INTRODUCTION
Begging (Webster’s defines a beggar as a poor or impoverished person, completely dependent on outside help) within the countries is noticed more in urban and suburban areas as compared to villages (Centre for Media Studies, 2000). The 9th Five Year Plan (FYP) of the Government of India (GoI) states that ‘the social scenario in the country has been fast changing due to rapid urbanisation and industrialisation. The unending flow of rural population to the already crowded cities and towns in search of employment has resulted in serious problems like…poverty etc. In this process, certain categories of population, who failed to cope with these rapid changes, have started lagging behind the rest of the society due to their vulnerability. They include Persons with Disabilities; the Social Deviants, who come in conflict with law viz. - …beggars etc. (Centre for Media Studies, 2000).
The scale of people begging is difficult to say as there are no reliable estimates. The 9th FYP of GoI admits, ‘there is no information about the size and magnitude of the problem’. Though it can be gauged from the fact that, Dr. Kumarappa in 1945 wrote ‘there were some 1.4 million persons in India whose sole means of subsistence is begging’.
Beggars have minimal economic security, are often homeless and are subject to marginalisation. They are treated with suspicion, disdain, hostility and even aggression, and they are socially excluded once they take that first step into beggary.
Over and above this, the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (the model for a range of anti-beggary state acts enacted in 16 States and 2 Union Territories) declares begging in public places an offence punishable with imprisonment or a fine. The official response is simply criminalisation of beggary and very little interest is taken by the government to do more than house beggars in detention centres.
Though there are various facets to the issue of begging that needs to be deliberated upon, this paper would focus only on the need to de-criminalise begging in India. This is very critical as criminalisation of beggars is a double burden on the already destitute population of the cities and makes the marginalised section of the urban population even more vulnerable. It would further prepare grounds and argue for the need to expand the understanding of begging as an urban livelihood strategy in the absence of a wider social security network.
LITERATURE REVIEW
One of the biggest debates around beggary involves the basic perception of the activity. There are two streams of thought, one that it is a cry for help, the other, an offence. One claims that beggary is the result of need, the other, of inclination. The former presupposes a condition of helplessness in which beggars cannot earn their livelihood by any other means. The latter focuses on the deviant nature of beggars with which they have chosen to reject a life of work to live off the wealth created by others. A small section considers it a response to particular set of circumstances, and some a symptom of poverty and social disintegration, and many others, urban nuisance, black spot to becoming global cities, traffic hazard, and a boost to crime. However, both these arguments share the basis that begging is a social reality of immense concern. But, the concern is translated into policy choices differently depending on the perception of the activity. The former leans towards decriminalizing beggary, whereas, the latter not only supports the existing draconian laws but asks for more.
Both sides look at the religious, the social, the economic, & the political-legal dimensions of beggary to build their argument for criminalisation or de-criminalisation.
A historical understanding of giving, points to its theological, ethical and socio-economic roots. The Vedic notion of ‘daana’, the Christian notion of ‘charity’, the Islamic doctrine of ‘zakat’ point to the universal validity of `giving' as a primary socio-religious need (Samuel, 1999). Whereas, an old study of Delhi argued that charitable giving had in fact become part of the problem as it had become enmeshed in a self-interested religious fervour for spiritual cleansing. This inflated giving beyond its initial function for relieving the needs of the more unfortunate and thus produced more beggars than necessary (Rao, 1959).
At the social front many have argued the relationship between destitution and beggary and implicitly implied decriminalization. Even though not all beggars are destitute, most destitute people beg. Acute poverty and deprivation normally leads to beggary particularly for those who are handicapped or those who are aged, infirm and have none to support them. In India a fairly large proportion of beggars are destitutes (Joshi & Singh, 1999) and the very poorest of the poor are destitute (Harriss-White, 2002). Those faced with acute poverty are driven to urban areas for their survival. On the other hand, recent studies such as in Puri, Orissa, project that half of beggars are able bodied making on an average more income than the wages of millions of poor peasants and workers (Jha, 1979). Other reports have emerged that suggested that beggars used tricks such as fake pregnancies or fake medical prescriptions, to deceive people into giving them money . We see that there are beggars who have taken to it as a profession by pretending to be physically or visually handicapped so as to make easy living without doing hard work (Centre for social studies, 2000). For many, begging is regarded as no more than a life choice of the idle or unprincipled, ‘the problem (beggary) still continues to exist in its worst form as begging has become a profession for many, as they find it as an easy means of livelihood (9th Five Year Plan, GoI).This is well countered by Murdoch when talking of U.K., he goes on to say, ‘despite the sensational media reports of the early 1990s which claimed that ‘bogus beggars’ were able to earn more than those in many respectable professions, the nature of begging as a stigmatized activity means that people tend to engage in it as an economic activity of last resort’ (Murdoch, 1994).
Along with the perceived disintegration of the ethic of hard work, beggary has been variously condoned as a problem of public health, decency, morality, and order. Discussions in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly point to an overarching perception, “the majority of beggars carry loathsome diseases, which cause potential threats to common citizens” said one of the members in 1958.
In this vein, some writers, more prominent in the West, have even come to the defence of the most stigmatised beggars – those mentioned above as having bad habits or idle minds. Just as the infirm may be forced to rely on the whimsical generosity of others, the poor are also deprived of any institutional support, opportunities or guidance to afford them real options in life. Dominic Fox, Chief Executive of National Homeless Alliance in England said; "we have to ensure that these people who are some of the most damaged in our society, are not demonised and seen as undeserving through their dependency on drugs or alcohol, but are offered adequate support, quickly when they need it, to help them."
At the economic level, writers such as Kumarappa, argued that with modernisation, traditional social structures started to unravel, with industrialisation and foreign competition disrupting traditional and co-operative means of income generation. Rural commodities were increasingly devalued and controlled by big business and the social foundations of village life were uprooted with resulting migration in search of alternative incomes. It became clear that beggary was only an enlarging phenomenon (Kumarappa, 1945).
George Orwell famously challenged the distinction between begging and other remunerated activities, arguing that: there is no essential difference between a beggar’s livelihood and that of a numberless respectable people. Beggars do not work, it is said: but then what is work? A navy works by swinging a pick. An accountant by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, bronchitis etc. It is a trade like any other: quite useless of course – but then many reputable trades are quite useless. (Orwell, 1932 as cited in Dean, 1999). Those who think that begging is different in kind from other forms of economic activity usually point to the fact that begging involves “getting something for nothing”, while other forms of economic activity all involve getting something in return. (Adler, 1999:165).
At the political & legal level, many attribute the increase in numbers to the criminality of beggary, ‘the most disturbing feature is begging under various kinds of compulsions and the worst are those who are inducted into begging by force by anti-social elements’ (9th Five year Plan, GoI). They claim that beggary has become a lucrative business, with certain city spots highly fought after, and beggar-masters demanding heavy rates for their use . In other, cases such as Ludhiana, it was reported that poor children were said to have been encouraged into addiction and subsequently forced into begging rings (Chopra, 2002). Many even lament that there has not been enough action on the part of the police or the government to curb this evil. A senior officer of the Delhi Police, Maxwell Pereira commented “Begging is a social malaise, which despite efforts or claimed efforts on the part of concerned authorities, flourishes in Delhi with impunity – much to the disgust, distaste and horror of the community at large”.
On September 24, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi administration to clear Delhi of beggars and hawkers as they `obstruct the smooth flow of traffic'. The order came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) that described beggars and homeless people as the `ugly face of the nation's capital' and as people who, among other things, caused `road rage' (Frontline, Nov 2002). The recent Delhi High Court order to clear the capital city of beggars is seen to ignore the rights of destitute people and the problems they face (Gopalakrishnan, 2002). Many poor and homeless people are being arrested as a result of a skewed law on begging (Outlook, 2004).There are other writers who have argued that not only is criminalisation unfair, but penalties can, and often have inflicted further damage on already underprivileged groups. "Before taking any action, you need to understand the impact that action is going to have," says Cathy Guthrie of UNICEF Canada talking about banning child labour, which has parallels with begging. "If you don't, you run the risk of driving children away into more hazardous situations where their vulnerability is heightened and they are more easily exploited."
The views of the intellectual community on beggary range from a strong derogatory outlook to a more conciliatory and caring approach, or even one that turns the culpability onto the state.
ARGUMENT
The state has the mandate of taking care of each and every citizen in just and dignified manner, and beggars are not beyond that. The least that the government can do, if not provide for social security, is not to penalize the poor for being poor. Whereas, the law does not address the socio-economic basis of beggary, but, criminalises it instead. The whole scheme of the Act is punitive. De-criminalisation of beggary is essential to ensure some degree of dignity and freedom for the people at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy in India.
The immediate dilemma for policy makers is whether beggars require control (to regulate their economic enterprise) or protection (from the risks they run on the street). Beyond the immediate dilemma, however, is the question of how the changing nature of social policy intervention will be able effectively to accommodate the needs of those drawn or forced into begging and street level economic activity (Dean, 1999).
The three grounds on which I would argue for decriminalization of beggary in India are: one, the failure and the misuse of the existing policy of criminalization, two, there exist laws to tackle the menace around beggary argued by the proponents of criminalization, and lastly, social security provisions and not punitive action is what is required.
The limitations of criminalisation are well articulated in the 9th FYP, ‘despite the enforcement of Anti-Beggary legislations by 16 States and 2 Union Territories, the problem still continues to exist in its worst form (9th FYP, GoI).
In most of the existing Acts, the definition of ‘begging’ is so vague that any person without visible means of subsistence could be apprehended for being suspected as a beggar. Any person can be termed as beggar who is soliciting or receiving alms, whether or not under any pretence such as singing, dancing, fortune telling, etc; having no visible means of subsistence, and wandering about in public place in such a condition or manner, as makes it likely that the person doing so exists by soliciting or receiving alms. Any police officer is authorised to arrest without a warrant any person found begging under the wide definition mentioned above. This is the draconian power that is used by the state to reduce any poor to beggar, which means they are required to live in a continuous state of fear as they can be beaten, abused, chased, rounded up and arrested.
Beggars are victims of injustice. The three tiers of the Indian set up – the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive; have contributed in downgrading the status of these downtrodden masses; from poor to criminals (ActionAid, 2004).
The fear of the law can be gauged from the statement of Fayeem, a coolie “the people who earn their daily bread through hard manual labour require rest for their body and mind, at least for a few hours, if we sleep peacefully, next morning we may wake up in the Lampur house (detained in a beggar home)”. Further, a study by Centre for Media studies found ‘the entire process of identification and arrest of beggars does not appear to be sound as many of the arrested persons were found to be engaged in productive activities such as carpentry, plumbing, etc.’. ‘By the most conservative estimates of the staff,…in these institutions (beggar homes), at least 10% of the inmates are likely to be not beggars at all’.
One of the most vehement arguments for criminalisation has been the ‘beggary racket’. But, in reality there exist several laws to deal with organised begging. The anti-beggary law itself does not draw any distinction between organised begging where one or more persons are compelled to beg by force and people who beg to sustain themselves. The current institutionalised approach to beggars merely serves to punish destitute people.
There is a separate law ‘The Indian Penal Code (Section 363A)’ that deals with the kidnapping and maiming of a minor for purposes of begging. A lawyer working at beggars court in Delhi said, “in our experience in the beggars' court, the BPBA is hardly ever used to arrest people who maim or coerce people for purposes of begging. In six months of our work there, we have come across one case and that too where the victim (a blind person) has been convicted and sentenced for two years. The persons who were forcing him to beg and were living off his earnings have not even been proceeded against.”
The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 ("ITPA"), is another such law that is meant to prevent trafficking in human beings. Further, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, is also a potent law to deal with forced begging.
Thus, the existence of the BPBA does little more than victimizing the weak and the powerless.
On one hand our development interventions along with few ‘avoidable negative evils’ are virtually compelling poor people to migrate in urban areas, on the other hand there is minimal or no planning process to take care of them in urban areas. The rise of begging and destitution is connected to the disruption of traditional living arrangements and the need for many of the poor to seek their livelihood far from their homes (Kumarappa, 1945).
Shri Prithviraj D. Chavan said in a Lok Sabha debate on July 25, 1997; “if we want to really get rid of this abhorrent practice of begging, the causes which make people beg have to be eliminated… it is quite impractical to abolish beggary by enacting legislation. Beggary cannot be outlawed; poverty will have to be outlawed.” Education, training, a ban on child labour and the introduction of a comprehensive pensions system are now discussed, albeit quietly, along side detention centres and police round ups.
The realization from a developed country like U.K. has also been one of de-criminalisation of beggary, ‘a peep into the past reveals that early and Medieval England had a large number of beggars. They constituted of the deprived, the destitutes, the disabled as well as able-bodied lazy individuals. Initially the beggars were arrested and put in work houses. As time went by beggar homes were established. However, by merely arresting them and placing them in these homes was not sufficient to effectively sole the problem of beggary. In order to find a long lasting and effective solution to the problem the government drew up various schemes of social assistance, social security, employment and placement. It was with the help of these schemes that a great degree of success was achieved in curbing the evil of beggary. Similarly schemes are also found in operation in other progressive western countries’ (Joshi & Singh, 1999). Even in India the 9th Five Year Plan admits, referring specifically to beggary, that “presently, the approach for tackling this problem is based primarily on punitive devices with very little scope for any diversified programmes of treatment and rehabilitation, neither for the able-bodied nor for the disabled beggars” (9th FYP). In calling for a full repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, Homeless Link (U.K.) said: "Given that there is little public support for a punitive approach to rough sleeping and begging, that criminalising already vulnerable people is more likely to compound their problems and frustrate the work of support agencies, and that more creative welfare-based and employment solutions need to be found, we urge the Government to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 entirely."
By declaring begging an offence punishable with detention, it can be argued that this Act takes away from the poor their right to liberty for trying to enjoy in the only way available to him, their other right, the right to life.
There is a need to challenge the idea of punishment in any sense in relation to begging. In one sense the logic follows that if society wants to forbid beggary and impose grave consequences, it also has to make substantial and organised efforts to alleviate poverty. In this type of argument, a ban against beggary is still desirable, but social reorganisation rather than punishment is the remedy.
Policy Implications
We have seen that the anti-beggary law has been ineffective in dealing with the social ills around beggary and is a weak tool to check organised and forced begging. All it has been able to achieve is to instil fear and insecurity, and victimise not only beggars but also the large number of urban poor.
Policy makers should consider the following to formulate policies around beggary:
a. Research has shown that most people in beggary are destitute and are in need of care rather than victimisation.
b. In the absence of social security mechanisms, beggary remains the last resort for many to realise ‘the right to life’.
c. Lessons from other countries have shown that strong social security net is the best way to reduce begging.
On the one hand, policy makers need to de-criminalise beggary, which only harms the already fragile existence of the destitute and on the other they need to create an enabling environment for the destitutes and the ever increasing urban population towards achieving lives of security and dignity, through expanded social security provisions.
