There was one gate to each camp, which was surrounded by a chain-link fence and monitored by a guard. Although technically the workers were allowed to come and go, the camps were far from any stores or other services. When workers returned to the camp, the gate guard checked bags and other personal belongings. Everything that the workers did was closely monitored. In addition to isolating the victims, the company compounded the workers’ indebtedness by deducting various fees from their wages, such as weekly rent and meal costs and even the cost of job-related toolkits. In this situation it was difficult or impossible for the workers to accrue enough earnings to repay their debts in India (David et al. v. Signal International LLC, complaint, 2008).
If workers complained, the traffickers threatened deportation as well as other serious harm. When some of the workers objected to the conditions they faced, Signal tried to deport them. In response to complaints from Sabulal Vijayan (one of the workers), Sachin Dewan made a threatening call to Vijayan’s wife and told her that Sabulal needed to stop “making trouble at Signal.” Such threats and actions amplified fear among the workers. Soon after the call, Signal guards illegally detained some of the workers, including Vijayan (David et al. v. Signal International LLC, complaint, 2008). Some of the workers, according to Werner, had begun to gather at a local Catholic church to discuss the conditions at the camp:
Signal got wind of these meetings, and one morning sent Signal management through the housing units with pictures of five men asking, “Have you seen this person?” Some of the men in question had become worker leaders who organized the offsite meetings. This was a public display by Signal designed to keep the other workers quiet. People were abruptly roused from sleep in order to look at the photos. When the five men were found, they were detained and closed in a common room with guards outside, who at one point were armed. Not only were the five workers illegally detained, but also this act increased fears in all the workers. Signal wanted to ensure that the workers did not continue to organize.
5
Signal allegedly told the workers that the five men were being deported because they were “complaining.” Some of the men saw deportation under so great a burden of debt as a fate worse than death; it would be humiliating for them to return to India and their families with nothing to show for all their sacrifices. When told that he was going to be deported, Vijayan, one of the detained organizers, asked to use the bathroom, and, once inside, he slit his wrists. “When found, Vijayan was released and taken by coworkers to the [hospital] emergency room,” Werner said. Concurrently, after learning of the exploitation of the Signal workers, local community activists began to gather outside the camp. The pressure was on for Signal to release the workers, which it eventually did later that morning. Once freed from their traffickers, the workers contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and also filed a class action against Signal in federal court on March 7, 2008 (David et al. v. Signal International LLC, complaint, 2008). The case is still ongoing.
INDIA AS A TRANSIT NATION
Persons from Nepal and Bangladesh are trafficked through India for commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor in the Middle East. In 2008 over 500 girls from Nepal in transit to the Gulf region were jailed in India on charges of using false documents (U.S. Department of State, 2009). Although it is unknown whether they were trafficking victims, the number involved indicates the high volume of migration through India. According to a report by then-solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam, the estimated number of women and girls entering prostitution every day is 200—of whom 20 percent are under the age of 15. The report went on to state that somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 girls from Nepal are trafficked into India each year. The ages of girls trafficked has dropped from 14–16 years of age to 10–14 years of age (Hindustan Times, 2010; U.S. Department of State, 2010).
WHAT HAPPENS TO VICTIMS AFTER TRAFFICKING
Trafficking victims often face intimidation to persuade them to drop the case against their traffickers. For instance, in 2007 an NGO worker told
The Telegraph
how a rescued victim from Nepal was repeatedly deposed and continually asked embarrassing questions in an attempt to get her to withdraw the charges. As a result of such intimidation, as well as an understandable and legitimate fear of retribution, combined with the fact that cases move very slowly through the overburdened judicial system, many victims simply opt to not testify against their traffickers (Dastidar, 2007; U.S. Department of State, 2009). In addition, victims commonly face charges for crimes associated with their trafficking experience such as soliciting customers for sexual services or using false travel documents. Section 8 of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act of 1986 (ITPA) allows for the arrest of trafficked women for soliciting. NGOs have pushed for this to be dropped so that victims are not doubly victimized by the trafficking experience and the judicial system. Since 2006 the Indian government has continued to debate proposed amendments to this law that would eliminate Section 8 and grant victims more protections (Dastidar, 2007; U.S. Department of State, 2009, 2011, 2012).
Pressure for an increased anti-trafficking effort is coming not just from NGOs but also from India’s own Supreme Court. In a 2010 decision the Supreme Court stated that there should be an increase in anti-trafficking cooperation between the government and NGOs, specifically when concerning children forced into the commercial sex industry. The court went on to highlight the conditions faced by exploited child prostitutes and the lack of resources available to them. “See the condition of sex workers, whenever the police conduct raid[s], only they are arrested and traffickers get away scot-free and no legal aid is available to them,” said Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Ananga Kumar Patnaik (Hindustan Times, 2010). The court mentions that the lack of regulation has contributed to the spread of AIDS, stating that sex workers are forced to continue working even after contracting the retrovirus. “Most of the sex workers are HIV positive and are continuing with their profession. They will only multiply disease. Steps must be taken to curb this,” said the justices (Hindustan Times, 2010).
Under national and state law, certified victims of forced and bonded labor are entitled to receive benefits, including compensation. Yet implementation of protection programs and compensation laws remains unsatisfactory (U.S. Department of State, 2009). According to Patricia Aliperti, victims of debt bondage are supposed to receive 20,000 rupees (roughly $434.05). “But they have to first get a certificate from the police. While the compensation is just supposed to be for victims of debt bondage, NGOs such as the BBA do a good job of helping rescued children receive rehabilitation money by classifying them as bonded laborers, since their pay was likely nonexistent or below the minimum wage.” However, not all victims get certified. Without the help of NGOs, victims typically have no idea that compensation exists. “When an NGO is involved it helps the victims to exit their trafficking situation, and the victims are given guidance on how to maneuver through the system. For instance, the BBA brings police when they conduct raids. They immediately take the rescued children to the police station to obtain statements and certificates while they are there so that they don’t have to go back and follow up with the police, which is difficult in India.”
6
Fortunately, the implementation of protection and compensation for bonded labor victims may be improving slightly. In 2009 police and NGO personnel in Tamil Nadu and New Delhi rescued 161 bonded child laborers; all the children received shelter, and some received part of their statutory rehabilitation packages. Sixty-six other bonded child laborers were also rescued in 2009; they were awarded release certificates, but it is unclear whether they received rehabilitation funds. Another 364 bonded laborers were rescued in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar during the same year; only 185 of them received their rehabilitation packages, totaling roughly $78,000 in government rehabilitation funds. In 2010 the Ministry of Labor and Employment reported that 865 bonded laborers were rescued and that nearly $170,000 was distributed in rehabilitation funds. NGOs reported in 2011 that there are delays in obtaining release certificates, and whether victims obtain the funds is inconsistent (U.S. Department of State, 2010, 2012). Under the Swadhar Scheme, which has an annual budget of $1 million, the government grants support to more than 13,000 women and girls in distress who are without social and economic support. They are provided with shelter, food, clothing, and counseling, as well as legal and clinical support. The program also provides rehabilitation through education, awareness, and behavioral training (U.S. Department of State, 2009; Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2010). Among those benefiting from the program are victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, victims of sex crimes, widows, prisoners, persons who are mentally challenged, persons with HIV/AIDS, survivors of natural disaster, and victims of terrorist/extremist violence (U.S. Department of State, 2009; Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2010).
The government, through the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s Ujjawala comprehensive program, has taken measures to address prevention, rescue, rehabilitation, reintegration, and repatriation of victims trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation by providing funding for state projects that address these specific issues. One sponsored project under the program is a fund that provides victims with temporary financial relief of $200 in the state of Andhra Pradesh. In 2009 the Andhra Pradesh Department of Women and Child Development disbursed $10,435 in interim relief to 48 sex-trafficking victims for medicine, travel, clothing, and other necessities. The ministry allocated $118 million for the year 2011–2012 to fund 153 projects in 17 states under the Ujjawala program (Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2007; U.S. Department of State, 2009, 2010, 2012). Despite these positive steps, the standard of care for victims of commercial sexual exploitation is inconsistent. Many victims simply do not receive comprehensive services (U.S. Department of State, 2009, 2012). Also, there appears to be no shelter that is geared to adult victims of forced or bonded labor, and no shelters that focus on male adult trafficking victims.
WHAT HAPPENS TO TRAFFICKERS
Under the ITPA, traffickers for commercial sexual exploitation face a minimum of 7 years to life in prison. Bonded labor, forced labor, and child labor are prohibited under the Bonded Labor System Abolition Act of 1976, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986, and the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. Violators face a light sentence of up to 3 years. Kidnapping and selling minors into prostitution are prohibited under Sections 366(A) and 372 of the Penal Code. Prescribed penalties are a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine (U.S. Department of State, 2009).
The overall number of anti-trafficking prosecutions and convictions in India is minimal, though some areas have had more success than others. In 2008 officials convicted 30 sex traffickers in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Maharashtra, and West Bengal. Between October 2008 and February 2010 Andhra Pradesh courts convicted 55 traffickers and clients; sentences ranged from 4 to 14 years’ imprisonment. Convictions in Andhra Pradesh were less stringent against 118 brothel owners and pimps who were convicted in 2010 under the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code; most were sex-trafficking cases. Sentences ranged from 3 to 7 years. In 2008, 89 Mumbai cases resulted in the sentencing of clients and sex traffickers with sentences of up to 5 years’ imprisonment, though some of the Mumbai sex-trafficking victims were sentenced for solicitation. The charge carries a $2 fine. However, when the Mumbai court issued 164 ITPA convictions against pimps and brothel owners in 2010, most of which were sex-trafficking cases, the victims were not fined. In 2011 Mumbai courts convicted 125 sex-trafficking offenders; sentences were up to 3 years’ imprisonment (U.S. Department of State, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012).
Even though the government’s anti-trafficking efforts have increased, most forced-labor offenders go unpunished or face minimal punishment. In 2009 an NGO reported that it had worked with police to facilitate the conviction of five bonded-labor offenders but that the offenders were only sentenced to one to two days’ imprisonment and a fine of $45. In 2010 there were two landmark cases involving convictions of forced-labor traffickers. In the first case, in Tamil Nadu, each of three forced-labor traffickers was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine. The second set of convictions took place in Uttar Pradesh, where 5 traffickers were each sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. In 2011, according to NGOs, there were convictions of 6 offenders for forced and bonded labor; 4 of the offenders were sentenced to 1 year in prison, and 2 offenders were charged with fines (U.S. Department of State, 2010, 2011, 2012).
India’s Supreme Court has requested that the government increase the severity of punishment for those who commit trafficking offenses and has recommended an increase in enforcement, specifically a separate police wing to counter child trafficking. “The government needs to understand clearly that child trafficking is the priority area,” said the justices. “There are several aspects. There should be a special investigative agency to deal with trafficking and plug the loopholes” (Hindustan Times, 2010). Believing that enforcement and prosecution of traffickers will act as a deterrent, the court stated that without this step India is likely to continue as a hub for human trafficking, specifically for children exploited in the commercial sex industry. “The most serious problem is the use of children for sex trade. While this crime is growing, hardly any case is registered. If a case is registered, it will have a deterrent effect” (Hindustan Times, 2010). The Supreme Court went on to mention the lack of enforcement in areas with a high volume of cross-border trafficking such as Nepal and the northeast border with Bangladesh, stating that the current police presence is ineffective and that a special agency should exist to deal with this type of trafficking.