Article Source: Hindu

Date of Issue: April 10, 2007

Title of The Article: Child labour ban still "on paper"

Nearly six months after it was brought into force, the ban on employing children in homes as "domestic help" lies more or less still on paper.

That India has the largest number of child labourers in the world is a duly accepted disgraceful fact but whether it also has the most-apathetic upper and middle class in the world, which actually "encourages" the problem rather than discourage it, remains yet to be seen.

Almost every bungalow in posh areas of metropolitan cities like Delhi, and nearly all middle-class homes employ a child, to clean utensils, mop floors and do other sundry chores when they should be enjoying their basic rights to play study and grow.

"Its really sad that those very people who are supposed to be the rich, educated, modern, aware and sensible about child-rights issues are the first suspects of perpetrating, something which is considered as the violation of rights" says Carlotta Barcaro, who looks after issues related to Child Protection at UNICEF.

Though children, aged upto 14 years, were banned from working in factories, mines, and other perilous jobs under an act of Parliament in 1986, it was only last year that the focus was also brought on those employed in homes and restaurants, dhabas etc.

No wonder, "a number of officials in judiciary, and bureaucracy employ children in their homes" says Kailash Satyarthi of Bachpan Bachao Aandolan, an NGO working for the child rights.

But if the "violation" of law, which invites the fine upto Rs 20,000 or imprisonment upto two years, is so blatant, then what stops the concerned authorities from launching a crackdown?

"It's just a few months since the ban has been introduced. In the initial phase, we want to sensitize and warn the people about the problem through a series of media campaigns. After this, we will go out in a big way against the violators. Give us sometime" says a senior official in the Labour Department, who didn't wish to be named.

He promises a "sizable dent in the problem" within a year's time. However, activists like Satyarthi dismiss the like claims. "Since 1999, the service rules prohibit government officials to employ children in their homes. But not a single case has been filed against anyone in the last eight years" he says.

"Why aren't the labour inspectors penalised for not doing their duty? Why aren't they asked to submit time-bound reports on the enforcement of law? The problem is they aren't held accountable."

He suggests there should be more political will "right from the top level and an "institutionalized approach to the problem", making local bodies like municipalities and Panchayats vital players in the process of enforcement of law.

"Besides, child labour is not an isolated problem. Many ministries like of Labour, Education, and Women and Child Welfare would have to coordinate to make sense of the spirit behind the law.

Apart from the whole aspect of law, activists point out, is the question of mindset of the people, "which is more fundamental" to this menace.

"A lot of rich people think they are actually 'doing good' to these children by employing them as domestic helps. They say to themselves 'otherwise they would've been begging somewhere on the road'" says Carlotta.

"Providing food and a roof on the head do not fulfill every right a child is entitled to. If you are making a child work for eight-nine hours a day, you are violating many fundamental rights of his the right to childhood, right to education, right to play, right to development the list is long.

You have to think 'are we giving them a choice for their future, or they would be doing the same kind of work throughout their lives.' If this is not a violation of the rights, then what is?" she asks.

The responsibility of correcting the situation "lay on every citizen" of this country, she asserts, even as the government could be blamed for not doing enough.

"I think the key issue about this ban is not mere existence of it, but that it touches each and every one of us, and puts upfront the responsibility we have with regard to this issue" she says.

At the same time, the 'supply' side of it, supported by parents and guardians of the poor children, who sanction and finalize the deal on their behalf, would also have to be checked.

"We need to empower these families to prevent them for sending their children to work. Livelihood opportunities have to be increased. Linkages between the rehabilitation schemes of child labour and development schemes for poor have to be strengthened" says Carlotta.