|
By Mari Marcel Thekaekara
In Gujarat, the government banned the adoption of children orphaned by the quake. In Orissa after the supercyclone, women and orphaned children were housed in Mamta Grihas within villages. After the tsunami, the adoption of orphaned children is being seriously discussed, even though it's clear that children flourish in their own cultural context
Paedophiles love disasters. It gives them the golden opportunity to pick up abandoned children. One crucial issue that urgently needs a policy paper and government regulation is the adoption of children orphaned by the tsunami. Every time a disaster occurs, there are vultures who descend to pick the bones of even the most unfortunate victims.
Along with burgeoning tourist traffic, India and Thailand are hotspots for paedophiles on the lookout for vulnerable children. Internet clubs exist solely for the purpose of exchanging information on the best places to congregate to exploit kids. They are on the beaches of Goa and Kerala and, as recent reports have proved, on an organised prowl for innocent children. First they befriend the kids, in the guise of being generous ‘uncles’ (sometimes accompanied by ‘aunties’) and then, after winning their trust, inveigle them into unsavoury sexual exploits that the children often do not even begin to comprehend.
Although several anti-trafficking watchdog organisations have sent out regular warnings, they have not been taken seriously in our country.
While it may be easy to spot ageing white male predators on beaches, we must not overlook the fact that in times of crisis, unscrupulous relatives have themselves sold young boys and girls into slavery. Brothels abound with tragic tales of youngsters sold by their relatives into prostitution, for a pittance.
A second group waiting to exploit orphaned children is unscrupulous Indians looking for cheap domestic help. With rising wages, more people are employing child labour to avail of easily exploitable home help. The children are bullied, beaten, overworked and often abused.
At Nagapattinam, the NGO coordination committee is preparing a briefing paper for the government, covering various issues and problems that need addressing based on the experiences of Gujarat , Orissa and Andhra Pradesh.
In Gujarat , following the devastating Kutch earthquake, the government speedily issued an order totally banning the adoption of children. It was a blanket ban, and it worked because it was backed by the strong family ties of rural Gujarati households. Here, no one would dream of allowing a child to be taken away by strangers if family members were available. So uncles, aunts and grandparents took the orphans into their homes. It is the pride of Kutch that not a single child left the district for adoption.
In Orissa, there was a different problem; entire families were wiped out. When word got out that orphans were being sold, Saroj Jha, an exceptional IAS officer, issued a government order prohibiting the removal of children from villages. ActionAid India set up Mamta Grihas, or houses of love. Women who were left widowed and alone were given charge of the orphaned children.
Saroj Dash and Manas, two veterans of the Orissa cyclone, offered their expertise in setting up similar systems for the tsunami orphans. “Experts have proved that it is far better for the children to remain within the community. Already, attempts are being made to ‘arrange’ adoptions. For a traumatised child, to be taken away to a strange environment where there are different customs, language, food and possibly foreign parents, would be extremely unsettling. It would further disturb an already traumatised child. In Orissa, we encouraged the formation of Mamta Grihas within the village context. We did not separate siblings or families. Instead, we built houses for the widows and orphans within the villages they came from. We also provided livelihood support for the women and psyco-social support through counsellors.
“In one village, a 12-year-old girl was left with her two young brothers. They were terrified of being separated. We allowed them to live together in a house we constructed. It was a child-headed household. But they wanted it that way. We can bring volunteers with special experience to help with a similar set-up, and to deal with connecting families.”
Barely a week after the disaster, questions were being asked about adoption procedures at the government-NGO interface. They are being handled by the Social Welfare Board, but it is imperative that the dangers of adoption are pointed out. However well-meaning people are, it is proved that a child flourishes best in the cultural context he/she has grown up in. To assume that mere affluence gives them a better deal is a predictable but erroneous assumption. Let us look for options for these orphaned children, options that are kind, humane and like the ones their parents would have provided. They have suffered enough already.
InfoChange News & Features, January 2005
|
