| Abstract
All non-school going children are child workers in one form or the other.
Agricultural child labour constitutes the core of the problem. Child labour
policies and education policies have to be formulated and operated in tandem.
Parents do want to send their children to be educated and poverty as a
limiting factor is highly over-rated. Motivation and availability of infrastructure
rather than poverty are the key factors. The paper underlines the strengths
of formal education in eradicating child labour and forcefully argues for
a legislation to provide for compulsory education.
Outline
Introduction
A number of policy initiatives and programmes have been undertaken in this
country over the last decade with the basic objective of dealing with the
problem of the rapidly increasing number of child workers. The formulation
of a new National Child Labour Policy, the enactment of the Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, the setting up of a Task Force on
child labour, the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
and so on have all formed a part of this process. Corresponding initiatives
were taken in the related area of education where a New Education policy
was formulated which incorporated a separate component for working children.
It is the objective of this paper to examine whether the policy initiatives
taken by the Government of India over the last few years can make an impact
on the child labour situation in the country. In particular, the paper
examines the basic understanding of the issue of child labour in the Indian
context, which has influenced the policies and strategies adopted by the
Government. In doing this it is argued that the government policies governing
child labour are based not only on assumptions which are fundamentally
flawed but also on a faulty appreciation of the situation in the field.
It is further argued that, because of this, the set of policy prescriptions
and strategies that follow cannot adequately deal with the problem. Consequently,
unless the basic premises adopted by the policy makers are abandoned, no
significant change can be made in the child labour situation in the country.
The paper also examines the role of the education policy in relation
to child labour. It shows how, in proposing Non Formal Education as a major
strategy for dealing with illiteracy among working children, the Government
has failed to realize the potential of formal primary education as a powerful
tool for withdrawing children from work. In the end the paper asserts that
compulsory education, at least at the primary level, is not only desirable
but also a viable and practicable solution to the problem of increasing
child labour.
Two assumptions have broadly influenced Government's policies in respect
of child labour. The first is that, child labour is a 'harsh reality' and
one can only mitigate some of the harshness of the exploitative aspects
of child labour. The 'harsh reality' of child labour arises out of the
fact that in the present state of development in the country many parents,
on account of poverty, have to send their children to work in order to
supplement their income and the income derived from the cild labour, however
meagre, is essential to sustain the family. This is the 'poverty argument
of child labour.
The second assumption is that there is a distinction between child labour
and exploitation of the child labour. It has been accepted that a certain
amount of child labour will persist under the family environment which
is non-exploitative. This is not only inevitable but also desirable. At
the same time, there are other forms of child work such as in hazardous
occupations, factories and other organized establishments which are reprehensible
and should not be allowed to continue.
The above assumptions have defined the framework of all policies adopted
by the government. It would be appropriate at this stage to see exactly
how policies of the Government have been influenced by this framework.
Assessment of the Dimension
of the Problem
In the first place, these assumptions have strongly influeced the Government's
perspective of the dimension of the problem of child labour. According
to the Government, the number of working children, estimated at 17.58 million
in the 43rd round of child labour estimates, rose to 18.17 million in 1990
and will be 20.15 million in the year 2000.
There are, however, other estimates which establish that these figures
are a gross underestimation. Estimates, for instance, of the Operations
Research Group in a study sponsored by the Labour Ministry reveal that
about 44 million children in the 5-14 age group are in the labour force.
A subsequent assessment has placed the figure of working children even
higher at 114 million.
As per the official estimate the percentage of children in the age group
6-14 attending schools is around 49%. The projected population in the age
group for 1994-95 is 179 million which implies that around 90 million children
do not go to school. Even assuming that all working children do not go
to school there is an unexplained gap of at least 72 million children whose
status is that of non working, nonstop going child.
In the rural situation the fact that a child who does not go to a formal
school is a working child. Collection of water, fuel, maintenance of the
house and taking care of younger siblings all constitute an important element
of a child's life. While many of these activities do not necessarily fall
under definition of hazardous work, inasmuch as they interfere with the
normal development of the child an din the child's ability to reach his/her
true potential they constitute exploitation of the child. In the context
of rural India, therefore, the concept of a non working, nonstop going
child simply does not exist. Any effort to deal with the issue of child
labour has to contend with this aspect.
The Legal Framework
The legislative apparatus brought in by the government is by far the most
clear expression of the influence of the assumptions made by the policy
makers in regard to child labour. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986, itself talks more of regulation than prohibition of child labour.
Child labour is prohibited only in certain sectors (Part A and Part B of
the Schedule) laid down under the act which provides for regulation in
certain other areas. At the same time, there is a proviso which lays down,
that '... nothing in this section shall apply to any workshop wherein any
process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to
any school established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from
Government'.
It does not require a legal expert to realize the sort of loopholes
that this formulation provides for. An analysis of data indication the
number of prosecutions launched under this Act and convictions obtained
would clearly indicate that this Act, despite all its intentions, has achieved
very little. Even under the best of circumstances, an Act of this nature
cannot be implemented unless there is a demand for it from the affected
parties, i.e. that children or their parents. In this case, where the Government
itself has proceeded on the assumption that child labour cannot be eliminated
and that certain forms of child labour are inevitable, it is even less
likely to serve any purpose.
Action Plans
to Eliminate Child Labour
The legislative apparatus by itself is unlikely to yield results as legal
Action is only the first step in a process. The crucial aspect, however,
is the subsequent step in this process which involves constructive rehabilitation
of the child withdrawn from work. This, according to the government, is
provided in the second and third parts of the National Policy relating
to General Development Programmes for benefiting child labour and the project
based Action Plan.
As far as the General Development Programmes are concerned, the Task
Force that was formed specifically to make an assessment commented that
"First, the size of the total resources for general development programmes
remained the same and they have always been so meagre that a small frAction
out of those negligible resources could never be meaningful. Secondly,
no specific allocations were carved out or earmarked. No proportions or
percentages were prescribed. No weightage for child labour mandated."
Further, commenting on the Action Plan the Task Force remarked.... 'Broadly
and briefly, we feel that the Action Projects which were meant to be the
testing ground for the implementation of the Act and Policy have so far
failed to yield any sizable worthwhile results.'
The reason why the views of the Task Force have been quoted here is
that despite such strong criticism from a committee appointed specifically
to study the implementation of the Act and the Action Plan, the Government
of India has not in any way altered its approach. It is interesting to
note that whereas the Task Force submitted its report in 1989, its recommendations
are said to be still 'under examination'. To compound matters the Government
of India has brought out, as already mentioned, a fresh plan which is nothing
but an extension of the earlier Action PLan. The new scheme once again
concentrates on areas of high incidence of child labour, in hazardous occupations
and involves withdrawing children from work, provision of training, education
and rehabilitation. The scheme, however, in no way answers the questions
posed by the Task Force in respect of the earlier Action Plan. Further,
even accepting the official figure of 20 million working children in hazardous
occupations belong to families who have migrated from rural areas. Lacunae
of this nature are essentially the consequence of the Government's pre-occupation
with only a part of the child labour force and its restricted definition
of what constitutes child labour. Any comprehensive plan of actin would
have to cover the entire range of working children without making an artificial
differentiation between those in hazardous occupations and in other works.
Non Formal Education
A related area which has also been strongly influenced by the above mentioned
assumptions regarding child labour is that of education. The New
Education Policy which was to be closely coordinated with the Child Labour
Policy incorporated a major effort to brig drop-outs and non enrolled children
into the education system through non-formal education (NFE). The NFE was
put in place with the key objective of providing education for working
children. It was proposed as a n alternative to the formal education stream
as it was argued that improving the facilities of primary schools would
do little to help the poor who dropped out, whereas the system of non formal
education was targeted to meet the needs of the working children.
The intended clientele includes drop-outs, children of weaker sections,
girls in the age group of 6-14 years and boys and girls who are employed
in professions like carpet weaving and so on. The NFE is supposed
to have a flexible curriculum according to the needs of the working children
and the youth. Classes are to be held at hours taking into account
the children's work schedule.
The NFE system has been the subject of much criticism in terms of its
inherent limitations because of its low paid, ill trained teachers, working
in an atmosphere not particularly conductive to learning for working children
after a full day's work. What is of greater relevance however, is
that the NFE policy provides a clear example of the influence of accepting
the poverty argument of child labour on the Elementary Education Policy.
Thus, given the fact that the poor have to send their children to work,
the NFE provides a convenient framework of education which does not interfere
with the child's work. In the context of ARticle 32 what the NFE
has done is that, in providing a solution to the problem of child labour
interfering with the child's education, it has provided a system of child
education which does not interfere with child labour.
An Alternative Strategy
The above arguments draw attention to the manner in which Government's
policies in respect of child labour and education have evolved and the
factors which have influenced these policies. Much of what has been stated
above is widely known. However, despite the sustained criticism of
Government's policies from several quarters and their consistent failure
to to provide any solution to the problem of child labour, there has been
no effort on the part of the Government to modify its approach or to change
the policies. In fact, policy makers have gone on e step further
an announced a further plan to "eliminate" child labour by 2000 A.D. on
the same line as the earlier Action plans. This situation obtains
because the thought processed of those involved in making the polices have
got stuck in a narrow groove defined by the assumptions regarding child
labour. As long as these assumptions are held valid the policies
and strategies will continue to remain the same. It is only when
they are abandoned and the problem is observed from a different view point,
that of the parent and the child, that a new strategy will emerge.
The starting point of any strategy dealing with the issue of child labour
cannot lie in children engaged in hazardous occupations alone. While
this section of children does constitute the most glaring example of the
failure of our child labour and education policies they too are only results
of a larger phenomenon taking place in the countryside. 80% of the
child labour and, consequently, illiteracy exists in families engaged in
agricultural work and we cannot afford to ignore this fact. Further,
a significant proportion of even those children engaged in hazardous occupations
in the urban areas belong to families who have migrated from the rural
areas. With a large reservoir of working children available in the rural
areas any attempt to deal with the problem of child labour only in specific
industries and areas of concentration can at best yield marginal results.
In the long run it is the rural areas and in particular the agricultural
sector to which we have to ultimately turn. In other words, what
is essentially required is to adopt ARticle 32 of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child in its true spirit and recognize the fact that any
non school going child is na exploited child. In artificially categorizing
some of children as 'mere' child workers instead of exploited child workers
it is often forgotten that it takes very little to convert the former into
the latter. Given these fact, any plan to deal with child labour
has to deal with the 90 million non-school going children.
It needs to be emphasized at this point that what is being suggested
does not represent a very great departure from existing policies.
The Government has consistently been referring to programmes for providing
education for all, raising budgetary allocations for education to 6% of
GNP and elimination of child labour by the year 2000 AD. What is
required is a change in attitude in priorities rather than any radical
change in the programmes themselves. It also calls for a more effective
co-ordination between the labour policies and education policies and a
proper appreciation of the fact that such ongoing programmes as Education
for All are powerful means to bring about a qualitative change in the child
labour situation. The following sections are based on the experience
of the M.V. Foundation which has been working with rural child labour utilizing
the ongoing mainstream education programmes to withdraw children from work.
The experience of M.V. Foundation shows that many of the government
policies are based on negative formulations. For instance, the assumption
that parents are not willing to send their children to schools; elimination
of child labour is not possible nor is it possible to implement compulsory
education laws; the present school curriculum is not relevant or responsive
to the needs of the rural society and so on. The situation in eh
field, however, indicates that these negative formulations have much less
to do with facts than with the State's reluctance to deal with the problem
in its entirety. This is not to say that these formulations ar totally
incorrect, but there is a certain convenience, that of not having to do
anything, associate with accepting them which makes them appear much more
insurmountable than they actually are. In areas where M.V. Foundation
has been working there were innumerable instances of poor parents sending
their children to school. There were instances of children patiently
waiting in makeshift class rooms for teachers to arrive. There were
also innumerable occasions when parents willingly handled even extra work
so that their children went to school. The fact is that there is
considerable demand even in the rural areas and even among the poor for
education. That it has not been articulated effectively is yet another
instance of the weak not being able to extract what they want.
The first step to an alternative policy hinges on abandoning the negative
approach to the problem of child labour. RAther than trying to explain
why children are sent to work instead of school one should try to understand
why there are children still being sent to schools - the same run-down
school without adequate infrastructure and sometimes with just one teacher
providing socially irrelevant education. Instead of giving continued explanations
for drop-out rates one should attempt to understand why it is not even
higher than it is, why it is that it is not always the poorest who drop
out first and why factors such as parent's educational status matter at
all. These are questions the answers to which are extremely relevant
in understanding et strength of the latent demand for education. Even for
a parent who sends his child to school it is much easier to explain why
he should not do so (the answers have all been supplied by the government
itself) than why he actually does. But this inability on his part
should not be construed as his wanting this child to go to work. It should
be clearly understood that acceptance of the premise that poverty compels
parents to send their children to work is extremely convenient to those
charged with the responsibility of reducing, if not eliminating, children
labour because in such a case, improving the economic status of the parents
becomes the focal point of attention. This is neither the responsibility
of the labour nor that of the education department and the buck can be
passed elsewhere. The 'poverty' argument and the argument that child labour
has a major role in the production process of an under-developed economy
is a purely static description of the position in the field. What this
does not take into account is the dynamics of the evolution of society
and the consequent changes in the hopes and aspirations of parents in regard
to their children.
Ultimately, therefore, unless the government machinery and policy makers
accept the fact that the existence of child labour has much more to do
with the government's own inability, if not reluctance, to provide adequate
infrastructure and to motivate the parents through systematic extension
work than any desire or compulsion on the part of the parents to send their
children to work, a solution to the problem cannot be found.
When it is accepted that there is a demand for education and parents,
even poor parents, are willing to send their children to school, the onus
of controlling child labour essentially shifts to the education policy
and regulation through labour acts becomes less relevant. But, as
has already been mentioned, the education policy of the government is heavily
weighted towards providing NFEs which far from mitigating the problem of
child labour actually condones it. The failure of the NFE programme
lies no in its faulty execution. In fact, as has already been mentioned,
its greatest failure is in its assumption that working children cannot
be withdrawn from work, and therefore, have to be given the benefit of
education outside working hours. The fact that there is an unfulfilled
demand for formal education even among the poor in the rural areas has
been totally denied in this attempt to expand primary education. There
is a singular lack of faith that people, even poor people, value education
and learning and are prepared to make sacrifices to provide it at least
for their children. It is in this context that the issue of compulsory
education becomes important.
The Formal Education
System
Before dealing with the issue of compulsory education, a brief examination
of the outcome which formal education in general is subject to would be
in order. The formal education system has often been described as
being ill designed, not responsive to the needs of the working children,
irrelevant in terms of converting children to socially productive elements
and a poor alternative to children of families engaged in traditional crafts.
It has been criticized on the ground of creating a mass of educated illiterates
who are neither willing nor able to perform traditional family occupations
and of contributing to the lumpenization of the rural society. It
had also been severely attacked as a major cause for the decline in traditional
crafts.
In terms of child labour, however, the formal education system has an
advantage unmatched by another. It can never be accused of supporting child
labour. This crucial positive aspect is what makes the system most worthwhile
to build upon. In fact, a closer look at the criticism against the formal
education system shows that is being found fault with precisely because
it is inimical to child labour. Thus, school timings are "ill designed"
because they interfere with a child's daily or seasonal work and "irrelevant"
because they do not teach him to be what his parents were i.e. agriculture
labourers or artisans. But, these are the very strengths of this system
when viewed from eh point of reducing child labour.
Formal education especially in the first 7-10 year of school is meant
to be of a general nature, since children in the age group 5-14 are very
rarely in position to pick up skills. This is why, vocational education
and training n traditional crafts are quite irrelevant to this age group.
The argument that it is at this stage that an individual is most receptive
to skill development has nowhere been borne out by facts. On the
other hand, time and again it has been proved that these arguments are
mere excuses to perpetuate child labour. The 'nimble finger' theory in
respect of carpet weaving children is a case in point. In fact, master
craftsmen themselves often ensure that their children are educated to least
a minimum level before being put through training usually after the age
of 14 years. The fact that a child coming from a craftsman's family picks
up the craft better has more to do with the environment provided at home
in terms of motivation and support than to training per se. In the ultimate
analysis, the advantage of having children take up training in traditional
crafts whether in the family environment or through vocational education
does not lie in either the economic benefit of the child/family, the improvement
of the skill of the child or the craft itself. Rather, it ensures availability
of cheap and, more importantly, obedient child labour to the employers.
Formal education, by not treating working and non-working children differently
also provides in the true spirit of Article 32, an opportunity to children
to think in terms of an occupation by choice. That an educated child of
a labourer decides not to pursue agricultural labour has to be seen as
an expression of individuality rather than as suppression of a skill by
the education system. No society can be built on the logic that an illiterate
child worker is better than a literate unemployed one. This is not to suggest
either that the formal education system is without serious defects or that
the system of training utilized traditionally has no merits at all especially
for older children. However, in condemning the formal education system
we should not forget its extreme relevance in eliminating child labour.
If it is felt that they system requires improvements, it should be done
for the education systems as a whole and not just in isolated pockets through
special programmes meant for working children. The large number of
intellectuals and policy makers who have been recommending vocational and
craft based education for working children have never suggested its implementation
across the board and to the schools catering to the urban middle class.
As a result, vocational and craft based education whenever adopted for
older children above 14 years has always ended up not only as being treated
as a poor child's educational programme but also being implemented as such.
What is required, therefore, is to draw on the advantages provided by the
formal education system in regard to reduction of child labour and address
improvements to the educational system as a whole rather than just that
part which deals with working children.
Compulsory Education
Law
The issue of compulsory education has always been something of an enigma.
At the theoretical level, very few find fault with the concept that all
children should receive education, at least up to the primary stage or
with the fact that children should not work. In fact, the State has committed
itself not only to universalization of primary education but also to the
abolition of child labour through various pronouncements, no least of all
the directive principles of State Policy, enshrined in the Constitution
of India. This has been further strengthened by the fact that the Convention
on the Rights of the Child based on the UN General Assembly resolution
provides for a variety of rights to the child including the right to compulsory
and free primary education. Ins spite of all this, the general attitude
of the policy planners has been that the country cannot afford the distraction
of a compulsory education norm. A number of reasons are given for this,
but two major objections are worth noting. The first questions the role
of the State in deterring the manner in which the children are to be educated.
The second stresses the non-implementability or such legislation which
would remain only on paper.
As far as the first objection is concerned, in a society where the State
has always been playing a very large role in shaping the social behavior
o the citizens through legislative means, it would be difficult to question
the desirability of the state's intervention through legislation in this
matter alone. When we talk about the Indian society today, we talk of a
society which has seen legislation on issues ranging from a minimum age
of marriage to protection of civil rights and abolition of untouchability.
For the State to legislate on an issue concerning a child's right to development,
therefore, would not be something out of the ordinary.
The second objection, however, merits a more detailed examination. It
has been observed that in this country a large number of laws governing
social issues have been passed which have never really been implemented.
Although the legislation set out to achieve laudable social goals, the
State has not been able to put them into effect. Any number of examples
ranging from the SITA to BLSA are cited to illustrate this. A legislation
to provide compulsory education, therefore, is most likely to meet
a similar fate. Further, it is argued, as previous experience with legislation
governing compulsory education has shown, there is a greater likelihood
of the act turning into an instrument of harassment of parents.
These arguments view the issue from one perspective only, viz. that
of the State apparatus. A State apparatus whose understanding of the problem
is flawed by its own limitations and to whom compulsory legislation not
only implies a large enforcement machinery helplessly pursuing reluctant
parents to ensure attendance in schools but also creation of, at heavy
cost, infrastructural facilities which at today's levels of demands cannot
be utilized. The facto of the matter, however is tat, notwithstanding the
claims of the government that more than 97% of the children have been provided
access to schools, the established infrastructure cannot cater to the full
requirement of even the demand that exists. This is because development
of infrastructure has been a function of budgetary allocation rather than
of demand. Once the logic of the harsh reality of child labour is accepted,
low allocation to the primary education sector especially in the rural
areas can always be rationalized as being a response to the low projected
demand for schools. Similarly, it is only when once accepts the absence
of demand for education, legislation are an instrument for forcing unwilling
parents to send their children to school. Thus, any assessment which assumes
the reality of child labour, harsh or otherwise is bound to lead not only
to low per capita investment in the sector but also to the view that compulsory
education laws are unimplementable.
Legislation of this nature has for long played the role of compelling
the State to take action. The Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976
(BLSA), for instance, has proved to be an extremely powerful weapon for
institutions such as non-government organization to deal with the problem
of child bonded labour, in situation where the State has not been prepared
to take action. Thus, even though existence of a legislation does not automatically
imply that is objectives would be achieved, it creates an enabling provision
whereby the State can be compelled to take action. At the very least such
legislation are assertions of the desire of the state to promote an ideal
and a progressive value system. More important, these legislation provide
others working in the field with a legitimacy which otherwise would not
exist. The importance of this aspect would be fully appreciated when on
considers the number of occasions the state has been compelled to act through
the use of the BLSA to release bonded children. Thus, while administrators
and academicians may lament on their non-implementability the fact remains
that legislations of this nature have the power to compel the State to
act. A legislation to provide for compulsory education, therefore, would
be of immense significance in situations where the State does respond to
the requirements of the people. It has already been seen that the government
response to the problem of illiteracy and child labour has been quite equivocal.
On the other hand, experience in the field has shown that there exists
an enormous unrecognized demand for formal education and that parents are
willing to make sacrifices to utilize educational opportunities. As long
as the existing infrastructure can meet the demand, there is no crisis
but the fact is that more often than not the infrastructure is inadequate.
Under the present circumstance, there is a absolutely no way by which the
State can be compelled to provide these facilities. A situation thus exists
where the same parents and children who have been written off as victims
of the 'harsh reality' of socio-economic circumstances ,are demanding educational
facilities and the Sate is either unable or unwilling to respond. A legislation
binding the Sate to provide compulsory education therefore is absolutely
essential.
Summing Up
To sum up, therefore, what has been put forward in the foregoing is a child
labour policy which:
-
Defines the target group in the true spirit of Article 32. All non school
going children (90 million) are child workers in one form or the other.
Agricultural child labour constitutes the core of the problem. Without
tackling this issue, the more emotive issue of child labour in hazardous
occupations cannot be handled.
-
Recognizes the fact that a child going to a formal school is a child withdrawn
from labour. Child labour policies and education policies have to be formulated
and be operated in tandem and not independent of each other.
-
Adopts a more positive attitude towards child labour. Parents do want their
children to be educated and poverty as a limiting factor is highly over-rated.
In particular, such a policy recognizes the fact tat even today there are
'poor' parents sending their children to school instead of work. Motivation
and availability of infrastructure rather than poverty are the key factors.
There is no other explanation as to why factors like parents' educational
status make a difference in the literacy level of children.
-
Realizes that the NFE system cannot be a solution to either the problem
of illiteracy or child labour. It is at best a temporary solution which
has no relevance unless simultaneously backed by adequate strengthening
of the formal education structure.
|