treatment has been unanimously condemned in the sternest terms in the court of public opinion.
Zohra Shah’s murder is another stark reminder that household/domestic work is nothing short of hazardous employment. Time and time again, the wrath of their masters descends upon child workers. An analogy with bonded labour might be most germane. These children have not wronged their masters to deserve enslavement; instead they are repaying a debt of kinship to their parents who reap the financial returns of their labour. Children continue to be offered to families as domestic workers as if it they were commodities, of tradable value. And no punishment follows.
Tayyaba, and now Zohra, startlingly remind us of why household employment for children can no longer be countenanced. Now a number of reformative measures are necessitated.
Firstly, as a foundational step, household employment for children, most notably missing from the Employment of Children legislation, must be declared hazardous, freeing children from perilous domestic employment. Enlisting children protections/rights though would hardly suffice. Reform must be more transcendent.
The National Commission on the Rights of the Child must be brought into existence. It must constructively liaise with the Child Protection Advisory Board, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, and the Ministry of Human Rights. Child Protection Policies should be prepared and disseminated to police, schools and other social institutions. Social enlightenment is also essential. Children must be admitted to schools, not forced labour, where they are practically enslaved. Stricter Standard Operating Procedures must be instituted for law enforcement agencies such as the Police.
Most imperative is the criminalization of the act of offering children as housemaids/domestic workers, which Justice Athar Minallah, author of the June 11 judgment, likens to trafficking. The parents who expose their children to torture must be unabatedly punished. Parents abstaining from sending their children to schools should also warrant penal sanctions.
Tayyaba now yearns to be a teacher imparting education and paving the way for her next generation to not succumb to financial temptations at the risk of exploitation of her kin. Zohra will not be so fortunate; her departure signifying barbarism and cruelty that her parents exposed her to. Perhaps we may harbor an expectation that her slaughter is avenged, and her walis are not minded to compound or waive her murder. Or perhaps not, as the latter norm may prevail yet again.
Meanwhile, Muhammad Azam along with his like-minded exploiters still remain and large, and the shadow of exploitation looms even larger, particularly on the minds and bodies of child victims.
Unlike Tayabba, to Zohra’s misfortune, she will not be able to witness her abusers’ vilification, nor their punishment, nor any JUSTICE. Meanwhile, there are countless others who remain subjugated. Will they have to suffer Zohra’s fate, or is their best recourse a telegram the Chief Justice of Pakistan for protection against labour just as Darshan Masih and his cohort three decades ago? But for legislative, institutional and societal reform, recourse to the Supreme Court may unfortunately be the one beacon of hope for the Tayyabas, the Zohras and their comparables. Lord have mercy that that is even arguable. It’s time for a change. Deliverance is long overdue!!!
1. The Supreme Court of Pakistan Judgment in Tayyaba Bibi’s case may be found at https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/crl.a._120_2019.pdf
2. The Islamabad High Court’s judgment dated 11 June 2018 may be found at http://mis.ihc.gov.pk//attachments/judgements/Crl._Appeal_no._154_of_2018.__(Last_True_Copy)._636643234960850492.pdf