Bonded Labour in International Law: Debt bondage is defined in the UN Supplementary Convention on Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (1956) as the “status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined” [art. 1(a)].  The Supplementary Convention characterises debt bondage as a ‘servile status’ [art. 7(b)] and obliges the states to implement national provisions to abolish it.

Although the ILO did not include debt bondage in the definition of forced labour in Convention No. 29 on Forced Labour (1930), there does appear to be a consensus that the two practices overlap. The preamble to Convention No.105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour (1957) refers specifically to the Supplementary Convention, noting that it provides for the complete abolition of ‘debt bondage and serfdom’.  

The ILO Convention No. 182, concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999), however, specifically includes debt bondage and its suppression. Convention No. 117, concerning Basic Aims and Standards of Social Policy (1962), is particularly concerned with reducing forms of wage payment that foster indebtedness. The objective of Convention No. 131, concerning Minimum Wage Fixing, with Special Reference to Developing Countries (1970), and its accompanying Recommendation No. 135 give wage earners the necessary social protection in terms of minimum permissible levels of wages. Convention No. 95, concerning the Protection of Wages (1949), requires wages to be paid regularly by employers and prohibits the methods of payment that deprive workers of the genuine possibility of terminating their employment. 

Bonded Labour in the hierarchy of labour practices: Many among the labour force, in Pakistan, Nepal, and India, are regular wage labourers, who receive statutory minimum wages. The organised sector employs labourers on such terms.

Many workers in rural South Asia, also in wage labour, however, may not necessarily get the legal minimum wage. Agricultural labourers, who may or may not have a small piece of land, mostly fall in this category.

However, a significant portion of the workforce is not in regular work but in casual work. Casual labour is on the rise partly because of the abundance of labour on the one hand, and partly due to the changing nature of work as a result of, among other reasons, globalisation.  

Both regular and casual labour practices are categorised under free labour. In South Asia, there are many kinds of ‘un-free’ labour practices, mostly forced labour. Some labourers are forced to work out of ‘caste obligations’, for example, manual scavengers, persons who clean carcasses in villages, etc. There are also traditional ways of making labour work without wages, for example, when workers in kilns are made to do a small part of a bigger chunk of work, such as getting the kiln area ready before the production of bricks. This becomes a pre-requisite for obtaining work in the kilns for a longer period. In South Asia, this practice is called begaar.

The most oppressive, exploitative, abusive and inhuman labour practice is bonded labour. Workers, who cannot pay off their loans, are placed under strict control, and often, their property and family members are mortgaged. In traditional societies, such forced labour practices survived in the hali, haliya and siri systems; sharecropping; the kamaiya system in Nepal; and the kamiya system in Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar states in India. In recent times, variations of this practice have been recorded despite social and economic changes.

Bonded labour, a feudal phenomenon, continues in semi-feudal, modern and capitalist agricultures. Modern urban industries, rural industries, industries producing primary products, such as bricks for construction, and domestic work are areas where bonded labour exists. An increasing number of migrant workers are in debt-bondage. These migrants are very vulnerable to atrocities.

In a capitalist mode of production, the predominant employer-employee relationship in work is the business relationship. Bonded labour has been part and parcel of the changing production and labour relations, shaping and adapting itself to the emerging new economy and production relations. This fact emerged in the research project carried out by Centre for Education and Communication (CEC), Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) and General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) in collaboration with Anti-Slavery International, London. The research covered eight states in India, two provinces in Pakistan and three different regions in Nepal, covering various sectors of the economy and the industry. Therefore, interpreting bonded labour as a phenomenon of the past and of traditional economy and society is misleading. 

Salient aspects of the study

Bonded labour was thought to be a phenomenon linked to agriculture. In India, a Standing Committee was formed to advise the agriculture cell of the Ministry of Labour, which recommended that a central law be enacted to deal with the bonded labour system. (Desk research of the regional project on bonded labour, 2005, CEC) The first surveys and interventions in India on bonded labour were made in the agriculture sector in early 1980s. The research points out that though bonded labour is dealt with by the labour ministry, the ministry plays no role in the implementation and enforcement of the Act (on bonded labour), probably, because it was not seen as an issue relating to ‘labour relations’ (AGCP Country Report India Desk Research). Nepal perceived it as an agriculture phenomenon as well, because kamaiya (agriculture) bonded labour was the first to be identified and, therefore, the law banning kamaiya bonded labour was enacted. The Pakistani law is more or less a carbon copy of the Indian law. However, it became clear that bonded labour is in all sectors of economy and is mainly characterised as ‘informal’ labour. Bondage is not only perennial and intergenerational (as in agriculture) but also seasonal and through internal migration (‘trafficking’ in most cases) of men, women and children. 

In the informal sector, the dichotomy between free labour and bonded labour hardly exists. This is especially so among the casual labourers in erratic employment, in chronic poverty and stigmatised (’untouchables’). The labourers of the former category may turn into the latter any time. Chronic poverty and stigma makes them always vulnerable to bondage.

The central issue of bonded labour is the lack of freedom, stemming from measures such as surveillance, payment modalities and debt. Labourers can be freed through the implementation of labour standards: paying minimum wages, ensuring freedom of movement, the right to change employers, state protection against atrocities and surveillance, etc. — all of which amounts to ‘decent work’.

Casual workers, because of their poverty and social stigma (their vulnerabilities), seek loans in advance against work. Loan-advance (‘debt’) is only one of the means of labour control. If labourers were not under harsh control, they would be able to choose their work, receive regular wages, pay off their debts and be free from bondage.

Debt bondage has to do with poverty and social stigma. The fight against debt bondage will not yield results if the most vulnerable section of the workforce does not have freedom (for decent work). As long as the labour force is vulnerable, state or civil action cannot solve the problem of bonded labour.

Impact of the interventions made during the last 30 years

Currently, the process of liberation of bonded labour, in all three countries, is sluggish. In the 1970s and the 1980s, the liberation and rehabilitation of bonded labourers was expedited by government agencies in India. These, however, did not adequately address underlying structural problems such as poverty, caste stigmatisation, and structured dependency of labourers on employers. Governments seem to be of the opinion that they have resolved the problem. This seems to be the cause for the gradual indifference to the plight of bonded labourers, leading to the present status of near-stagnation in the interventions. Nepal expedited processes in 2002, rehabilitating a considerable number of bonded labourers. And then the whole process came to a standstill.  In Pakistan, the government has not yet started any project that reaches the bonded labourers.

Mechanisms, such as Vigilance Committees, to liberate bonded labourers are either non-existent or defunct. This has led to the non-implementation of bonded labour laws in all three countries. The existing vigilance committees lack funds, thereby slowing down processes.

Benefits of the government services did not reach the bonded labour in the past due to corruption, political pressure, mismanagement, and indifference of the officials at the lower levels. No attempt has been made by governments to rectify the implementation process.

The bonded community too has not fully availed of the governments’ programmes aimed specifically at the poor. If accessed, these could be effective tools against bonded labour practice. For instance, in India, there are many schemes in housing, subsidised food and education that could be effective in freeing people from bondage and the vicious cycle of indebtedness.

Many bonded labourers lack support. On their own, bonded labourers are not able to organise collective action for liberation. Government action and NGO coverage for their liberation is negligible, and many mainstream trade unions are not working on the issue.

International organisations are not always encouraged to work on bonded labour issues. Their findings, recommendations and partnership with local groups become the subject of criticism from the ‘nationalist’ viewpoint. The resistance, however, varies from government to government. This has a bearing on the continuity of the programmes aimed at supporting bonded labourers.

Sometimes governments and NGO support programmes that are impractical and are not need-based. The areas in which the labour is rehabilitated are far from the work places; the land allotted is unproductive, and the animals made available to them do not always survive. 

Bonded labour has not been brought within the jurisdiction of labour laws and labour inspection. Labour control mechanisms such as the denial of freedom of movement, working under armed supervision, minimum wages and payment modalities (for example, not paying the whole wages are regular intervals), continue.

Recommendations of the study

Governments should expedite the process of identification of bonded labourers in different sectors of economy, including in the states/areas where surveys were carried out earlier. Surveys should involve all those concerned with the issue.

Governments should focus on using the existing laws in full, liberating bonded labourers and prosecuting their employers.

A powerful monitoring body at the central level should be set up to scrutinise the effective implementation of the laws at the state/district levels.

Government should take measures to implement the minimum wage provisions in all sectors of economy.

The rehabilitation package should reach the labourers as soon as they are freed from bonded work. Issues relating to corruption, mismanagement, political pressure and the indifference of the local authorities should be addressed. Care also should be taken to provide suitable support to specific target groups and geographical locations. A continuous monitoring of the status of those rehabilitated should be carried out until they are permanent in free labour or in self-employment.

Vigilance committees should be established. If need be, governments should consider changing some provisions/rules/regulations to revitalise/re-organise the defunct committees. Most importantly, funds should be made available to committees to carry out their work.

Bonded labour is clearly a labour issue. Therefore, governments should consider bringing them under the labour machinery, ensuring regular inspection and the implementation of laws. This should also include atrocities and discrimination (of all kinds) at work.

Governments should immediately start training programmes for sensitisation, capacity building, effective management and defying local political pressures.

There should be collaboration with international donors, organisations and UN agencies to develop long-term and short-term programmes for the eradication of bonded labour.