EDITORIAL
The Union Cabinet going in for an amendment in the Child Labour Act has left scope for the exploitation of children by allowing those below the age of 14 to work. The cabinet’s clarification that children can work only in non-hazardous family enterprises also implies that they will nevertheless be working.
The caveat that the children will work after school hours and during their holidays infringes on the time that they would otherwise have been spending with their friends or siblings. This amendment would give legal sanctity to children working in at least some professions and thus provide scope for them being robbed of their childhood. It is noted also that the government has increased the punishment and penalty for employing child labour.
The government has explained that it kept in mind socioeconomic conditions while taking the decision, and noted that children in many families help their parents and, while doing so, they learn the basics of these occupations. In its effort to balance the need for education of children and the socioeconomic reality of the nation, the government has ignored the point that those who will be affected by this decision are children. School education is not the only aspect of childhood and children helping parents in low-income households is not the only reality.
By allowing children to be employed after school hours and on holidays, the government has given legitimacy to the huge burden on tiny shoulders. It is naïve to think that children can spend a full day in school and then spend the rest of the time helping their parents at work. Besides, though children may not be able to attend craft workshops and dance classes, they need to spend time beyond the four walls of their homes and classrooms, playing and being with others of their age as this is an essential part of their growth process.
While the government has taken a decision to allow children work after school and during holidays, it has ignored the fact that most adults would be reluctant to work once their duty hours are over or when they have taken leave.
The other argument that children would learn the basics of some occupations while helping their parents also does not hold water. If this logic were to be applied to children of the low-income groups, there is no reason why it cannot be equally applied to other children. There is unlikely to be any rich parent who will have his child working in the family enterprise so as to learn the basics of the work at the age when he or she is still a student.
There are many types of family enterprises, with the scope of exploitation being high in some of them. Many of the child labourers work through the day under the watchful eyes of their parents. Children are often seen assisting their parents run small roadside tea stalls and the like. Making their own children work is seen as a win-win situation by these people who get the service without having to pay any wage. Besides, there is no fear of the child suddenly deciding to quit.
Most parents who make their children work do so out of economic necessity. The general feeling among such people is that the child is one more mouth to feed and the work the child does will at the very least compensate for this. Such parents, however, hope that as the child grows, he will add more to the family income than it takes to feed him. That is why allowing children to work in family enterprises will in no way protect their childhood.
This thinking has for ages been a huge constraint in ensuring that all children go to school, especially in areas populated by low-income families. For such parents, free schooling is not enough. They also want to know how the income the child earns will be compensated. This is another reality that the government has forgotten when it approved the amendment. The government should rather implement laws that prohibit children from working anywhere.
