Why the Present State Plan of Action has Failed

What Needs to Be Done to Succeed by 2012

1.   

Addressing the Demand Side: The Wrong End of the Stick The State Plan of action has been concentrating on the demand for child labour by employers. It has focused on the prevention of the employment of children using punitive measures against employers, the rescue and rehabilitation method for removing children from employment and financing Bridge schools for ex-child workers.

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

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).

Addressing the Supply Side:

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 interventions will include the following among others:

§   Sustainable development of the areas from where these children come

§    Easy access to water, fuel and fodder

§    Review and design strategies to address rural unemployment, such as promoting small and medium scale industries in rural areas for Employment Generation

§    Hostels for the children of migrant families

§    Flexi Schools for child workers

§    Immediate and long term management of crises created by drought and such other natural calamities

§     Redefinition and implementation of ‘Employment guarantee’ and ‘Food guarantee’ programmes in the most marginalised areas

§    Effective Implementation of Minimum Wages Act

§    Fair pricing of agricultural products

§    Promoting the manufacture and marketing of rural crafts and occupations

2.   

Child Labour – Education: Not a Simple Equation

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 for various reasons:

§    The child is not ready for school and in most cases cannot go into the class that is age appropriate. This problem is more pronounced in urban areas.

§    Most of these children do not have homes to go back to and hostel accommodation is a problem.

§    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.  

§    Education in its present form does not guarantee a job.

§    Our concern to educate children ends when the child turns 15 years.

§    Children are legally allowed to work after the age of 15 years and most need to work and therefore need to prepare for the world of work. Our education system does not address this question.

§    Children who work are not provided an education unless they go to formal schools from 9AM to 5pm.

A very complex Socio/Economic Issue:

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.

Some of the intervention required in this regard are:

§  The design and implementation of Action Plans needs to be decentralised to the level of Gram Panchayats and Urban Wards

§   This process should be decentralised – and localised to ensure that they address ‘real’ needs of children – based on broad policy framework.

§ Working Children; their families and communities; Local Governments and Community Based Organisations, together need to design and implementation Action Plans for the elimination of child labour.

§    The major feeder blocks need to be identified and special attention needs to be given to these areas

§  Poverty mapping of children in different situations should be carried out as the first step with their active participation

§ Based on their needs and situations,   strategies should be drawn up.

§  While being local specific, larger State, National and International trends that influence the situation of children and their communities should be consciously factored in and addressed in the policy framework.

3.   

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] 

Flexible Education a Means to the End:

Education needs to serve several purposes:

1.  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.

2.  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

3.  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

4.   

Single Strategy for all forms of Child Labour:

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.

Multi-pronged Comprehensive Approach:

A multi-pronged strategy 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  the geographic, socio-economic and political situation of children.

5.   

Top Down Approach:

The design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and also funding of the present plan is top – down.  A top – down, centralised, approach to addressing issues is several times removed from the reality of situations and the needs of the constituency. By default it results in gross generalisations and basic minimum interventions as it has to apply to a vast variety of situations and needs. 

Bottom Up Approach:

A bottom – up approach that addresses the uniqueness of each area and situation and that breaks up the problem into smaller manageable proportions is more likely to work. This approach will also bring in a genuine feeling of ownership and enable the participation of all the stake holders, including child labourers, their families and communities, employers, NGOs, CBOs and local governments. Such an approach will be appropriate, sustainable, viable and result oriented.

6.   

State Funding:

The burden of funding now falls on the Central and State Governments. The failure to generate and release sufficient funding has been sited as a one of the major obstacles in realising the goal of ‘child labour free states’.  

Community and Corporate Social Obligation:

If the responsibility of planning and implementation is decentralised to Local Governments, a large part of the resources required could be made available by the community through their participation.

Corporate social responsibility is the new ‘buzz word’. This can be used in a very productive manner if the resources contributed by the corporate sector are used to implement the strategies developed by the local governments with the participation of working children and other stakeholders.

A child labour cess can be levied on the profits of industries beyond a predetermined point.

Corporate Houses can also be encouraged to adopt Panchayats or Urban Wards and enter into partnerships with the local governments and working children of that area to enable it to become child labour free in a given time period of five years.

7.   

Single Nodal Ministry/Department:

The Labour Ministry is the nodal ministry for addressing Child Labour and through attempts have been made to coordinate with other concerned ministries; this has not worked to the advantage of the child labourers, nor substantively helped in the successful implementation of the plan.

Convergence of Ministries and Departments:

The convergence of several ministries and their departments are required for the successful implementation of a plan of action. This is best situated to happen at the level of Local Government and not at the level of State or Central Government. If this convergence takes place at the local level during the design of the plan, it will ease the implementation and also enable more appropriate convergence at the State and Central level.

8.   

State Obligation and Responsibility:

The present State Plan of Action puts all the responsibility on the State Government.

Community Participation and Resources and Local Specific Strategy:

A plan that is designed and implemented by Municipalities and Gram Panchayats will transfer the responsibilities to Local Governments. This will also serve the purpose of breaking the problem down to easily manageable proportions that are more easily solved. Plans will also be local specific and address the unique mix of problems that exist in that area making the plans appropriate and therefore more viable and sustainable. 

9.   

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:

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 ensures that the primary accountability is to children – and not the government. This is a paradigm shift.

§  This will also create social accountability where it is no longer the ‘problem of inspectors’ but that of the whole community.

§   This will also ensure that children are not forced into situations that are worse and that children get long-term support from the community.

10.  

Child Workers are the Problem:

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 as 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.

11.  

Criminalising Child Labour: Child Workers as Victims

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: Child Workers as 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 order to enable this we will have to:

§  Include children as a part of all decision making processes that concern their lives.

§    Create environments where children feel safe physically, emotionally and intellectually

§    Assist children to get organised so that they gain collective strength

§   Empower children to access, analyse and use information to protect their rights

§  Create structures where they children can interface with adult decision makers from positions of strength

§    Sensitise adults to ‘listen’ to children believe in their  capacities

12.  

Violation of the Convention of the Rights of the Child:

The present strategy of ‘raids, rescue and rehabilitation’ 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. 

Upholding 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.

13.  

Using NGOs and Local Governments as Service Delivery Agents:

As of now, NGOs and Local Governments are seen as mere implementers or delivery agents of a plan that has been designed at the Centre or State level. They have no flexibility nor any say in the designing of these plans. Further the plan is very general and does not address the uniqueness of each situation or sector.

Local Governments, Child Workers and Community Participatory Planning and Implementation:

An alliance between NGOs, Local Government, working children and the families and communities (that include employers) can be forged and if they together design and implement plans for the eradication of child labour over a period of time, the strengths of all these actors will be utilised to the optimum.  This approach will also strengthen Panchayat Raj Institutions and the principle of decentralisation and democracy.  

It will enable the convergence of all the ministries and departments and give Panchayats and Municipalities the power and resources to plan, implement and monitor the plan.

14.  

Generalised Definition of Child Labour:

The present definition of Child Labour leaves out children above 15 years and does not address child work outside the preview of the Act and schedule. Further, when it comes to statistics and survey data, the definitions are so varied that it is impossible to obtain any accurate figures.

Local Specific Definition of Child Labour:

Various forms of child work need to be defined and appropriate interventions designed. For example the ‘worst or intolerable forms’, ‘hazardous work and processes’, ‘skill providing work or apprenticeship’,  and ‘acceptable forms of work’ that either do not interfere with or even enable the normal growth and development of children. 

Definitions have to be arrived at considering the age, ability and gender of the children concerned and within the specific conditions of work as these factors vary from region to region.

Children and local communities should be facilitated to define ‘work that children should and should not do’ based on children’s development milestones and their rights.

This will ensure that specific child labour practises unique to each region will be identified and addressed with an appropriate strategy.

This categorisation with its corresponding strategy can be the basis for ‘social monitoring’ of the plan and will respond to changing situations in a dynamic manner.

15.  

Centralised Monitoring and Evaluation:

As of now monitoring and evaluation of Action Plans are centralised and 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:

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.

Decentralised social monitoring as suggested in no. 9 will enable local governments to have a much better grip on the progress of the action plan and effectively plan progress.