Child labour ban not good enough
The Centre's latest piece-meal approach to child labour is likely to be as ineffective as the previous failed schemes and plans. Unless the underlying causes of child labour are addressed, and the rights of children are properly secured, India will remain prone to wide-spread child labour, writes Ingrid Srinath.
The Ministry of Labour recently issued a notification banning children below 14 from working in residences and the hospitality sector. After agriculture, these areas are where children are employed in the highest numbers, and it is hoped that prohibiting their employment in homes and at waiting tables will address a large lacuna in the current laws against employing children. The prohibition was brought into force by adding these areas in the list of hazardous occupations, where child labour is already prohibited. The ban has been imposed under the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 and will be effective from 10th October 2006.
The national child rights organisation Child Rights and You (CRY) has welcomed the Ministry’s recent notification but feels it is an insufficient response. Many gaps still remain in the legal provisions against child labour, and even the ones already in existance cannot be effective without proper enforcement and rehabilitation provisions. Moreover, the group has pointed out that while this notification has been necessary, it is at best another in a long line of piecemeal efforts. For real change to occur the root causes of child labour have to be addressed – causes like the lack of a coherent education policy, insufficient schools, poverty, marginalization, migration etc - situations that force children into work.
An insular notofication of this sort totally ignores children’s right to safe and facilitating environment for development, including health, nutrition and education needs.
- Kids can’t read, adults can’t count
- Child labour factfile
In our press release, we observed that 27 years of CRY’s work with 2,500 marginalised communities across 20 states across India has shown that the piece-meal, scheme-based, relief-oriented approach adopted by both governmental and NGOs has limited impact and practically no sustainability. This is because they fail to address the underlying causes of deprivation. Causes related to gender, caste, ethnicity, religion and class keep over 100 million Indian children hungry, unschooled and vulnerable to the worst forms of abuse and exploitation imaginable. Instead, irreversible change is only possible when children, parents, community groups and local government come together to identify, address and resolve the issues that constrain children.
This broader demand apart, even within the notification’s limited ambit, CRY has noted significant gaps:
- The prohibition is restricted to servants at home, hotels, dhabas and other recreation centres. It is not clear whether this applies to the household manufacturing sector, where a vast number of children are employed in similar working conditions.
- The conviction rate for the already existing Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 is abysmally low - so low, in fact, that it is hardly a deterrent for employers. Without strengthening both enforcement mechanisms and provisions for rehabilitation, making additions to the list of prohibited employments for children has little meaning.
- The notification is premised on the belief that that child labour needs to be prohibited in hazardous occupations only, but does not take a clear view of what children ought to be doing in their childhood - learning in safe and meaningful schools. An insular notofication of this sort totally ignores children’s right to safe and facilitating environment for development, including health, nutrition and education needs.
It is also noteworthy that the government’s notification is incongruent with another related issue pending before it - namely, ensuring the fundamental right to education. Legislation enabling this right to education is yet to be passed in Parliament, which raises the question - if children are to be stopped from working so that they may attend schools instead, why is there such a lack of poitical will in securing the right to education?
CRY believes, for this reason, that the notification on child labour has to be seen in this light - more than protecting children from hazardous employment, the government may be trying to ward off a Supreme Court decision banning all forms of child labour. The Court has already asked the States for their views on why child labour should not be entirely abolished. Its query to the state governments may have prompted this limited response from the executive.
Clearly, the journey is far from complete. The National Sample Survey 2000, reported 16.4 million Indian children aged 5-14 years were ‘engaged in economic activities and domestic or non-remunerative work’. Another 46 million children of school-going age are unaccounted for, neither enrolled in school nor officially working. Giving India at least one reason to be #1 — home to the largest number of child labourers on the planet.
Filed under
Cite this article
Ingrid Srinath (2006) ‘Child labour ban not good enough’, India Together, 29 August 2006. https://indiatogether.org/notify06-human-rights/
3 reader responses
Add a response
Rahul Priyadarshi · 20 September 2006
Dear Mr. Srinath, It is quite heartening to know that the civil society, at large, is waking up to accede to the rights of a child which is very rightfully demanded. It is certainly true that a number of NGOs/ CBOs/ GOs are working in this area but we are still far removed from addressing the root cause/s leading to denial of rights to millions of children, esp. those who are involved in economic activities. Though, the Supreme Court of India has intervened on this issue asking state parties as to why child labour cannot be abolished altogether because previous legal provisions have not been able to bring about a positive change in the lives of millions of children. But, one has to also see that banning child labour completely will not serve the purpose, because if we look at the socio-economic profile of such children we will find that these children belong to a totally marginalized and poverty stricken caste/community. Hence, any provision made for children that totally bans child labour also has to take into account the poverty factor because if we ban child labour completely without a proper rehabilitation/ economic concern of such children and their family it may lead to other kind of anomie or social pathology, like delinquency or delinquent behaviour of various kinds. Therefore, in my opinion a very comprehensive and a complete package have to be developed taking into consideration their rehabilitation, education, vocational training, etc, by involving every stakeholder and beneficiary category. A very focused and a persistent brain storming sessions have to be conducted to really get into the skin of the real problem and not just resorting to rhetoric. One has to also delineate between a pure academic exercise and practical considerations, and then facilitate a way for their convergence too in order to make the effort complete and fruitful because academic and practicality should complement each other. Before developing such a package a research study may be undertaken to know the source of the problem. It is my observation that in India we develop strategies and action plans without any scientific justification for a cause or an issue to be addressed. Thank you. With best regards, Rahul Priyadarshi Contact:09868036732(M) Email:rahul_priyadarshi@rediffmail.com
suchitra j.y. · 16 November 2006
i agree with rahul. first, policies in india are typically piece-meal and haphazardly introduced and most lack a sound rationale. further, there is always some overlap of schemes and programmes. each is introduced and operated by a different government department and most run at cross purposes. that aside, with specific reference to child labour interventions, the experience thus far has been mediocre, at best. the SCLP in karnataka, for instance, is often stated to be 'better' than the NCLP merely because it provides residential schooling facilities to the rescued child labourers, while the NCLP provides only day schooling. however, this bridge school is only for a period of one year, after which there is every chance that the child will get back into the labour market. does the sclp ensure that this doesn't happen? evidence thus far does not indicate so, although the mandate of the SCLP is to mainstream and rehabilitate the rescued child labourers after the bridge school. what is the potential of the bridge school to ensure that the children do not re-enter the labour market but enter mainstream education? this depends on the education that is imparted in the bridge school. if this is even remotely akin to the education that our primary and secondary schools impart, it only makes the chances of children re-entering the labour market that much higher. for the sake of argument, even if we agree that the child completes the year at bridge school and enters the mainstream school, are we guaranteeing them education of a quality that is attractive enough? parents, especially of children belonging to highly vulnerable backgrounds would naturally find sending the child back to work more attractive. the focus in bridge schools, therefore, ought to be more on vocational education - something that would be useful to the children in the future, and something that would ensure them regular and good employment in the future. mainstreaming the children to regular schools need not be the only option - which implies that the bridge school need not necessarily be a one year affair. the vocational education may be imparted in the bridge school for as long as the children need it - subsequently, they can even be sent to regular vocational educational institutes. why not let the children decide what they want to do rather than a priori making the decisions on their behalf? such a policy attitude shows that the policy makers are never inclined to undertake a sound demand and needs assessment before introducing schemes. a related point with specific reference to karnataka is that the extent of corruption is very high, even among supposedly 'grassroots development' agents such as ngos. many of the ngos that are implementing the SCLP in karnataka are more interested in acquiring funds from the government rather than in their avowed developmental objectives that they often bring in any child and enlist them as child labourers under the bridge school. such wrong identification of child labourers leads to severe wastage of funds and time.
Rahul Priyadarshi · 9 April 2007
Dear Sir, To address the issue of child labour the first step we need to take is to make this whole movement a 'rights based movement'. And for this to happen, the 'right to education' has to be guaranteed by the constitution. Secondly, a coherent policy has to be very carefully crafted, taking into consideration many diverse issues like, caste, ethnicity, class, poverty, marginalisation, etc. and how are they related to each other. For example, how caste/class increase/decrease the child's access to education? Let us not forget that India is a very diverse society which is stratified into many layers of caste, gender, region, religion, etc. All these factors have to be considered and only then a very effective and a comprehensive policy can be formulated. Also, this will help in identifying gaps in other areas too. Like, a change in the constitution can prompt a change in the various Acts that provide protection to children. Lastly, we have to replace the word 'participation of children' with 'meaningful involvement of children'. Mere participation does not guarantee the voice or the concern of a child himself. Unless we are able to add meaning to the involvement of the child we can never formulate a sensible or an effective policy. However, it is not an easy task and, therefore, we as responsible citizens not only of India but the world have to be persistent and supportive to the cause of our children.