There are millions of children in India, who cannot, for a variety of reasons, be protected by their parents and adult family. They maybe dead, or alcoholic, or violent and abusive, or in jail, or lost, or have abandoned their child. The parents may also be themselves destitute, homeless, gravely ill or disabled, and therefore unable to care for their children without support. The child, who has no home or settled place or abode and any ostensible means of subsistence maybe at risk in other ways as well: due to riots, natural disasters, war and militant conflict; disabilities and incurable terminal ailments, with no one who can support or look after the child; when a child is grossly abused or tortured; is inducted into drug abuse or trafficking; child marriage and child labor. In all such situations, it is the State, which is both morally and legally responsible to protect, nurture and raise each child.
However, at present, the State in India invests miniscule resources in child protection. India today is a youthful nation: 19 percent of the children in the world live within its boundaries, and more than one-third of the population is below 18 years. Accounting for the largest number of children in work, and the second largest number of children affected by HIV, India arguably has the highest number of children facing exploitation and neglect in the world. But the investment on child protection was a shocking 0.034 per cent of the budget.
Traditionally, public authorities have tried to accomplish their duty of protecting children who are at risk mainly by locking away large numbers of these children in State-run, closed institutions for many years until the child grows to adulthood, and soon after the child comes of age by abruptly discharging the child without any further support into the larger society. Private and religious charities also sometimes run orphanages for such children, but they are usually run on similar custodial principles of raising the child in confined and overly disciplined environments. For children who conflict with the law, there are statutory ‘special homes’ to which they are usually confined in conditions similar to jails. For many years, these children also shared adult jails, and many illegally continue to do so.
It is both absurd and heartless for children to be locked up only because they have no one to protect them. It is argued that this is done for the sake of the child: if the child was free in the community, the State would be unable to protect the child from abuse, and therefore she is locked up for her own good. This is quite illogical. The State must find ways to protect the child who is in need of care in ways that respect the child’s right to a happy and free childhood, while at the same time ensuring her protection, and her rights to food, education, health care, recreation, love and security.