Hum Rights Rev (2009) 10:205218

DOI 10.1007/s12142-008-0081-3

Child Workers in India: Context and Complexities

Munmun Jha

Published online: 10 July 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This paper portrays the nature of child workers in India and seeks to
understand its many complexities. It looks at the definition of child labour, the extent
of its prevalence, the reasons why children work, and the occupations they are
engaged in. It outlines Indias position on international obligations, its expanding
domestic laws, and the tardy implementation of these laws. It examines some of the
inherent cultural constraints and the role of values and beliefs in perpetuating child
labour. It analyses the relationship between education and child workers, and a
possible solution in the form of compulsory education. The paper emphasises that
child workers in India are from the marginalized sections and do not work out of
choice. It stresses that this phenomenon is, above all, a problem for the children. The
paper concludes by advocating the need to discard attitudes that are discriminatory
or rationalise abuse, and the need to adopt a rights-based, child-centred approach to
counter the increasing number of child workers.
Keywords Child labour . Child work . Human rights . India

And because I am happy and dance and sing,

They think they have done me no injury.
William Blake

Work is associated with adults, but for various reasons, some children need to
work. This reflects their position in the society and the nature of society itself. Today
child labour is almost universally acknowledged as undesirable, a phenomenon that

M. Jha (*)
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Kanpur 208 016, India
e-mail: mjha@iitk.ac.in

206

M. Jha

needs to be rooted out. In the Indian context, there appears to be three main schools
of thought with regard to child labour. The first believes in total prohibition, arguing
that any child who is not in school must be working, and that the solution lies in free
and compulsory education. The second school believes in a combination of
prohibition and regulation, favouring a gradual and selective approach to end child
labour, as the magnitude of the problem is enormous and the state has its limitations.
The third school believes that the state should merely create suitable conditions for
both work and education, leaving it to the parents and the children to decide if they
want to go to school or work (Mishra 2000, pp. 1820). Thus much confusion exists
with regards to evolving concrete actions and policies for ending child labour, a
majority of whom work not because they want to, but because they have no other
choice.
My intention here is to look at the broad picture, and to try and understand the
complexities that this contentious concern throws up. In seeking to unfold certain
perspectives on child labour as they relate to India, I begin by looking at the
definition of child labour, the number of working children and the occupations they
are engaged in. Next, I examine why this is a problem for the child, and the reasons
why children work. Following this, I detail the laws relating to child labour, point
out the inherent cultural constraints, and a possible solution in the form of
compulsory education. Finally, I conclude by suggesting that India needs to
aggressively adopt a rights-based, child-centred approach to counter the increasing
number of child workers not only in the field of legislation, but also in the real
sense of recognizing that children have an inherent right to lead a life of dignity.

Defining Child Labour

One often assumes that the meaning of child labour is unambiguous. However, there
is little consensus on who is a child, and what constitutes labour. The very
definition of who constitutes a child is problematic. Raman (2000, p. 4056) asserts
that there is no universal experience of childhood...experiences are social constructs
which are the result of a complex interplay of historical, social and cultural factors.
This can be seen in countries across the world that defines a child differently. In
some countries, it is 12 years; in others, it is 14 or 18 years. Even within the same
country, as in India, a child is often defined differently for different purposes, or for
different sectors of work (Bajpai 2003, pp. 25).
In a similar manner, the definition of labour is also problematic. In the
international discourse on child labour a distinction is made between child labour
and child work. It is said that work is a form of employment that is beneficial to
the child, whereas labour refers to the production and services which interfere with
the normal development of children. Accordingly, child labour is defined as any
work by children that interferes with their full physical development, the
opportunities for a minimum of education and of their needed recreation(Lieten
2000, p. 2037). This is in keeping with the International Labour Organization (ILO)
conventions on child labour as well as the United Nations (UN) Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which recognizes the right of the child to be protected from
economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous

Child workers in India: context and complexities

207

or to interfere with the childs education, or to be harmful to the childs health or

physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.1
This distinction is rejected by some activists. According to Satyarthi, a wellknown child rights activist, the condition of working children in India is more akin
to slavery, and the term child labour ought to be replaced by the term child
servitude (Satyarthi 1994; see also Burra 2005). It is alleged that the child workers
are actually bonded labourers. Though this claim cannot be substantiated and it is
certainly exaggerated, yet the existence of such conditions can hardly be denied.
Bonded child labour refers to a condition of servitude to pay off a debt incurred by a
parent. These debts are usually very small but with high interest rates. As the
wages are low, the debts can never be repaid, and the parent remains in perpetual
servitude. In the course of time, their children inherit this burden. Mendes rightly
points out that bonded child labour is a particularly vicious form of child labour.
Although outlawed since 1947, this form of slavery continues (Mendes 1996, p. 3;
see also Human Rights Watch 1996). The ILO estimates that there are about one
million child labourers in India who are bonded (Badiwala 1998). This number,
though high, is but a small proportion of the total estimates of child labour.
I believe that the distinction between the terms child labour and child work is
useful, but in the particular context of India, this distinction does not exist. It would
be impossible to find even a single child working who is from a well-off family. All
working children come from the poor and marginalized households. In this paper, I
shall use the terms interchangeably.

Where Do Children Work?

The existence of child labour in India in bondage or otherwise is no secret. What
is puzzling is that we still do not have reliable figures on the extent of the
phenomenon. There are innumerable studies conducted by governmental departments, by nongovernmental and by intergovernmental organizations, each contradicting the other and adding to the prevalent confusion.2 Estimates range from 17
to over a hundred million.
The available data suffer from several shortcomings. These are neither accurate
nor comparable with other sets of data due to definitional problems. The figures are
either underreported or exaggerated. There is admittedly a genuine difficulty in

Article 32.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For the full text of the
Convention, see United Nations (1991).

According to the 1971 Census, there were 10.75 million working children in India. By 1975, the
estimate went up to about 15.1 million. According to the National Sample Survey (NSS), there were 16.25
million child labourers by 19771978. The 1981 Census put the figure at 13.64 million. The Planning
Department put the figure at 17.36 million in 1983. The same year, the Operation Research Group,
Baroda, said it was 44 million. Around the same time, the Balai Data Bank, Manila, put the figure at 111
million. The NSS figure was 17.5 million in 19871989. In 1991, the Census showed 11.28 million
working children. According to UNICEF, there were between 75 and 90 million children under 14 years of
age who do not attend school. This was supported by the NSS figures for 1994, which suggested that 90
million children do not attend school at the age group 6 to 14.

208

M. Jha

getting the correct figures since individuals fail to report child labour participating
during surveys for fear of prosecution (Badiwala 1998, p. 2). As for female child
labour, the data are further unreliable as they tend to be invisible.... The majority of
female child labourers may not be counted because they tend to be in the nonproductive, home-based and marginal work sectors (Mendes 1996, p. 3). Sometimes
the reported figures are ridiculously low. For example, government figures for the
state of Gujarat claimed that there were only 39 child workers in the four cities of
Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodra and Rajkot (The Times of India, 2 November 2001,
New Delhi edition). Conversely, the figures are often exaggerated due to an
overestimation by activists and the media in order to dramatize the problem.
Selectively picking out a set of data, it would be easy to argue that there has been
a decline in the number of child labour, both in absolute and percentage terms.
Likewise, it would be equally easy to argue, selecting figures provided by other
agencies, that there has been an increase in child labour in the last few decades.3
Though it is extremely difficult to establish a credible trend, it is worth noting that
researchers agree that there has been an increase in the child labour figures in the last
few decades. Sadly, the numbers are significantly high the highest in the world.
Children work in all sectors of the economy. According to the Registrar General
of India, 42.1% of child labourers are employed in rural areas as agricultural
workers. Urban child labourers are involved in manufacturing, processing, service
and repairs. According to Siddiqi and Patrinos (1995, p. 2), legislation has been
able to control child labour in the formal sector to some degree. As a result, child
labour is most prevalent in the highly unmonitored, informal and rural sectors. But
it is the industrial sector that has received the most attention. This sector includes
children working in the matches, fireworks and explosives industries in Tamil Nadu;
glass and bangle industries in Uttar Pradesh; beedi (cigarette) industry in Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu; carpet industry in Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir;
lock-making industry in Uttar Pradesh; diamond and gem polishing industries in
Rajasthan; and the leather industry in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Child labour can also be categorized in the following three ways: first, full-time
child labour, constituting about 6% of the total child labour, engaged in work that is
legally banned; second, constituting about 14%, who work for wages, but are not
prohibited by law to work; third, constituting about 80%, engaged in activities such
as collection of firewood in rural areas, rag picking in urban areas, and household
work. These have been termed nowhere children as they are neither in schools,
nor are they categorized as workers. And, of course, they are not covered under any
child labour laws (Mishra 2000, pp. 2425; Burra 2005, p. 5206).
The existence of child labour is a part of the everyday reality throughout the
country. Working children are found everywhere in homes, in the streets, in the
fields and the factories. In general, it does not shock an average Indian or disturb his
conscience, except for situations where severe inhuman conditions exist in certain
industries, or sending them to Gulf countries to be used in camel races, forcing them
to beg by crippling them, or in cases of child prostitution. On the other hand,
agricultural work, construction-related work or working in motor-repair shops or tea
stalls is a daily sight, and part of the humdrum existence.
3

For a recent analysis of the problem of estimation, see Lieten (2005).

Child workers in India: context and complexities

209

Why is Child Labour a Problem for the Child?

The existence of child labour is a problem. It is a problem for the adults whose
wages are depressed; it is a problem for the society at large in terms of squandering
of latent human capital. However, our immediate concern is the fact often
overlooked, sometimes contested that it is a problem for the child.
Of the several reasons that have been advanced and recognized as to why it is
undesirable to have children working, let me list a few: (a) Working children are
prone to exploitation. They have to work the longest hours and are often poorly paid.
(b) Because of pitiful working conditions, they suffer health hazards. Many forms of
employment that are not considered harmful turn out to be harmful in the long run.
(c) They do not receive stimulation for proper physical and mental development. (d)
They also miss out on the simple joys of childhood. It is unjustifiable to take away
the innocence of the children, when they are not yet ready for work.
Historically, children have worked alongside their parents, in the midst of the
family. Even today, the bulk of child workers are engaged in unpaid labour in a
household setting. The view that working at home is pleasant compared to working
in factories is questionable. It is my assertion that households are quite often unable
to shield their children from excessive drudgery and severe exploitation even at
home.
Over the last century or so, as the nature of work has changed, some of the work
has moved away from homes to factories. This transplanting of the familial mode of
production by a non-familial mode of production, where children work for wages,
has opened up further avenues for the exploitation of children by the employers. In
the current Indian context, reports by academics and activists that catalogue the
conditions of work, especially in the manufacturing sector, often depict it as horrific.
Now, historically speaking, one could argue that the conditions of work have
become better over the years. However, this can hardly mean that the conditions of
work have improved sufficiently, that there is no room for further improvement and
that now it is fine for children to work. It is also the case that in the factory system,
children are actually doing the work that adults ought to be doing. Again, in
situations such as these, the distinction between work and labour (and sometimes
servitude, too) gets quite blurred.
Are some of the tasks suitable for children? The theory of nimble fingers,
which advanced the view that children were more suitable for performing certain
tasks due to unique skills and on the basis of relative higher productivity, has long
been discredited.4 Another approach to justifying child labour is the suggestion that
some work is humane as these are not strenuous, and help the children and their
families. The widespread practice of using children as domestic servants has for long
been erroneously thought of as one of the more humane forms of employment.
According to activists, child domestics spend on average 15 hours or more working
each day, seven days a week. Many live with and are under the exclusive, round-theclock control of their employer. Almost 90 per cent of the child domestics are girls,

4
The carpet industry, in particular, has been a champion of the nimble fingers theory. For an in-depth
study of the carpet industry that debunks this theory, see Levison, et al. (1996).

210

M. Jha

and many are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Domestic child work is now
described and condemned as one of the worst forms of child labour. The
International Labour Organization (ILO) has described domestic work as among
the lowest status, least regulated, and poorest paid of all occupations, whether
performed by adults or children.5
It is sometimes argued from a cultural-context point of view that the Indian
conception of childhood is different from the Western conception of childhood.
According to the Western conception, childhood is a distinct phase of life,
characterized by innocence, and the transition to adulthood is traumatic. The nonWestern conception is characterized by an easy transition from childhood to
adulthood (Raman 2000, p. 4056). The implication of such an argument is that
children in non-Western societies have been used to working, that they are
accustomed to hardships, and therefore it involves no inconvenience if they continue
to work. It seems to me that such obtuse theoretical constructs, which attempt to
view pain and suffering from a cultural lens, only perpetuate child labour by
justifying it.
Beyond the cultural argument lies the view that after all it is only the adults who
think of child labour as a problem. It is argued that the entire discourse is an adults
discourse (Raman 2000, p. 4055). If an adults discourse implies that children do
not perceive their conditions as exploitative, this is certainly questionable. A recent
study conducted in the city of Kanpur has amply demonstrated that the children
living on the streets could clearly indicate the problems they were facing (see Jha
and Sharma 2005). In another study, conducted among children in Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra, Karnataka and Orissa, children identified the problems, ranging from a
lack of care and attention to physical abuse (The Concerned for Working Children
2000, pp. 1131). So, it is not the case that the problems are merely identified by the
adults or activists. When given an opportunity, children can and do articulate the
problems themselves.

Causes of Child Labour

When the very survival of family is at stake, every member is expected to contribute
to the family income. Not surprisingly, it is often assumed by policy planners and
researchers that the most significant reason for child labour is poverty which is in
abundance in India.6 This situation is worsened by the fact that for the poor families
in India, alternative sources of income are non-existent. There are no social welfare
systems as those in the West. There are fewer sources of bank loans, government
loans, or other credit sources. What is available is usually for the relatively better off.
Rayappa (1979, p. 222) points out, with reference to the demographic transition
theory, that fertility levels in the poor and traditional societies are high because of the
5

Global March against Child Labour, Mailing List e-mail, 17 January 2001. See also the ILO website:
www.ilo.org.

Almost 35% people are below the so-called poverty line. In 1990, 37% of the urban population and 39%
of the rural population was below the poverty line. According to the Planning Commissions estimates for
19931994, 32.4% of the urban population and 37.2% of the rural population was below the poverty line.

Child workers in India: context and complexities

211

economic contribution of children early in their childhood. So, high fertility level is
the result of an increased demand for child labour as the benefits of having
additional children outweigh the costs. Siddiqi and Patrinos (1995, pp. 910) suggest
that the use of child labour might only be a stage in the evolutionary phase of
countries. As children contribute to the family income, child labour becomes part of
a developing countrys economy. After a certain level of development, children
become more of an economic burden. The authors show that during Englands
developing stage (late eighteenth century), childrens contribution to family
income was similar to that of Peru and Paraguay in the early 1990s. In the same
vein, Badiwala (1998, p. 3) quotes an ILO study, which found that childrens work
was essential to maintaining the economic level of households, either in the form of
work for wages, help in household enterprises, or of household chores in order to
free adult household members for economic activity elsewhere. The study found
that childrens income accounted for between 34% and 37% of the household
income in some cases.
In a study of the hand-made carpet industry around Jaipur, it was found that most
of the child workers came from large farmer households and meagre family income.
In all cases (but especially with very large families of eight to nine children),
children worked to earn money that was sufficient to feed and clothe themselves. In
another study conducted in two market towns of the Punjab, it was found that most
of the children were migrants. Of these nearly 78% were those whose parents were
unemployed. In this case, the children had the additional burden of supporting their
parents (CUTS 1999). These studies show that poverty and unemployment are by far
the most important reasons for child labour. Yet, these studies also point out that
other factors for example, family size and migration are equally important
causes. In reality, the relation between poverty or unemployment and child labour is
quite complex. For example, Bhalotra and Tzannatos (2003, p. 8) write that the
relation of household income and child labour is often found to be non-linear and in
many cases is weak, while the ownership of productive assets (like land) can
increase child labour.
Basu and Van (1998) contend that child labour may, by competing with adult
labour, be a factor in the impoverishment of adults. Thus, Basu (1997), referring to
econometric studies of the labour market in the late nineteenth century points out
that when adult wages rise or unemployment falls, the incidence of child labour
tends to fall. Hence, if we are seriously concerned about child labour, we will have
to improve the economic condition of the adult worker. In a similar vein, Sathyarthi
(1994, p. 7) observes that child labour is rampant in those communities where the
parents get employment for not more than 100 days in a year and that too on wages
far less than the statutory minimum wages. His calculations show that the number
of child labour is almost equal to the number of unemployed adults in India. So, a
complete and instant eradication of child labour would provide jobs to all the
unemployed adults in the country.
Organizations like the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) do not accept
arguments about material conditions, including poverty or unemployment. They
believe that it is the employers willingness to exploit poor people, and particularly
children, which is at the root of the problem. They see arguments relating to
poverty as an excuse for inaction and a very convenient equation from all those who

212

M. Jha

benefit from the status quo or who feel the problem is just too huge to tackle (UNICEF,
no date).

What is the Law?

India is a signatory to several international declarations and conventions concerning
the rights of the child. Some of the important obligations arise from the UN
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989). However, it has not ratified the most important ILO
conventions that deal with child labour Convention 138 on Minimum Age (1973)
and Convention 182 on Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999) arguing that because
of the federal nature of the division of power, it is not possible to fix a minimum age
of entry to employment in cases where individual states have the constitutional
power to do so. Even while ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
India claimed reservations regarding minimum age of employment. Notwithstanding
reservations, as a member of the international community, India has certain
obligations that it must fulfil. For example, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work (1998), which calls for the effective abolition of child
labour, is binding on all member states even if they have not ratified other
conventions.7
In addition to international obligations, there are several domestic laws
concerning child labour. The history of legal protection of working children dates
back to the Factories Act of 1881, which fixed a minimum age of 7 years, and fixed
hours of employment in factories. The Factories Act was amended in 1922 to raise
the minimum age to 15, and again amended in 1948 to bring down the age for
working in factories to 14. In 1933, the practice of bonded labour was abolished.
The Children Pledging of Labour Act had earlier banned the pledging of child labour
by parents. In 1938, the Employment of Children Act was entirely devoted to child
labour. It listed occupations where children could not be employed. In 1986, the
Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act similarly listed 18 industries as
hazardous and prohibited children below 14 years of age from working. Examples of
such industries are cement, cloth printing, matches, explosives and fireworks,
tanning, wool cleaning, etc. In 1998, the government further notified a list of 13
occupations and 51 processes where no children could work. In October 2006, the
government further prohibited the employment of children as domestic servants or as
workers at roadside eateries, teashops and hotels.8 It needs to be noted that the law
permits children to work in agriculture and to work at home, including production
work. The 1986 Act seeks to regulate the working conditions in other industries not
defined as hazardous.
The existing laws on child labour have been criticized on various counts: (a) The
Act has legalized child labour by seeking to regulate it in industries not defined as
7

Details of the declarations and conventions are available on the UN and ILO websites. For details of ILO
initiatives, see Mishra (2000, pp. 184193); Bajpai, (2003, pp. 193203).

The new legislation referred here is an amendment to the 1986 Child Labour Law. See Government of
India (2006).

Child workers in India: context and complexities

213

hazardous. (b) The definition of what is considered hazardous is full of loopholes,

and this has been exploited. The term hazardous industries does not apply to
workshops where the work is being carried on by family members. (c) Again,
workshops which get assistance or recognition from the government are exempt
under these laws. Thus government can run apprenticeship programmes in the carpet
industry. (d) There are practical problems of implementation with regard to
determination of childrens age, especially in the absence of appropriate records.
Similarly it is difficult to determine if the children have been made to work more
than the prescribed hours, if they have been paid overtime, or indeed if they have
been paid their wages at all. In all such cases, successfully prosecuting the offenders
in a court of law becomes difficult. Employers prefer children to adults for several
reasons, the main being that they are easy to exploit. For example, the Minimum
Wages Act 1948, permits employing children to work for not more than four and a
half hours a day at 50% of the wages of an adult. When the law is not being flouted
outright, the loopholes are exploited to pay them lower wages, and make them work
for longer hours (Mishra 2000, p. 29).
The Indian constitution too has provisions for the child, and safeguards from
exploitation. These include, amongst others, Article 24, which envisages that no
child below 14 is to work in hazardous employment; Article 39, which says that
children must not be in occupations unsuited to their age or strength, and that they
should be protected against exploitation. Article 45 directs the state to provide free
and compulsory education to all children under 14 years of age. Accordingly, in
2002, the 86th amendment to the constitution made education a fundamental right
guaranteeing free and compulsory education to children in the age of six to 14 years.
But this new provision is still waiting to come into force. The Right to Education
Bill that will give effect to this guarantee is pending before the Parliament. In this
context, Mishra observes that combining education with work and earning with
learning is, in my opinion a myth (Mishra 2000, pp. 1415). The question is: If
employment of children is legally permissible, what really is the scope for free and
compulsory education?

Compulsory Education
Education and literacy can have a powerful influence on the supply of child labour.
Many scholars and activists see a direct relationship between education and child
labour, suggesting that if children are not in school, or if they drop out, they become
potential workers. However, some recent findings point out that such a straightforward relationship between school attendance and work might not be the most
accurate portrayal of the ground reality. For example, Bhalotra and Tzannatos (2003,
p. 9) write that child labour is not the inverse of school attendance and that many
children combine work and school and this is especially common when the work
they do is on family-run farms or enterprises. They add that in developing
countries, a substantial fraction of children are neither in school nor at work.
Oonk (1998, p. 3) writes that while it is usually thought that most non-school
going children are working a major part of the day, there is a large group of children
who are neither in school nor at work. The question if compulsory schooling will

214

M. Jha

eliminate child labour remains an open one. The current situation, however, is that in
spite of a constitutional amendment, education is not compulsory in India (see
Godbole 2001).
Traditionally, education in India was only meant and accessible to upper caste
men. It is now two centuries that reforms in education began, and six decades since
Indias independence yet, old values persist. Education is not thought to be for the
lower castes or females by large sections of the population. Myron Weiner holds the
belief system responsible for the ills of child labour in India. The central position
of his study is that it is not the economic situation but a widely shared belief system
based on religion that emphasizes hierarchy and sees education as a tool of
maintaining that hierarchy (Weiner 1991).9
At the core of the beliefs are the Indian views on social order, notions
concerning the respective roles of upper and lower social strata, the role of
education as a means of maintaining differentiation among social classes, and
concerns that excessive and inappropriate education for the poor would
disrupt existing social arrangements....The Indian position rests on the deeply
held beliefs that there is a division between people who work with their minds
and rule the people who work with their hands and are ruled, and that education
should reinforce rather than breakdown this division. These beliefs are closely
tied to religious notions and to the premises that underlie Indias hierarchical
caste system (Weiner 1991, p. 5).
Weiners study shows how attitudes towards education shape attitudes towards
manual work or labour. His conclusion is that unless there is a change in thinking
and attitudes, there would be an increase in both the number of illiterates and child
labourers in India.
Let us briefly examine the typical attitudes of the immediate actors in this arena
the attitudes of the parents and social activists as portrayed by Weiner.10 As far as
parents are concerned, consider the tea plantations in Assam. Mothers bring their
young children to work tied to their backs. Gradually the child helps the mother in
plucking tea leaves. This not only keeps the mother and child together but also
increases the pay of the mother. By the time the child is 12, which is the minimum
age for working in tea plantations, she is given a basket of her own and earns her
own wages. That their children can find employment in the gardens due to a
preferential treatment for children of workers is enough for them. Workers think of
their jobs as property that can be shared and passed on to the next generation. They
do not want their children to go to school, nor do they want the minimum age to be
raised.
Social activists of different hues are unanimous in their moral outrage against
the employers, the government policies, and the government machinery, yet only a
handful call for an abolition of child labour. The majority are usually supporters of
small-scale and cottage industries for the employment they provide. They argue that
banning child labour will give a boost to the multinational companies, as the small

For a discussion on the caste system, see Ghurye (1969); see also Dumont (1970).

10

The analysis of the attitudes of the parents and social activists is based on Weiner (1991, pp. 451, 203).

Child workers in India: context and complexities

215

and cottage sector will be hit badly. Further, they advance the notion that the poor
have the right to employ their children (over the authority of the state to send them to
school). Some are even hostile to the school system, and support parents not sending
their children to school at all. The activists who belong to the left-wing ideology
merely talk of the need for fundamental structural changes, saying that child
labour is inherent in the capitalist system, and thereby provide both a justification for
its existence and continuance. Thus the views of groups of people whose voice
would matter in a democratic polity downplay the importance of education and
hinder the elimination of child labour.
India spends about 3% of its GNP on education, which is well below the 6%
recommended by the Education Commission in the late 1960s. There is an emphasis
on higher education, and primary education has been neglected to that extent. In
195051, 43% of the education budget was for primary education. This declined to
27% in the mid-1970s. More than 90% of this is spent on teachers salary and
administration. Further, there is not only a ruralurban divide, but also wide regional
variations as 70% of the money for primary education comes from state
governments. Thus, Kerala spends three times as much per child as Uttar Pradesh
does, and it is not surprising that the child labour participation in Kerala is the lowest
in the country. It is said that Kerala has been able to achieve this happy state
without any special effort to end child labour, and that this is simply a
consequence of the expansion of the school system as the state government spends
more money on mass education than colleges and universities.11 It is true that the
central government has brought forward many schemes, sanctioning hundreds of
special schools under child labour projects. Yet to provide all the villages with
facilities for literacy would require about 12 billion US dollars per year. Of the
600,000 villages in India, 50,000 do not have schools (CUTS 1999, p. 4).
To say the very least, the countrys educational system lacks effectiveness in
yielding basic literacy. The 1991 Census showed that 64% males and 39% females
were literate, an increase of 17% and 14%, respectively, over the previous census of
1981. The increase might appear significant, but the overall literacy rate of 41% lags
woefully behind other developing countries (e.g., China 73%, Sri Lanka 86%, and
Indonesia 74%, which have comparable per capita income).12 Drop out rates remain
high, especially at the primary school level. Government figures show that 35%
males and 39% females drop out of the school system. As far as females are
concerned, it is said that the established female role in certain countries dictates that
women will not fit into traditional roles if they become educated. There is a
pervasive notion in some nations that educated females will not get married nor have
children... Such cultural practices restrict the education of females and promote child
employment (Siddiqi and Patrinos 1995, p. 7; see also Burra (2001).

11
Kerala achieved a literacy rate of 94% for men and 86% for women (in 1995) with a drop-out rate close
to 0% (Weiner 1991, p. 177). However, not everybody agrees that low literacy rates can explain the high
incidence of child labour. Lieten (2000, p. 2038) points out that some states which have a high literacy rate
continue to have a high child labour ratio, whereas some educationally backward states have lower child
labour ratio, perhaps due to a failing demand for labour.
12

Provisional figures for the 2001 Census show the overall literacy rate at 51%. For males, it has
increased to 76%; and for females, to 54%.

216

M. Jha

One significant reason why India has a low literacy rate and a high dropout rate is
the low perceived advantages of school. It is often the case that children are
encouraged by their parents to stay at home and learn a skill or seek employment in
order to supplement the family income simply because there is no access to schools,
or the available school is of very low quality. But if the parents were convinced that
schooling would bring about a positive economic change in their condition in the
long run, they would be willing to make sacrifices in the short run. This is
substantiated by studies that have shown that parents are ready to send their children
to school, if quality schools exist in the vicinity. Even poor parents sometimes spend
a huge part of their income for the education of their children. Banerjis study of
primary schooling in Delhi and Mumbai confirms that the inadequacy of the school
system to attract and keep children is more crucial than households economic
circumstances for explaining why so many children are not in school (Banerji
2000, p. 795).

Concluding Remarks
Children in India work some legally, others illegally. Indeed children as an integral
part of the family have always worked, and will perhaps continue to work, as they
do currently even in the developed countries. The current international discourse, in
calling for distinguishing child work from child labour, seeks to separate work from
exploitation. This is a useful distinction, however, in the present Indian context, such
a distinction is not really applicable. It needs to be stressed that the children who
work are those who do not have a choice. They do not come from well-off
households but from marginalized sections that are already the hardest hit, such as
the children of the poor, the lower castes, and the female children. The families of
the child labourers are in no position to safeguard their interests. Thus, the
distinction between child labour and work, meaningful in developed countries, is
likely to be used as yet another justification for the continuance of child labour in
India.
Indias hesitation in ratifying international conventions, especially ILO conventions on child labour, under the pretext of constitutional compulsions, hinders the
adoption of a uniform minimum age for employment of children. It is time to move
towards accepting a universally agreed definition of a child. While one agrees that
the social construction of childhood differs across cultures, country or culture
specific definitions are open to biases and manipulations. It is time to adopt a childcentred rights perspective and discard attitudes that are discriminatory and
rationalize abuse through a cultural lens. Similarly, discussion of what is hazardous
and what is not mires discussions on child labour in controversy. Implementation of
firm legislation will go a long way in checking the current abusive situation. This
must also be accompanied by robust rehabilitation programmes to ensure that
children do not join the ranks of the nowhere children or pushed to other sectors
where the law is lax.
There are multiple reasons for the persistence of child labour. Focus on factors
that induce or promote child labour, or arguments how child labour contributes to the
family income or the national income merely provide platforms for supporting or

Child workers in India: context and complexities

217

rationalizing the use of child labour by highlighting their economic contributions.

The need is to see children as individuals, not merely as productive members of
families or communities. We know that children exploited by their employers
constitute one of the most deprived sections of the society. We also know that abuse
and discrimination can, and does take place within the family. In considering the
larger picture, we tend to forget the individual experiences of hardship and suffering.
The need is to create a situation whereby children would no longer be under
exploitative conditions, where it would be worthwhile for them to attend school,
where the income of the parents will be sufficient to provide for them. The changes
in the economic conditions need to be accompanied by overall social development,
and the spread of literacy and education, which will hopefully ensure that the
children are empowered and that they can enjoy their right to live with dignity. The
call for activism to promote mass changes in individual behaviour and attitudes
made by Dreze and Sen (1998) in another context is equally valid here.
The government needs to play a more proactive role in securing the children their
rights. Even while emphasizing the central role of the government, the roles of the
three relevant social institutions the markets, NGOs, and households need to be
mentioned. Only a coming together of these institutions can lead to an end of the
current exploitation of helpless children. We need not only the power of the state and
the law, but also a change of the heart.13 The complete eradication of child labour is
a noble goal but a goal that is fraught with many difficulties. Only the future can
tell us when this goal will be realized.
Acknowledgements This article is based on a project sponsored by the Liberty Institute, New Delhi. I
am grateful to Barun Mitra, its managing trustee, for taking a personal interest in this work. I am thankful
to Robert Delige for enabling me to present an early version of this article at the Universit catholique de
Louvain in May 2000. I would like to thank B. N. Patnaik, Arun K. Sharma, Achla M. Raina, G.
Neelakantan and Gerard Oonk for their help and support. Many thanks are also due to two anonymous
referees for their valuable inputs.

References
Badiwala, Mitesh. (1998). Child labour in India: Causes, governmental policies and the role of education.
Child Labour Enquiry, pp. 110, Available at: www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9175/
inquiry1.htm. Cited 24 March 2004.
Bajpai, Asha. (2003). Child rights in India: Law, policy, and practice. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Banerji, Rukmini. (2000). Poverty and primary schooling: Field studies from Mumbai and Delhi.
Economic and Political Weekly, 35 (10), 798802.
Basu, Kaushik. (1997). The Altruism of international labour standards, pp. 12. Available at www.people.
cornell.edu/pages/kb40/7.14.pdf. (First published in India Today, 14 July 1997.) Cited 22 March
2004.
Basu, Kaushik and Pham Hoang Van. (1998). The economics of child labour. American Economic Review,
88 (3), pp. 412427.
Bhalotra, Sonia and Zafirio Tzannatos. (2003). Child labor: What have we learnt? Social Protection
Discussion Paper Series 0317. Social Protection Unit, Human Development Network, The World
Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 174.

13

For a discussion on the twin strategies of law and moral reform to achieve human rights, see Jha (2004).

218

M. Jha

Burra, Neera. (2005). Crusading for children in Indias informal economy. Economic and Political Weekly,
40 (49), 51995208.
Burra, Neera. (2001). Cultural stereotypes and household behaviour: Girl child lablour in India. Economic
and Political Weekly, 36 (5 and 6), 481487.
Burra, Neera. (1995). Born to Work: Child Labour in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CUTS). (1999). Eradicating child-labour
while saving the child Who will pay the costs? Briefing Papers, no. 5. Jaipur: CUTS, pp. 16.
Dreze, Jean, and Amartya Sen. (1998). Public action and social inequality. In Barbara Harris-White and S.
Subramanian (Ed.), Illfare in India: Essays on Indias social sector in honour of S. Guhan, (pp. 374
401). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Dumont, Louis. (1970). Homo Hierarchicus: The caste system and its implications. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Ghurye, G. S. (1969). Caste and race in India, 5th ed. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.
Godbole, Madhav. (2001). Elementary education as a fundamental right. Economic and Political Weekly,
36(50): 46094613.
Government of India. (2006). The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, subsection (ii), No.
1211. New Delhi: Ministry of Labour and Employment. 10 October.
Human Rights Watch. (1996). The small hands of slavery: Bonded child labour in India. pp. 113 Report.
www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm. Cited 19 March 2004.
Jha, Munmun. (2004). Morality, legality and human rights: Gandhi and Ambedkar in a rights framework.
Gandhi Marg, 26 (3), pp. 293304.
Jha, Munmun, and Narendra K. Sharma. (2005). Children in Need: The role of helplines. Indian Journal
of Social Research, 46(2) pp. 89100.
Levison, D., R. Anker, A. Ashraf, and S. Barge. (1996). Is child labour really necessary in Indias carpet
industry? Geneva: ILO, pp. 115. Available at: www.ilo.org/public/english/comp/child/text/papers/
carpet/index.htm. Cited 22 April 2007.
Lieten, G. K. (2005). Child labour and work: Numbers, From the general to the specific. The Indian
Journal of Labour Economics, 48 (1), 2946.
Lieten, G. K. (2000). Children work and educationI: General parameters. Economic and Political Weekly,
34 (24), pp. 20372043.
Mendes, Errol. (1996). The agony of the innocents: The abuse of child labour in India Searching for the
root causes. Human Rights Research and Education Bulletin, Available at: www.uottawa.ca/hrrec/
publicat/bul3211.html. Cited 4 September 2003.
Mishra, Lakshmidhar. (2000). Child Labour in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Oonk, Gerard. (1998). Elementary education and child labour in India. Report. Utrecht: India Committee
of the Netherlands, pp. 130.
Raman, Vasanthi. (2000). Politics of childhood: Perspectives from the south. Economic and Political
Weekly, 35 (46), 240554063.
Rayappa, P. Hanumantha. (1979). Economic costs and benefits from children. In K. Srinivasan, P. C.
Saxena and Tara Kanitkar (Ed.), Demographic and socio-economic aspects of the child in India (pp.
221234). Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House.
Satyarthi, Kailash. (1994). Break the chains save the childhood, Available at: www.wizard.net/~friends/
chain.htm. Cited 19 March 2004.
Siddiqi, Faraaz and Harry Anthony Patrinos. (1995). Child labour: Issues, causes and interventions.
Human Capital Development and Operations Policy and Education and Social Policy Department
Working Papers, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 114. Available at: http://www.worldbank.
org/html/extdr/hnp/hddflash/work/wp_00056.html. Cited 28 March 2004.
The Concerned for Working Children, complied. (2000). Working Childrens Report India 1998.
Bangalore: Books for Change.
UNICEF. (No date). Child labour in India and the corporate sector. Pamphlet. New Delhi, UNICEF, pp.
18.
United Nations. (1991). Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of 20
November 1989. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information.
Weiner, Myron. (1991). The child and the state in India: Child labour and education policy in
comparative perspective. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.