The Government’s intent to transform childhood would have been meaningful had it banned child labour in totality. The recently passed child labour Bill has left unanswered questions as it allows children to work in family enterprises
The Child labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Bill, 2016, which was passed in Parliament recently, was expected to resonate with the Government’s resolve to completely prohibit economic activities of children under the age of 14 years and regulate occupations for adolescents. However, while the Bill completely bans employment of children under the age of 14 years, it gives legal sanction to their involvement in family enterprises.
In India, where a majority of children work within the family set-up, this loophole is at loggerheads with the Government’s intent to prohibit child labour for this age group. It is also based on the flawed assumption that education and work can go hand-in-hand for children. This argument goes against the spirit of the Right of Right to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) 2009.
Straddling economic roles within the family, alongwith schooling, has a far-reaching implication on the child’s education and learning outcomes as well as their health and overall development. We have witnessed children as young as eight years going to pick jasmine flowers before the crack of dawn and thereafter going to school, hungry and sleep deprived.
Millions of children are over burdened with work in the family set-up. Also, in school, these children are inattentive, tired and have low attendance. lack of playtime with peers, in and after school, deprives them of a chance of holistic development. These children remain at a greater risk of dropping out with no option to let go of their economic roles which is essential to their family’s survival.
Moreover, children working in family enterprises are at risk of being engaged in unregulated work where the entire family works together. This holds true for industries such as beedi rolling, carpet weaving, embroidery, shoe-making, bangle making etc, which are largely home-based set ups. While half of the work is carried out in factories, the other half is done at the community level as ‘family enterprise’.
While the Government said that the child is allowed to ‘help’ the family members after school, the extent of their involvement in family-based work can definitely not be classified as ‘help’. In Madhya Pradesh, where children work for six hours to seven hours, rolling beedis with their family, has more of an economic implication than mere ‘help’.
Families rendering work for contractors usually work on a per-piece cost basis and looping in children for long hours means more work done and more money, even if it is a meager amount for the amount of hours put in. Children rolling beedis with their families get paid a measly sum of Rs 60 for more than six hours of work.
In occupations where the entire family migrates at the site, for instance in brick klins, children are usually engaged as full-fledged labourers alongwith the family. There is no mechanism to monitor the number of hours the child puts in, or if the child is only helping the family.
Also, the definition of family includes not only the immediate family, but also the extended family. A family enterprise means any work, profession, manufacture or business which is performed by the members of the family with the engagement of other persons. This not only opens up a range of settings where the child can work, but also increases instances of trafficking where the child is working under the garb of family enterprise. In most cases of trafficking, the perpetuator is a close family or community member.
This law has also brought under its ambit the adolescent population of children in the age group of 15 years to 18 years to regulate the work they are involved in. This would have largely been viewed as a welcome step, but it is grave injustice to children as it covers a small percentage of children involved in only certain occupations.
The list of hazardous occupations for this age group has been reduced from a list of 83 (occupations and processes) to just three — in mines, production of inflammable substances or explosives and the hazardous processes assigned with it in clause of the Factories Act, 1948.
This conveniently ignores many other hazardous occupations that children in this age group are involved in — domestic labour, work in brick kilns, handling chemical insecticides in agriculture, gem cutting, work in slaughter houses, carpet weaving, cotton ginning, stone breaking and crushing, tyre retreading etc.
While the Government has assured that the list of hazardous occupations and processes for children will be revised, there is no clarity on the basis on which it will arrive at the new list.
There are 33 million child labourers in the age group of zero to 18 years (Census 2011), when they deserve a childhood that is free from labour and the pressure of fulfilling economic roles as adults. The Government’s mission of transforming the childhood would have been much meaningful, had it banned child labour in entirety, without any exceptions.
The Bill now has the assent of the President which has left a few concerns unaddressed.
(The author is the Director, Policy and Advocacy for CRY)