Ensure independent social audits of shelter homes
Our apathy towards abuse in our neighbourhood is a big reason for institutional violence being legitimised
It was happening in plain sight. And for years. It took us months of silent work to gain the trust of residents of the Muzaffarpur children’s home for them to speak up about the horrors they faced. The State’s and people’s response to the report — conducted by Koshish-tata Institute of Social Science, and submitted in May 2018 — were initially slow.
But since then, several promising developments have taken place. The Bihar government has swung into action; the case has reached the Central Bureau of Investigation, with the Patna High Court monitoring the investigation; and the Supreme Court has taken suo-motu cognizance of the issue.
These are, however, ad hoc measures. Not much has changed in reality that could address the wider structural issues enabling abuse and violence in children’s homes across the country.
A recent nationwide survey by The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) on behalf of the Centre — submitted to the Supreme Court — found that more than 1500 children were facing sexual abuse in shelter homes across the country. Disturbed by the revelation made in the survey, the SC enquired about the steps taken to protect these children. The Centre’s response: The report has been forwarded to states.
It seems procedures and structures have become bigger than the people for whom they were designed in the first place. The NCPCR, thankfully, has now tried to address that lacuna with its new guideline that requires a probe by a judicial magistrate in cases of escape, sexual abuse or death of any child inside a Child Care Institution (CCI). It also mandates completing the inquiry within four weeks of receiving the information.
The cases like Muzaffarpur and Deoria are an indicator of a much deeper malaise that we face today, and are not limited to one institution or state. This is not to say that every children’s home has stories of abuse like the one in Bihar, but given our weak institutional response, possibility of a rot cannot, and should not, be ruled out unless we are absolutely sure about the absence of foul play.
The NCPCR survey revealed another frightening fact, though I am not sure about the methodology which was followed. In the social audit it was carrying, just 54 got positive reviews out of 2,874 children’s homes it had inspected so far.
Keeping in mind such a negative review, states, too, should order a detailed and honest assessment of institutions under their purview. The Muzaffarpur case, for example, is the result of different agencies — the NGO in charge of the home, the child protection officer, or child welfare committee — failing simultaneously. The exact mechanisms created as child protection framework, unfortunately, could not detect and address what it’s supposed to. More than ever, the onus is now on the State and judiciary to fulfil their role; if they failed, it would be a far bigger tragedy.
There are no easy fixes, but as a long-term measure, the State must take cognizance of such incidences and ensure an independent and detailed social audit of the institutions involved, with proper methodologies employed.
During the audits, the participation of the residents of the homes must be made a compulsory element for all monitoring processes. Although social audits are mandatory, children are hardly spoken to most times.
The residents should be allowed to evaluate the facility, and while grading the home or other related organisation, the rate of rehabilitation, not their financial or administrative capacity, should be taken into account. Making institutions open to qualified outsiders — like independent NGOS and responsible citizens — instead of turning it into a jail would be another crucial step towards curbing the violence and abuse.
A lack of trust between auditors and children in care centres plays an understated role. Privacy for the children during the audit should be considered seriously. Investigating agencies, including rehabilitation teams, must be extremely careful about not making them relive the horrors repeatedly.
One hopes that, in the meantime, the breaking of silence of children in the Muzaffarpur shelter will provide strength to other invisible victims suffering silently in fear of the abuser to speak up.
Our apathy towards our invisible neighbours constitutes a big reason for institutional violence, legitimising over time such abuse as normal. This normalisation results in collective silence and that is the biggest threat the children in care centres face today.