When the Union labour minister said that as a child he helped his mother sell onions, he wanted to stress the point that children did lend a helping hand to their families in small businesses. But Bandaru Dattatreya’s remarks underscore a debate that’s raging in the country today: should there be a provision in law that allows child labour in a family set-up?
On May 13, the Union Cabinet cleared new amendments to the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2012. The government wants to link the bill with the Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. A child should not be employed but should be in school, it contends. 

Few would disagree with that. But activists are concerned that while the bill creditably bans employment of children below 14 years, it allows them to work in non-hazardous family enterprises after school hours or during vacations. A child cannot work for a circus but can work in the audio-visual entertainment industry, including for advertisements, films, television or sports provided the work doesn’t hamper his or her education. 

Shanta Sinha, former chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), holds that by putting this caveat about family enterprises, the law has been diluted. 

“It defeats the very purpose of the act — to enable children to go to school through the Right to Education Act — since allowing children to work in any form would force them to join the labour force and not continue their education,” she says.
Further, it is often difficult for an outsider to know if the children working in an enterprise belong to the family or are employees.

“The labour departments, which are lacking in manpower, will find it even more difficult to inspect homes to differentiate between children merely helping their parents and children working to supplement the family income,” feels P. Joseph Victor Raj of Campaign Against Child Labour.

And who will ensure that the child is working only after school hours? “Exploitation will go unseen and unheard since more children will be trafficked to work in home-based environments as nobody will check whether they are working after school hours,” says Bharti Ali, co-director, HAQ Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi.

Despite domestic and international pressure on the government to abolish child labour, children working in homes, factories and fields to earn money is a reality across India. According to the 2011 census report, about 11.08 lakh children in the 5-9 years age group, 32.44 lakh in 10-14 age group and 1.77 crore in the 15-19 group are working as “main workers” — that is, they work for at least six months in a year. Another 182 lakh marginal workers below 19 years work for less than six months a year.

In recent years, many multinationals have publicly declared that they will not engage with companies that employ children. With pressures mounting, successive governments in India have been seeking to do away with child labour. These amendments, for instance, were approved in 2012 by the then United Progressive Alliance government. This act, with some changes, has now been brought in by the National Democratic Alliance government. 

The amendments have been welcomed by organisations such as the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci). Ficci director-general Arbind Prasad says the act will bring child labour legislation in India in line with the requirements of Conventions 138 and 182 of the International Labour Organization. Convention 182 stresses the need to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labour and 138 stipulates a minimum age for employment.

Ficci also believes that allowing children to work at home or in the fields with parents or family will “support India’s traditional stand that children very often accompany the parents/family to look after siblings or provide a helping hand to their parents.” This, it adds, cannot be termed child labour. 

The government believes that it is important for a child to pick up the tools of a family business. But the activists are not so sure. “This promotes a sort of caste system. Is it mandatory to learn a family trade? Should a farmer or a blacksmith’s child be necessarily that,” asks Dr Bharti Sharma, former chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Delhi.

Child labour activists also believe that since there is no provision in the bill to deal with child trafficking, it will lead to large-scale trafficking to cater to the huge demands of the domestic labour market. 

The activists stress that by not defining what constitutes hazardous employment, the government has put children at risk even at homes. “There are many family-based enterprises that are hazardous, like bangle-making, cotton-plucking or even leather works. So we are letting children work in such hazardous employment in the garb of family businesses,” says Komal Ganotra, director, policy and research, Child Rights and You (CRY).

The list of hazardous occupations and processes for 14 to 18-year-olds has been brought down from 
85 to three — namely hazardous factories, mines and explosives. Right now a child below 14 cannot work in hazardous industries such as cement-manufacturing, bidi-making, carpet-weaving, and manufacturing of matches, explosives and fireworks.

But will the amendments, as envisaged by the government, help in implementing education for all?

Pratham, an organisation working on primary education, is hopeful. “A complete ban on children working under the age of 14 is a welcome step,” says Pratham founder Farida Lambay. “But the argument that children should work in family enterprises because their parents are poor is wrong. Instead, living wages of the parents should be increased.” 

Sharma points out that children are often registered in schools but do not turn up for classes. “The parents make them work at home instead. This will become more rampant now with the government legitmising this,” she feels.

Allowing child labour, even if at home, takes away a child’s right to leisure, some activists point out. “If they engage in work after school, when do they rest or play or study? Aren’t we taking away their childhood,” asks Kishore Jha, programme co-ordinator of Terre Des Hommes, Delhi, a Germany-based NGO for children in distress.

Pinki, 12, would rather play. But her mother, a domestic worker, needs an extra pair of hands to supplement the family income. She is looking for a family which can employ Pinki — and take care of her food and stay. 

“I want my daughter to be safe and, at the same time if she earns, it would help us,” she says. And, no, she doesn’t know about the amendments, and possibly doesn’t care.