In June, the Directorate of School Education issued an advisory directing officials to identify children involved in begging and enroll them in government schools. The move follows a National Human Rights Commission directive and places responsibility on civil society—NGOs, churches, councils, and the public—to report such cases to Childline 1098. The policy, though late, is necessary.
Child begging in Nagaland’s urban areas has grown more visible in recent years. In Dimapur, children are routinely seen near traffic intersections, markets, and bus terminals.
Similar scenes are present in Kohima. Most of these children do not appear to be from local communities. Residents report that many speak languages not native to the region.
This has led to the assumption—sometimes rightly—that they are migrants, and in some cases, trafficked. But that observation cannot be used to justify institutional neglect. The state’s obligation under the Right to Education Act applies to all children residing within its borders, regardless of ethnicity or origin.
What the new advisory does is place these children within the formal framework of “out-of-school children.” For the first time, those begging on the streets are being viewed as individuals with a legal right to education, rather than as part of a separate problem associated with poverty or law enforcement. This shift is important, but it raises several practical concerns.
The first is data. No reliable figures exist on how many children are engaged in begging in Nagaland. Without baseline numbers, it is unclear how the success of this policy will be measured. The directive mentions coordination with District Child Protection Units and Child Welfare Committees, but these systems are already under-resourced. In most districts, there are few dedicated facilities to house children rescued from street conditions.
The second is follow-through. The advisory depends heavily on Childline 1098. The service has responded to over 11,000 calls and intervened in nearly 1,400 cases since late 2023, but there is no public breakdown of how many of those involved children begging. Awareness remains a problem. Many people are unaware of the helpline or hesitant to report what they witness. Without active reporting and consistent action, the directive will remain a bureaucratic exercise.
The third is retention. Enrolling a child in school is not the same as keeping them there. Children who beg often do so under pressure—either from adults or due to economic need. Unless those pressures are addressed through shelter, nutrition, and continued support, school attendance will be short-lived.
The state has taken the right step by issuing this directive. But policies must be backed by data, resources, and systems of accountability. Until then, child begging in Nagaland’s towns will remain what it has always been: visible, known, and ignored.
Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com
