An Open Letter to the Labour Minister,

Government of India

For the Favour of Publication

Child Labour Legislation ~ Enabling or Crippling; Empowering or Criminalising?

Dear Sri Oscar Fernandes,

I write to you on a matter of great concern and urgency. During the past month the media has been filled with coverage of the new (Oct 10^th - 2006) GO adding domestic work, dabhas and resorts to the schedule of processes and industries banned under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.

The response has been varied. Some have welcomed the move and hailed it as a progressive step, while others have been more cautious in their comments and have raised questions regarding the subsequent welfare of the children rescued as a result of the raids. The experience of the past years has shown that in most cases the situation of these children has gone from ‘the frying pan into the fire’. Others are concerned about the ‘best interests of the child’ being violated by the ban approach. An increasing number of organisation and individuals, including journalists and political analysts have questioned the viability of the strategy and question and doubt that a ‘child labour free India’ will be reached by 2007 or in the near future.

It is clear that this top down, piece meal, scheme based, relief oriented strategy has failed to meet its goals. Karnataka and several other states have asked for an extension of the time limit. Proceeding with the same plan would be suicidal as it is obviously flawed. If we do we are certain to find ourselves in the same embarrassing situation as we are now. This strategy and plan of action needs to be reviewed and a new strategy practical and viable needs to be formulated with great urgency.

So far the legislative approach towards child labour has been to ban industries and processes for children below the age of fourteen. This approach is implemented through consequent punitive action against employers and the criminalisation of the children who labour and the only way we have seen fit to implement this legislation is through compulsion. For all concerned, especially the child labourers themselves, this approach has been crippling rather than enabling; criminalising rather than empowering and marginalising rather than inclusive and participatory.

In 1978 when we (the Concerned for Working Children) raised a question in Parliament through George Fernandes that resulted in the Gurupadaswamy Report and again in 1985 when we presented the Draft Child Labour [Employment, Regulation, Training and Development] Bill; we persistently pleaded for a comprehensive, multi-pronged, bottom-up, decentralised and participatory approach to addressing the problem of child labour that included working children themselves as actors in finding solutions. Unfortunately in the 90’s the mood, then largely influenced by WTO and GATT and promoted by the ILO-IPEC programmes, was for quick knee jerk solutions that the past 25 years has unmistakably shown has not worked.

However, now the time is ripe to adopt a more enabling and empowering strategy that does not treat child workers as the problem, but include them as a part of the solution. Below are some of the central issues that have accounted for this failure and suggestions for an alternative Action Plan. A detailed set of suggestions is attached as annexure I.

§    The Action Plans for addressing child labour and built on certain erroneous premise. First of all they address the demand side of child labour and not the supply side. By grabbing the wrong end of the stick to begin with they concentrate on the demand for child labour by employers and on the prevention of the employment of children using punitive measures against employers. This has been implemented through raids or ‘rescue and rehabilitation’ strategy for removing children from employment and financing bridge schools for ex-child workers. This approach concentrates on the pull factor (the demand for child workers) and not the push factor (the reasons why children enter the labour market).

      As Manju, a child labourer from Kundapura described it, “it is like removing the scum from the top of a boiling pot, without doing anything about the fire underneath”.

      It would be far more practical to address the supply side of child labour as this would ensure that we focus on the systemic and basic causes that push children into the labour market. This would lead to more permanent and sustainable solutions. If children do not come to the labour market, the question of their being employed will not arise. Dealing with the supply side will entail a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of child labour in a given geographical area or feeder block. The receiving blocks (developed areas to which child labourers and their families migrate from less developed areas) also need to be identified and specially addresses.

§    The equation between child labour and education is not a Simple Equation. First and foremost it must be recognised that all work that children do in not bad; just as all schooling is not good for children. The present strategy of removing a child from work and putting her into an education institution has not worked because the economic and social problems that pushed this child into the labour market have not changed and remaining a driving force both for the family and the child. The root causes of neglect of the rural sector; inequality as a result of gender, caste, ethnicity, religion and class; the lack of opportunities to secure a sustainable livelihood and unemployment; and the pathetic absence of basic infrastructure, push over a 100 million children into labour.  

      Child labour is the symptom of a very complex disease. It is now abundantly clear that the present piece-meal, scheme-based, relief-oriented approach adopted by government and some NGOs has little or no impact and practically no sustainability. This is because this strategy fails to address the underlying causes of poverty and deprivation.

§    Formal Education is not a Magic Wand. There are many children who go to school because they work and combine both work and education. Still others choose to work as school does not provide them with either the skills or expertise to work on completion of school. Further, a lot of what happens in schools is far more harmful to children that much of the work they do. However, the critical issue is that the simple act of putting a child labourer in school does not solve the reasons s/he went to work in the first place. Schools do not solve poverty, deprivation, unemployment and discrimination.

      “While it is a global scandal that so many children still work in degrading and damaging industries, and that exploitative labour is one of the worst things that can happen to children, it does not follow that all the work of children is ignoble or unworthy; and it certainly should not lead to the universal conclusion that children are always better off in schools.  The model of childhood as a work-free zone is essentially a concept from the Western world, in which childhood is a functionless period of life, distinguished only by increasingly inactive leisure……”[1] 

      Education needs to serve several purposes. Education can serve as one aspect of the alternative for a child when s/he is released from labour only if the education so provided serves the needs and aspirations of these children. Teachers need to be sensitising and equipping to address the needs of ex-child workers who are entering school for the first time. Education also needs to serve children who work and flexi schools that combine schooling with vocational professional training and NOT Bridge schools need to be planned. Education needs to be a viable choice for children who are preparing for the world of work. Appropriate teaching-learning methods need to be developing to respond to the real educational and skill requirements of children. Vocational training and formal basic education need to be combined in the curriculum.

§    The State Plan of Action envisages a Single Strategy for all forms of Child Labour. In order for it to be applied to all sectors it contains only the lowest common denominators. Such as strategy will be unable to deal with the complexity of the issues involved that are the root causes of child labour. Further, the issues confronting each sector of child labour are a distinctive mix of problems and require a complex blend of strategies that are appropriate for each sector and area.

      A Multi-pronged Comprehensive Approach will address all facets of this very complex problem. The precise mix of issues and causes that need to be dealt with can be effectively tackled only if the planning process recognises the diversity of each sector; and   geographic, socio-economic and political situation.

§    Compulsion works as Long as the pressure is maintained. The main thrust of the present strategy is compulsion, pressure and punitive action. The problem with compulsion is that it is like a spring. It stays contained only as long as the pressure is maintained and then bounces back and reverts to its old position and sometimes even worse that that.

      “All compulsion is hateful to me. I would no more have the nation become educated by compulsion than I would have it become sober by such questionable means. But just as I would discourage drink by refusing to open drink shops and closing existing ones, so would I discourage illiteracy by removing obstacles in the path and opening free schools and making them responsive to the people's needs.[2]”

§    Social Monitoring is viable and sustainable alternative. Social Monitoring by children, their families and community together with local governments will enlist the whole population in the mission. This will also give the employers of children a means to contribute positively to the goal. There will be no ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys in this strategy and ensure that everyone is pulling in the same direction. Further there will be no need to conceal or falsify statistics. Honesty, transparency and accountability can be the watch words and it will be easier to monitor the progress of the plan. People’s and children’s participation right from the stage of planning will create ownership and then they will play an active role in the monitoring processes. This will also ensure that children are not forced into situations that are worse and that children get long-term support from the community.

§    Now Child Workers are viewed as the problem. In truth they are victims of lopsided economic, social and political development and planning.

      ‘Children are not commodities like narcotics that can be removed with a raid and then disposed of[3].”

      Child Workers need to be a part of the Solution. Children are not the problem – they need to be a part of the solution’. A strategy that includes Child Workers as a part of the solution is more likely to succeed. Children know their situations better that any one else and most often they know what needs to be done to solve the problems they face. If they are included as active participants and agents of change to transform their own lives, they can bring tremendous energy, offer viable solutions and provide positive direction to the plans and implementation.

§    By Criminalising Child Labour, Child Workers are Victims twice over. The high profile “rescue” operations or raids that NGOs and government officials have been engaged in have proved very counter productive. With no tangible alternatives being offered, these rescued children most often meet a fate worse than the one they were in to begin with. Their families do not welcome such moves as it often means that their last straw of survival has been rudely snatched away. The ban approach only criminalises children and traps them between the abyss of poverty and starvation on the one hand and the harsh ministrations of over eager NGOs and the labour department on the other.

      The 477 children who were rescued during raids conducted on Monday last amid much publicity by foreign-funded NGO Pratham are now faced with an even more uncertain future. No one knows what to do with them. As a matter of fact, investigations by The Pioneer revealed that rather than concern for the rehabilitation of the children, utilisation of funds under an UN-funded scheme prompted the raids[4].’

      Empowering Children can convert Child Workers into Protagonists. All children, and more so children who work, are living thinking, feeling human beings who are capable of participating constructively and actively in the formulation of solutions. Their families love them no less that we do our children and would enthusiastically participate in implementing solutions that they recognise as viable and sustainable, but most of all real. Working children and their families need to be empowered to become agents of their own change. Such a movement from below, with the right support and resources, can achieve much more that treating working children and their families are those who have transgressed the law.

§    In the process of implementing the present strategy both government and NGOs are in Violation of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The raids or ‘rescue and rehabilitation’ method, besides being very traumatic for the children involved, also violates several sections of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In order to provide one right to children (that of education) we cannot violate several other rights. 

      We must uphold the Convention of the Rights of the Child. We must keep the ‘best interest of children’ as the central principle of all strategies and interventions if we do not wish to harm the children we have set out to help. This can only be done by recognising children as active participants in the process.

§    As of now there is Centralised Monitoring and Evaluation of Action Plans based only on quantitative data that is inaccurate and unreliable. Further, no reliable base line data is available to make comparisons and measure progress. Some gross generalisations are made and equally untenable conclusions drawn.

      Decentralised Social Monitoring will enable local governments to have a much better grip on the progress of the action plan and effectively plan progress. Each Panchayat or Municipal Ward should begin by conducting a detailed survey of the child workers in the area. This survey should be planned and conducted by the working children themselves in partnership with local government authorities, other children and community. This data should serve as the base line for monitoring progress. This data can also be fed-into the state and national statistical grids for a broader understanding of the issue. In addition to local monitoring, Taluk or District level committees/bodies may be set up to periodically reviews the child labour status in a given Panchayat or Municipal Ward. These bodies can also declare areas ‘child labour free’ as and when the specified criteria are reached.

Sir, we do not make theses suggestion lightly. We, the Concerned for Working Children have more than 30 years of field experience working with working children and their marginalised and deprived communities in five Districts of Karnataka and have worked as consultants in over 25 countries of the world. We have also proved that this approach works. In North Karnataka we have managed to reduce the numbers of child labourers from 4 digit figures down to two digits in a space of five years and in South Kanara down to 1 digit.

We gladly offer our expertise and experience to design and implement a doable plan. We would be happy to collaborate with government and other NGOs who have similar expertise to work on this at the earliest.

With kind regards,

Nandana Reddy

Director Development