Request for Review of Child Labour (Prohibition ad Amendment) Bill, 2016 // Vijayalakshmi Balakrishnan - Child Labour is Being Legalised to Pursue ‘Make in India’ at Lower Cost
To - Mr Pranab Mukherjee,
The Honorable
President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi
Sub: Request for
review of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Bill
On July 26, 2016, the
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Bill was passed. The Bill,
if it becomes an Act, will have devastating physical and mental health
consequences for the children of India. We urgently call on you to send the Bill
back for review.
Section 3 of the Bill
outlines the circumstances under which child labour is legal. This section
permits children to work in order to help their family, or their “family enterprises” or “as an artist in an audio-visual entertainment
industry”.
This amendment is in
contradiction with article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC) as it would put children at risk of sexual exploitation, long
hours of work, and would effectively deny them a childhood as prescribed under
the principles of human rights and children’s rights.
While the Bill appears
to increase the minimum age for employment to 14, in reality it has no age
limit for children in “families and family-based enterprises” and “audio-visual
entertainment”. This is not in line with the International Labour Organization
(ILO) Minimum Age Convention.
The shortened schedule
of hazardous occupations proposed in Section 22 omits many occupations that
have devastating effects on the physical and mental health of the child[MV1] .
Children of any age can now work in brick-kilns, slaughter-houses, electronic
units, velding, beedi making, agriculture, slaughter-houses, orchestra parties,
pornographic movies in the guise of so-called entertainment, stitching, sowing,
cooking, packaging, garbage recycling, toy-making, mixing drugs for
pharmaceuticals, home-based brothels…the list is endless.
Section 22, along with
Section 3a, will lead to serious violations of the CRC.
Section 18 of this
Bill calls for the penalization of parents, who are often not the perpetrators
or profiteers in instances of child labour. Criminalizing parents who are
already trapped in poverty is not in the best interest of their children.
There are 44 lakh
child labourers in our country as per the census of India. 80 per cent of them
are Dalits and the other 20 % of them are from backwards castes. Many of these
children work with families who are in debt bondage, enslaved by contractors
and unscrupulous landlords. They have no bargaining power to keep children at
home or send them to school. Imposing fines will only punish low-caste parents
further.
Three quarters of
child labour in India is in caste-based “family and family-based
enterprizes.” Including such a provision would serve to restrict children
in traditional caste-based occupations and would consequently perpetuate social
injustice. The Bill places a discriminatory burden placed upon low-caste impoverished
children and their parents— as it is unlikely that children whose parents have
economic means would be required to work.
This is in
contradiction of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.
The Bill seemingly
ensures that child labourers get an education by saying that children can work
“as long as this work occurs outside of school hours or during vacations”.
However, it does not define the hours of work or the site of work in the
so-called “family enterprizes.” This can only increase drop outs as no
child can work after school hours and keep up with school. This Bill instead of
protecting children in need and ensuring their right to education makes it
harder for poor children to study.
Since the site of work in “family and family-based enterprizes.” is not defined, this could range from a construction site, to a plastic sheet near a garbage dump or a home-based brothel. As it stands the Bill is in contradiction of India’s Constitutional amendment on the Right to Education as well as the Juvenile Justice Act, which promises protection to children in need.
The future of our
country lies in the future of our children. If the Bill intended to preserve
traditional art and craft of India by enabling parents with traditional
knowledge and skills to pass them on to their children, this should be done
through a reform and investment in education. We need to restore the 28 %
budget cuts in education and the 50 % for women and children so that
mid-day meals are re-instituted for starving children, secure housing provided
through the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan boarding schools and artisans hired
as teachers to pass on traditional knowledge and skills to the next generation.
Gandhiji’s Buniyadi Shiksha and Maulana Azad’s Nai Taleem both recommend teaching traditional art, craft and agriculture, along with reading, writing, mathematics, history, science and geography in school. We are therefore urging you to send the Bill back to the Standing Committee of Parliament for review. We request the following amendments:
- In clause 5 of the Bill, the proviso to
the amended section 3 should be deleted. After deletion, clause 5 will
read as under- “No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any
occupation or process.”
- Delete sec. 18 to ensure that parents are
not put under penal provisions.
Ruchira Gupta, Apne
Aap Women Worldwide and The Last Girl campaign
Tinku Khanna, Apne Aap
Women Worldwide
Harsh Mander, Aman
Biradari
Kirti Singh, AIDWA
Malini Bhattacharya,
AIDWA
Chitra Sarkar, All India
Women’s Conference
Vimal Thorat, All
India Dalit Mahila Adhikar Manch
Colin Gonsalves, HRLN
https://www.change.org/p/president-of-india-request-for-review-of-child-labour-prohibition-and-regulation-amendment-bill-b8c1f5fb-ce0a-4014-a8b6-1a68c85865acChild Labour is Being Legalised to Pursue ‘Make in India’ at Lower Cost
The amended law does a disservice both to the children who want to study but do not have the means, and to the state that owes its future to them. On July 19, parliament passed the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Amendment Act. These amendments to a flawed original legislation, have made it virtually impossible to extend the right to education (RTE) to children above the age of 14. Like its predecessor, the recently amended law does a disservice both to the children who want to study but do not have the means and to the state that owes its future to them.
During the first child
labour seminar I attended in the 1990s, the attending government representative
brought out reams of data on educational facilities which attempted to show
that the blame for the continuation of child labour lay not on an apathetic
government apparatus, but on the families who preferred to send children to
work. The argument didn’t
sit well with the audience, in particular with the community mobilisers, whose
knowledge of field realities was different. My restive neighbour, a scholar and
activist, mumbled an insight, which has remained with me through all these
years – Eklavya se darr aaj bhi lagta hai (they are still
scared of Eklaya even today).
Loosely translated,
she was pointing out that the powerful elite, just as it had in the
past, continues to maintain the status quo by ensuring that access to learning,
progress and power is limited to a chosen few. This view has held
currency for a long time and yet it does not explain the cynical passage of the
carefully crafted amendments to the Child Labour Act in 2016. These amendments have
made it virtually impossible to extend the RTE to children above the age of 14.
More importantly, now all children above the age of 14 can be put to work
as long as they are in non-hazardous family enterprises.
Watching the Rajya
Sabha members discuss the amendments prior to the inevitable passing of the
Act, the similarities of it with selected passages of the Mahabharata,
were hard to miss. Member after member
stood up and expressed his or her concern about the legalisation of work
for some children. The idea that the state’s responsibility towards children as
young as 15 years was limited to regulation of work conditions clearly made
several MPs uncomfortable.
One member of
the Samajwadi Party likened the Bill’s provisions to a patriarch, singling
out that one child who would get all the benefits of a childhood, a
well-rounded education and time for recreation, while the other would get the
bare minimum of schooling and would have to combine even that with work. His question, ‘Is this
fair?’ received no response from the architects of the amendment, the Congress,
who are now the opposition, or the BJP, who are now in power and piloting the
same bill. While the speakers were different, the sentiments expressed were not
in the recently concluded discussion in the Lok Sabha.
Connecting the dots
To understand why the
Bill had to immediately become an Act, three other political developments of
the past months need to be factored in. First, the upcoming unveiling of a new
textile policy. Second, the human resource development ministry’s delay in
sharing the T.S.R. Subramanian committee report (and its subsequent
replacement with a note prepared in house). Third, the push through of
the amendments to the Child Labour Act, allowing children above the age of 14
to work.
Some time over the
summer of 2016, at the usual post-cabinet briefing, the finance minister
explained that a new textile policy designed
to jumpstart the industry was being prepared. He pointed out that with wages
for textile workers having gone up in the three major supplier nations,
Bangladesh, China and Vietnam, India has once again an opportunity to reclaim
its lost space as a major textile supplier of the world. The textile secretary
made the point that revitalisation of the sector would open up a lot of employment
opportunities for women.
Textile workers in the
major supplier countries are predominantly female with the majority being in
the 18-25 age group. All the three major supplier countries are signatories to
the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Labour
Organisation conventions and violations of the age norm for employment in the
sector are known to happen, but are uncommon.
Studies have shown
that although wages are the smallest proportion of the total cost of apparel
manufacture, it is also the most squeezed. In Bangladesh and now in China, to
counter the likelihood of a loss of market share, the idea of a garment village
has been conceptualised. This is planned as an
area where not just a single female worker, but her entire family can live and
work together. These villages are being planned away from the expensive big
cities in peri-urban areas where the cost of living is less and so wages can be
lowered and market share retained.
Ideas like the garment
village are most likely to find space in India’s textile policy when unveiled.
By itself, however, it is unlikely to be adequate to shape India’s competitive
advantage. The finance minister’s
announcement about efforts to revitalise the textile sector got attention, only
no one correlated it with the then ongoing saga of why was it that the
HRD minister was not releasing the Subramanian committee report on a new
education policy. Nor was it connected to the early drafts of the Child Labour
Amendment Act, which defined the child as a person below the age of 14, thus
making it possible for everyone above that age to be legally employed.
While the Subramanian
committee stopped short of making a specific recommendation to extend the RTE
to children above the age of 14, it certainly widened the window of opportunity
for articulation of such a political demand. Officially, the human
resource ministry, has to date, not owned the Subramanian committee report or
placed it on its own website. Instead, it has put up an innocuous note which
has taken some aspects of the committee report and left out others. The note on
the HRD ministry website about the proposed new education policy takes many
elements from the report, but what it also does is narrow the window of
opportunity for extending the RTE beyond 14 years of age. Most adversely
affected from this will be girls.
Free secondary
schooling opportunities are limited in villages and peri-urban areas. Families
are reluctant to send girls far away from home to study, hence leaving them in
a limbo. Thus, there exists a pool of adolescent girls with some education,
aspirations for a better life and no opportunities to actualise them. Framing the textile
industry revitalisation as not just beneficial for the nation’s GDP but also as
a pro-adolescent girl child initiative will make for great communications,
drowning out the concerns of those who ask why educational opportunities are
not being provided to adolescents.
Soon after, the
Subramanian committee report was buried in a cabinet reshuffle and the minister
was moved from human resource ministry to textiles, a perceived demotion,
which perhaps it is not.
And in the first week
of the monsoon session of the parliament, a child labour Bill, which gives some
children the right to work, becomes a law, thus creating for India the
competitive edge of a younger, all legal, largely female pool of available
workers.
What the future
holds
Possibly the earliest
struggle for controlling sovereign power in which children are participants is
the Mahabharata. It is an epic narrative that presents, at its
most simple level, the story of a regime collapsing over two generations and
being replaced by a similar, though not identical one.
The story of the
shaping and reshaping of the state of Hastinapur, is told, and retold through
episodes in the lives of the principal characters – five brothers, their
families and those they come in contact with in their journey from childhood to
adulthood. Two of the episodes are of particular interest to the inter-twined
child labour and education policy dialogue that has once again been rekindled.
The story of Eklavya,
a tribal child who wanted to learn archery at a formal school, but was barred
by his social class and the deep seated biases and fears of the elite in the
attitude of his teacher, is well known. That the denial of the
right to education was not just about an injustice done to an individual,
but also a way to perpetuate the existing socio-poitical power balance, is only
hinted at in most renditions of this episode of the Mahabharata.
The elite determined with maintaining the status quo at any cost manifests in a
later episode of the Mahabharata, the sacrifice of Abhimanyu. Eklavya, appears
fleetingly, early in the saga, in the struggle for the throne of Hastinapur. At
that point the struggle to keep the throne had already led to many compromises
with the value system, which had led to the establishment of that state.
Because windows were open and there was seemingly space and encouragement for
all to learn, Eklavya emerged as a possible challenger to the established line
of succession. That challenge was effectively neutralised and the status quo
was preserved for at least one generation.
Years, indeed a
generation later, with Eklavya forgotten, the threat to the powerful elite
would be much greater and indeed more immediate. At that point, Abhimanyu,
still a student with incomplete knowledge would be sent out to do a job for
which he was clearly not ready, with the real and present danger that his
future, like that of Eklavya’s a generation earlier, would be at the very least
compromised. And yet, despite knowing all of this, those who controlled
sovereign power would encourage the boy, Abhimanyu, to take on the
responsibilities of an adult.
Abhimanyu’s sacrifice
actually does what it hoped for, the status quo is maintained, the elite
survives and consolidates its grip on power and for the foreseeable future
assures control over the state of Hastinapur. In the saga, as now
being crafted, the Abhimanyu being readied for sacrifice is most likely to be
female.