Interview with Kajol Menon

Kajol Menon, Executive Director of Childline India Foundation talks to Susan Abraham about the Anchorage case and her concerns with regard to paedophilia in children’s homes

What are the concerns of children’s rights activists with regard to paedophilia and the running of childrens homes? Child sexual abuse in institutions is widespread, and yet prosecutions are notoriously rare and convictions are rarer still. The victims are under the control of the paedophiles; they are vulnerable and embarrassed by what has happened to them; they are scared that if they complain they will lose their shelter and food which they need to survive in the cities; they lack support, and ultimately do not depose in court, either because they are too scared to do so, or because they have been bribed / pressurized by the Accused. Most victims are illiterate, which only compounds the problems of gathering evidence and putting up a strong case. Most of these problems are systemic and endemic to this situation. However, in the few cases where these problems have been overcome, the Courts have let the people down by disbelieving the victims on minor technical grounds. Unless this changes, the most vulnerable category of our people will continue to be exploited and paedophiles will never be brought to justice. Tell us about Childline India Foundation (CIF)’s experiences in the Anchorage case? In early 2001, on its phone helpline 1098, CIF had been receiving reports of abuse at the Anchorage Shelters. Similar reports had also reached the High Court appointed Maharashtra State Monitoring Committee on Juvenile Justice. The Committee in August 2001 visited the Anchorage Shelters and submitted a report to the High Court confirming the strong suspicion of sexual abuse and recommending a police investigation. CIF lodged a detailed complaint at Cuffe Parade Police Station on 24-10-2001, but the police refused to investigate the said complaint as the matter was sub-judice. The Bombay High Court directed the police to investigate the complaint filed by CIF. Police investigation revealed that two British nationals, Duncan Grant (Accused No. 3) and Alan Waters (Accused No. 2), used to run the Anchorage Shelters, which housed a large number of street children aged between 8-18 years. Willyam D’Souza (Accused No. 3), an Indian, and a former pimp for homosexual tourists, was the Manager of the shelters. The investigation revealed that Grant and Waters were sexually abusing the children under their care and that a large number of foreign paedophiles were regularly visiting the Shelters and taking the children to Goa where the children were also being sexually abused. The acts of abuse documented by the police investigation are: (a) oral sex forcibly performed on the boys, (b), forced manipulation of the boys’ penis, (c) boys made to forcibly manipulate the accused’s penis, (d) sadistic beatings of the boys, (e) biting of the boys for perverse pleasure, etc. Why did the trial take so long? The trial was delayed on account of the fact that Grant and Waters had absconded from India after the facts became public. The Government, through Interpol, issued international red corner alerts for the arrest of Grant and Waters. Waters was arrested on his arrival at New York airport, and after a lengthy extradition process and after he exhausted all appellate avenues, he was extradited to India to stand trial. Duncan Grant was found to be hiding in Tanzania where he had started similar shelters for children. He was deported to Britain and forced to return to India to stand trial. Could you give some idea of what the child witnesses went through? During the trial, three of the five victim boys were bought over by the Accused by offers of large amounts of cash and even a house. However, two of the victim boys showed exemplary courage and integrity by stepping into the witness box, deposing about what they had endured, and facing a grueling cross examination by a top defence lawyer. Their evidence, which emerged unscathed through this ordeal, mirrors their helplessness and innocence. They have spoken in clear terms about the prolonged abuse they suffered at the hands of the Accused, the nature of the sexual acts perpetrated on them, and their desperation and poverty which prevented them from leaving the shelter or filing a complaint. Their evidence was corroborated by other sources, including the evidence Ms. Adenwalla and Kalini Mazumdar, member of the Monitoring Committee, both of whom had personally and independently spoken with the victim boys and verified their claims of sexual abuse. The Defence case that the victim boys were bribed and tutored to falsely implicate Grant and Waters at the instance of some people who wanted to take over the Anchorage Shelters was found to be untenable and far-fetched by the Trial Judge. The Sessions Court, while convicting them under sections 120 B, 107, 373 and 377 IPC sentenced Grant and Waters to six years imprisonment and a fine of £20,000/- each, stated that a deterrent punishment, was being imposed in order to help wipe ‘out the name of India from the map of sex tourism. … let paedophiles all over the world know that India should not be their destination in future.’ We in the child rights field hailed it as a landmark judgement. How would you rate the Bombay High Court verdict? The reasons given by the Hon’ble Court for acquitting the Accused are extremely flimsy; they are not sustainable and do not withstand scrutiny. The Ld. judges have ignored the settled position of law as to how evidence of child victims of sexual violence is to be appreciated. Instead, they applied a completely unrealistic yardstick in evaluating that evidence. The Judges have not considered that the victims were illiterate street children and cannot be put to the same test as an educated adult. Moreover, the Judges have also failed to recognize that to enable street children to freely and fearlessly speak about the abuse perpetrated upon them to the police and before the court, great courage and support is necessary. The Ld. judges have also held that since no complaint was made for a long time, that the FIR was delayed and that the child witnesses did not run away from the shelter though they were free to do so, suggests that that no sexual abuse took place. The Ld. judges have completely ignored the fact that the victims of sexual abuse were vulnerable and defenceless street children who were so desperate to get a roof over their heads that they were prepared to put up with the sexual abuse. The Ld. judges have also rejected the evidence of the child witnesses on the basis of some minor omissions which are not material and which do not touch the core issue of sexual abuse. Here again, the Ld. Judges have ignored the settled position in law regarding how omissions have to be evaluated and appreciated. If this judgement becomes a precedent for appreciating evidence of victims of child sexual abuse, a large number of perverts and paedophiles will walk free, and it will be almost impossible to obtain convictions against them. Further, if this judgement is not overruled and publicly condemned, the public confidence in the administration of justice will be undermined. The High Court even refused to stay its judgement for a few days to enable an appeal to the Supreme Court which would prevent the release of the Accused from jail. Had the Supreme Court not intervened in time, they too would have fled the country. In the Martis couple’s case, even though the passports of the convicted Swiss couple was in the custody of the police, they were able to flee the country after being released from jail. What are the changes required in the legislation? There is an urgent need for enactment of a comprehensive act and law covering substantive and procedural aspects of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA). The existing sections 375/ 376 and 377 of IPC, currently used to prosecute child abusers, do not mention CSA and do not recognize all forms of child sexual abuse and the practices of pedophilia. Apart from being inadequate, existing laws fail to take into account the vast nature of child exploitation and the diverse levels at which abuses occur. The need of a child victim is very different from the adult ones, the focus of law/Act has to be broadened to cover the need of children and address the problem in a sensitive and child-friendly manner. The Goa Children's Act 2003 specifically addresses Child Sexual Abuse. The act has some unrealistic clauses but is appropriate in spirit and approach. Maharashtra needs a Children's Act to cover Child Sexual abuse as well as to give effect to the Convention of the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols that India has acceded to. The MWCD has taken cognizance of the issue in its National Study on Child Abuse, 2007 reporting an alarmingly rising trend in cases of child sexual abuse, while convictions, of offenders, under existing laws is declining. It is high time that we as a nation stand up and take action to ensure our children are protected from abuse and that perpetrators of these crimes against children are brought to task. What about the Juvenile Justice Act 2000? The JJ Act 2000 and its amendment in 2005 have been in force for several years. However, Police Stations and CWCs are not completely familiar with the Act and there are still many police stations that record Juvenile cases under IPC rater than under JJ Act. The Child Protection mechanism in the state consisting of Child Welfare Committees, Child Shelter Homes, Remand Homes and Juvenile Justice Boards should be all linked to each other for coordination and must be on one website. There is a need to bring together district level magistrates, CWCs and Police officials from across the state for a effective case study based workshop to train them. CHILDLINE is willing to be the resource organization for such training.