Neglected Victims

The verdict convicting paedophiles Duncan Grant and Alan Waters to six years rigorous imprisonment, has evoked, and justifiably so, great jubilation among Child Rights activists and NGOs. However, elated as they are that their efforts have finally reached fruition, these activists and NGOs seem to have overlooked a crucial issue, namely the welfare and future of boys formerly housed in the Anchorage Shelters.

The critical question that needs to be looked at first and foremost is why underprivileged children fall easy prey to child abusers and molesters. Almost all the boys housed in the infamous Anchorage Shelters, were either runaways, abandoned children, or orphans. Extreme poverty, ill treatment at home or exploitation by relatives, can appropriately be identified as the cardinal reasons for the boys taking to the streets.

Naturally in that condition, food and shelter are priority criteria, and a helping hand extended by any individual, however nefarious or dubious the intention, provides them with a straw to cling on to. This is a clear indication of the failure of our system in taking care of street children, and providing them with adequate security and hope for the future.

Why do they have to cling on to this straw? It is because the very NGOs have been crying foul over the activities of the likes of Grant and Waters, as well as the machinery of the state, though loud and vociferous in voicing their protest, do precious little either to or solve prevent the problem.

Runaway children roam the streets freely. The police turn a blind eye. Activists and NGOs go little beyond merely discussing the problem. The few genuine homes and shelters that provide these children with a roof over their heads and with the security of the bare necessities of life, are not even a drop in the ocean as when it comes to tackling the problem in a holistic perspective.

The judge’s decision to set up a three person committee to look into the rehabilitation of the children at the Anchorage has come a little too late. Post judgment, the media has been vocal in reporting the miserable condition and the even more miserable plight of the boys residing there, but has any socially conscious citizen questioned why the Shelters and the boys housed therein have degenerated to such a pathetic state?

The responsibility for this state of affairs rests not with Mr. Grant or Mr. Waters, but with the NGOs, the government and the courts. Ever since the case came to the fore and the FIRs were registered, the duo were first absconding and then have been behind bars.

Yet to the credit of Mr. Grant, it can be said that while he was running shelters in Tanzania, where again doubts were raised about child abuse, he did arrange some funds whenever he could. A façade this may be, but this gesture could also be construed as a pointer to Mr. Grant’s genuine commitment to the true cause of underprivileged children.

Over the last four years since Grant and Waters have been missing from the country, the attention of the Child Rights’ activists and NGOs was focused on bringing the duo to book. The critical social issue however, lay ignored. Having nailed the duo, organisations like Childline and others should have given top priority to ensuring the welfare and rehabilitation of the victims and other boys at the Shelters.

The greatest emphasis ought to have been placed on giving these boys some education and vocational training, to enable them to stand on their own feet, earn a decent living and thereby become a responsible citizen of our country.

Today, most of the boys are back to the streets near the Gateway of India, either peddling drugs, luring tourists, or perhaps even satisfying paedophiles. The NGOs and the government have failed miserably in their responsibility to the children as well as to society as a whole.

The guardians of the law and the protagonists of Child Rights must realize that instead, most of the boys have turned into anti social elements out of sheer desperation and neglect. Is it little wonder then that the boys told the media that life was better when Duncan was around, a statement which has shocked the so called elite in our society. Is this the end result the community desires?

A trust for the Anchorage Shelters comprising local individuals was registered. Mr. Grant and Mr. Waters were not trustees. The President of the Board of trustees did at some point make a press statement that he used to visit the shelters once in a way and hence was not aware of what was going on. He also emphasised that he had cut off all contact with Grant.

As a trustee, does his role end here? Was it not his moral responsibility to see that the life of the boys was properly channelised, their welfare taken care of, education and vocational training imparted, and that rehabilitation was underway. This could easily have been achieved in partnership with various NGOs as well as with the support of the government.

The very NGOs who were in the corridors of the law courts demanding “justice” for the children, could have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), demanding that some competent authority either take over or monitor the running of the shelters until the Day of Judgment.

While bringing child abusers to book is definitely a very important duty, and in the present context a major victory, ensuring the effective development and welfare of our country’s future generation should always be a greater and more imperative priority.