The Administrator

Vol. XLI, July—September 1996, pp. 17-29

Child Labour and Education Policy in India

Shantha Sinha

ABSTRACT
All non-school going children are child workers in one form or the other.
Agricultural child labour constitutes the core of the problem. Child Labour
policies and education policies have to .be formulated and operated in tandem.
Parents do want to send their children to be educated and poverty as a limiting
factor is highly over-rated. Motivation and availability of infrastructure
rather than poverty are the key factors. The paper underlines the strengths of
formal education in eradicating child labour and forcefully argues for a
legislation to provide for compulsory education.

A NUMBER OF POLICY INITIATIVES and programmes have been undertaken in this

country over the last decade with the basic objective of dealing with the problem of the
rapidly increasing number of child workers. The formulation of a new National Child Labour
Policy, the enactment of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, the setting
up of a Task Force on child labour, the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
and so on have all formed a part of this process. Corresponding initiatives were taken in the
related area of education where a New Education Policy was formulated which incorporated
a separate component for working children.

It is the objective of this paper to examine whether the policy initiatives taken by the
Government of India over the last few years can make an impact on the child labour
situation in the country. In particular, the paper examines the basic understanding of
the issue of child labour in the Indian context, which has influenced the policies and
strategies adopted by the Government. In doing, this it is .argued that the
Government policies governing child labour are based not only on assumptions
which are fundamentally flawed but also on a faulty appreciation of the situation in
the field. It is further argued that, because of this, the set of policy prescriptions and
strategies that flow cannot adequately deal with the problem. Consequently, unless
the basic premises adopted by the policy makers are abandoned no significant change
can be made in the child labour situation in the country.

Shantha Sinha is the Secretary Trustee of the M.Venkatarangaiya Foundation. 98,

Marredpally West, Sccunderabad - 500096.

1
 The paper also examines the role of the education policy in relation to child labour. It
shows how, in proposing Non Formal Education as a major strategy for dealing with
illiteracy among working children, the Government has failed to realise the potential
of formal primary education as a powerful tool for withdrawing children from work.
In the end the paper asserts that I compulsory education, at least at the primary
level, is not only desirable but also a viable and practicable solution to the problem
of increasing child labour.

Two assumptions have broadly influenced Government's policies in respect of child

labour. The first is that, child labour is a 'harsh reality' and one Uari only mitigate
some of the harshness of the exploitative aspects of child labour. The 'harsh reality of
child labour arises out of the fact that in the present state of development in the
country many parents, on account of poverty, have to send their children to work in
order to supplement their income and the income derived from the child labour,
however meagre, is essential to sustain the family. This is the 'poverty' argument of
child labour.

The second assumption is that there is a distinction between child labour and
exploitation of child labour. It has been accepted that a certain amount of child
labour will persist under the family environment which is non-exploitative. This is
not only inevitable but also desirable. At the same time, (there are other forms of
child work such as in hazardous occupations) factories and other organised
establishments which are reprehensible and should not be allowed to continue.

The above assumptions have defined the framework of all policies adopted by the
government. It would be appropriate at this stage to see exactly how policies of the
Government have been influenced by this framework.

Assessment of the Dimension of the Problem

In the first place, these assumptions have strongly influenced, the Government's perspective
of the dimension of the problem of child labour. According to the Government, the number
of working children, estimated at 17.58 million in the 43rd round of child labour estimates,
rose to 18.17 million in 1990 and will be 20.15 million in the year 2000.

There are, however, other estimates which establish that these figures are a gross
underestimation. Estimates, for instance, of the Operations Research Group in a study
sponsored by the Labour Ministry reveal that about 44 million children in the 5-14 age group
are in the labour force. A subsequent assessment has placed the figure of working children
even higher at 114 million.

The wide variation in the numbers is obviously related to the rigour with which one defines
the working child. From the official figures, which essentially reflects the somewhat 'tolerant
attitude of the government in regard to child labour, it is evident that a large number of
children engaged in domestic, non-wage earning work are totally excluded from the
calculations. An estimate of how many such children there are can be obtained by examining
the figures of the number of children in the relevant age group who are now attending
schools.

2
As per the official estimate the percentage of children in the age group 6-14 attending schools
is around 49%. The projected population in the age group for 1994—95 is 179 million which
implies that around 90 million children do not go to school. Even assuming that all working
children do not go to school there is an unexplained gap of at least 72 million children whose
status is that of non-working, non-school going child.

In the rural situation the fact is that a child who does not go to a formal school is a working
child. Collection of water, fuel, maintenance of the house and taking care of younger siblings
all constitute an important element of a child's life. While many of these activities do not
necessarily fall under the definition of hazardous work, inasmuch as they interfere with the
normal development of the child and in the child's ability to reach his/her true potential they
constitute exploitation of the child. In the context of rural India, therefore, the concept of a
non-working, non-school going child simply does not exist. Any effort to deal with the issue
of child labour has to contend with this aspect.

The Legal Framework

The legislative apparatus brought in by the government is by far the most clear expression of
the influence of the assumptions made by the policy makers in regard to child labour. Child
labour is prohibited only in certain sectors (Part A and Part B of the Schedule) laid down
under the act which provides for regulation in certain other areas. At the same time, there is
a proviso which lays down, that nothing in this section shall apply to any workshop wherein
any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school
established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from Government.

It does not require a legal expert to realise the sort of loopholes that this formulation
provides for. An analysis of data indicating the number of prosecutions launched under this
Act and convictions obtained would clearly indicate that this Act, despite all its intentions,
has achieved very little. Even under the best of circumstances, an Act of this nature cannot be
implemented unless there is a demand for it from the affected parties i.e. the children of their
parents. In this case, where the Government itself has proceeded on the assumption that
child labour cannot be eliminated and that certain forms of child labour are inevitable it is
even less likely to serve any purpose.

Action Plans to Eliminate Child Labour

The legislative apparatus by itself is unlikely to yield results as legal action is only the first
step in a process. The crucial aspect, however, is the subsequent step in this process which
involves constructive rehabilitation of the child withdrawn from work. This, according to
the government, is provided in the second and third parts of the National Policy relating to
General Development Programmes for benefiting child labour and the project based Action
Plan.

As far as the General Development Programmes are concerned, the Task Force that was
formed specifically to make an assessment commented that "First, the size of the total
resources for general development programmes remained the same and they have always

3
been so meagre that a small fraction out of those negligible resources could never be
meaningful. Secondly, no specific allocations were carved out or earmarked. No proportions
or percentages were prescribed. No weightage for child labour mandated.

Further, commenting on the Action Plan the Task Force remarked. Broadly and briefly, we
feel that the Action Projects which were meant to be the testing ground for the
implementation of the Act and Policy have so far failed to yield any sizeable worthwhile
results. The reason why the views of the Task Force have been quoted here is that despite
such strong criticism from a committee appointed specifically to remedy the
implementation of the Act and the Action Plan, the Government of India has not in any way
altered its approach. It is interesting to note that whereas the Task Force submitted its report
in 1989, its recommendations are said to be still under examination.

To compound matters the Government of India has brought out, as already mentioned, a
fresh plan which is nothing but an extension of the earlier Action Plan. The new scheme once
again concentrates on areas of high incidence of child labour, in hazardous occupations and
involves withdrawing children from work, provision of training, education and
rehabilitation. The scheme, however, in no way answers the questions posed by the Task
Force in respect of the earlier Action Plan. Further, even accepting the official figure of 20
million working children, the scheme does not explain how in covering 2 million children
only, it is proposed to prevent the remaining 18 million from occupying the slots vacated in
the rehabilitation process. This is particularly relevant when one notes that a large number of
working children in hazardous occupations belong to families who have migrated from rural
areas. Lacunae of this nature are essentially the consequence of the Government's pre-
occupation with only a part of the child labour force and its restricted definition of what
constitutes child labour. Any comprehensive plan of action would have to cover the entire
range of working children without making an artificial differentiation between those in
hazardous occupations and in other works.

Non Formal Education

A related area which has also been strongly influenced by the above mentioned assumptions
regarding child labour is that of education. The New Education Policy which was to be
closely coordinated with the Child Labour Policy incorporated a major effort to bring drop-
outs and non-enrolled children into the education system through non-formal education.

The NFE was put in place with the key objective of providing education for working
children. It was proposed as an alternative to the formal education stream as it was argued
that improving the facilities of primary schools would do little to help the poor who dropped
out, whereas the system of non-formal education was targeted to meet the needs of the
working children. The intended clientele includes drop-outs, children of weaker sections,
girls in the age group of 6-14 years and boys and girls who are employed in professions like
carpet weaving and so on. The NFE is supposed to have a flexible curriculum according to
the needs of the working children and the youth. Classes are to be held at hours taking into
account the children's work schedule.

4
The NFE system has been the subject of much criticism in terms of its inherent limitations
because of its low paid, ill trained teachers, working in an atmosphere not particularly
conducive to learning for working children after a full day's work. What is of greater
relevance, however, is that the NFE policy provides a clear example of the influence of
accepting the poverty argument of child labour on the Elementary Education Policy.

Thus, given the fact that the poor have to send their children to work, the NFE provides a
convenient framework of education which does not interfere with the child's work. In the
context of Article 32 what the NFE has done is that, in providing a solution to the problem of
child labour interfering with the child's education, it has provided a system of child
education which does not interfere with child labour.

An Alternative Strategy
The above arguments draw attention to the manner in which Government's policies in
respect of child labour and education have evolved and the factors which have influenced
these policies. Much of what has been stated above is widely-known. However, despite the
sustained criticism of Government's policies from several quarters and their consistent
failure to provide any solution to the problem of child labour, there has been no effort on the
part of the Government to modify its approach or to change the policies. In fact, policy
makers have gone one step further and announced a further plan to "eliminate" child labour
by 2000 A.D. on the same lines as the earlier action plans. This situation obtains because the
thought processes of those involved in making the policies have got stuck in a narrow
groove defined by the assumptions regarding child labour. As long as these assumptions are
held valid the policies and strategies will continue to remain the same. It is only when they
are abandoned and the problem is observed from a different view point, that of the parent
and the child, that a new strategy will emerge.

The starting point of any strategy dealing with the issue of child labour cannot lie in children
engaged in hazardous occupations alone. While this section of children does constitute the
most glaring example of the failure of our child labour and education policies they too are
only results of a larger phenomenon taking place in the countryside. 80% of the child labour
and, consequently, illiteracy exists in families engaged in agricultural work and we cannot
afford to ignore this fact. Further, a significant proportion of even those children engaged in
hazardous occupations in the urban areas belong to families who have migrated from the
rural areas. With a large reservoir of working children available in the rural areas any
attempt to deal with the problem of child labour only in specific industries and areas of
concentration can at best yield marginal results. In the long run it is to the rural areas and in
particular the agricultural sector to which we have to ultimately turn. In other words, what is
essentially required is to adopt Article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in its
true spirit and recognise the fact that any non-school going child is an exploited child. In
artificially categorising some of these children as 'mere' child workers instead of exploited
child workers it is often forgotten that it takes very little to convert the former into the latter.
Given these facts, any plan to deal with child labour has to deal with the 90 million non-
school going children.

5
It needs to be emphasised at this point that what is being suggested does not represent a
very great departure from existing policies. The Government has consistently been referring
to programmes fpr providing education for all, raising budgetary allocations for education to
6% of GNP and elimination of child labour by the year 2000 AD. What is required is a change
in attitude and priorities rather than any radical change in the programmes themselves. It
also calls for a more effective co-ordination between the labour policies and education
policies and a proper appreciation of the fact that such ongoing programmes as Education
for All are powerful means to bring about a qualitative change in the child labour situation.

The following sections are based on the experience of the M.V. Foundation which has been
working with rural child labour utilising the ongoing stream education programmes to
withdraw children from work, the experience of M.V. Foundation shows that many of the
government policies are based on negative formulations. For instance, the assumption that
parents are not willing to send their children to schools; elimination of child labour is not
possible nor is it possible to implement compulsory education laws; the present school
curriculum is not relevant or responsive to the needs of the rural society and so on. The
situation in the field, however, indicates that these negative formulations have much less to
do with facts than with the State's reluctance to deal with the problem in its entirety. This is
not to say that these formulations are totally incorrect, but there is a certain convenience, that
of not having to do anything, associated with accepting them which makes them appear
much more insurmountable than they actually are. In areas where M.V. Foundation has been
working there were innumerable instances of poor parents sending their children to school.
There were instances of children patiently waiting in makeshift classrooms for their teachers
to arrive. There were also innumerable occasions when parents willingly handled even extra
work so that their children went to school. The fact is that there is considerable demand even
in the rural areas and even among the poor for education. That it has not been articulated
effectively is yet another Instance of the weak not being able to extract what they want.

Rather than trying to explain why children are sent to work instead of school one should try
to understand why there are children still being sent to schools - the same run-down school
without adequate infrastructure and sometimes with just one teacher providing socially
irrelevant education. Instead of giving continued explanations for drop out rates one should
attempt to understand why it is not even higher than it is, why it is that it is not always the
poorest who drop out first and why factors such as parent's educational status matter at all.
These are questions the answers to which are extremely relevant in understanding the
strength of the latent demand for education. Even for a parent who sends his child to school
it is much easier to explain why he should not do so (the answers have all been 'supplied by
the government itself) than why he actually does. But this inability on his part should not be
construed as his wanting his child to go to work. It should be clearly understood that
acceptance of the premise that poverty compels parents to send their children to work is
extremely convenient to those charged with the responsibility of reducing, if not eliminating,
child labour because in such a case, improving the economic status of the parents becomes
the focal point of attention. This is neither the responsibility of the labour nor that of the
education department and the buck can be passed elsewhere. The poverty argument and the
argument that child labour has a major role in the production process of an underdeveloped
economy is a purely static description of the position in the field. What this does not take
into account is the dynamics of the evolution of society and the consequent changes in the

6
hopes and aspirations of parents in regard to their children.

Ultimately, therefore, unless the government machinery and policy makers accept the fact
that the existence of child labour has much more to do with the government's own inability,
if not reluctance, to provide adequate infrastructure and to motivate the parents through
systematic extension work than any desire or compulsion on the part of the parents to send
their children to work, a solution to the problem cannot be found.

When it is accepted that there is a demand for education and parents, even poor parents, are
willing to send their children to school, the onus of controlling child labour essentially shifts
to the education policy and regulation through labour acts becomes less relevant. But, as has
already been mentioned, the education policy of the government is heavily weighted
towards providing NFEs which far from mitigating the problem of child labour actually
condones it. The failure of the NFE programme lies not in its faulty execution. In fact, as has
already been mentioned, its greatest failure is in its assumption that working children cannot
be withdrawn from work and, therefore, have to be given the benefit of education outside
working hours. The fact that there is an unfulfilled demand for formal education even
among the poor in the rural areas has been totally denied in this attempt to expand primary
education. There is a singular lack of faith that people, even poor people, value education
and learning and are prepared to make sacrifices to provide it at least for their children. It is
in this context that the issue of compulsory education becomes important.

The Formal Education System

Before dealing with the issue of compulsory education, a brief examination of the outcome
which formal education in general is subject to would be in order. The formal education
system has often been described as being ill-designed, not responsive to the needs of the
working children, irrelevant in terms of converting children to socially productive elements
and a poor alternative to children of families engaged in traditional crafts. It has been
criticised on the ground of creating a mass of educated illiterates who are neither willing nor
able to perform traditional family occupations and of contributing to the lumpenisation of
the rural society. It had also been severely attacked as a major cause for the decline in
traditional crafts.

In terms of child labour, however, the formal education system has an advantage unmatched
by any other. It can never be accused of supporting child labour. This crucial positive aspect
is what makes the system most worthwhile to build upon. In fact, a closer look at the
criticism against the formal education system shows that it is being found fault with
precisely because it is inimical to child labour. Thus, school timings are 'ill designed' because
they interfere with a child's daily or seasonal work and "irrelevant" because they do not teach
him to be what his parents were i.e. agriculture labourers or artisans. But, these are the very
strengths of this system when viewed from the point of reducing child labour.

Formal education especially in the first 7-10 years of school is meant to be of a general
nature, since children in the age group 5-14 are very rarely in a position to pick up skills. This
is why, vocational education and training in traditional crafts are quite irrelevant to this age
group. The argument that it is at this stage that an individual is most receptive to skill

7
development has nowhere been borne out by facts. On the other hand, time and again it has
been proved that these arguments are mere excuses to perpetuate child labour. The 'nimble
fingers' theory in respect of carpet weaving children is a case in point. In fact, master
craftsmen themselves often ensure that their children are educated to at least a minimum
level before being put through training usually after the age of 14 years. The fact that a child
coming from a craftsman's family picks up the craft better has more to do with the
environment provided at home in terms of motivation and support than to training per se. In
the ultimate analysis, the advantage of having children take up training in traditional crafts
whether in the family environment or through vocational education does not lie in either the
economic benefit of the child / family, the improvement of the skill of the child or the craft
itself. Rather, it ensures availability of cheap and, more importantly, obedient child labour to
the employers.

Formal education, by not treating working and non-working children differently also
provides in the true spirit of Article 32, an opportunity to children to think in terms of an
occupation by choice. That an educated child of a labourer decides not to pursue agricultural
labour has to be seen as an expression of individuality rather than as suppression of a skill
by the education system. No society can be built on the logic that an illiterate child worker is
better than a literate unemployed one. This is not to suggest either that the formal education
system is without serious defects or that the system of training utilised traditionally has no
merits at all especially for older children. However, in condemning the formal education
system we should not forget its extreme relevance in eliminating child labour. If it is felt that
the system requires improvements, it should be done for the education system as a whole
and not just in isolated pockets through special programmes meant for working children.
The large number of intellectuals and policy makers who have been recommending
vocational and craft based education for working children have never suggested its
implementation across the board and to the schools catering to the urban middle class. As a
result, vocational and craft based education whenever adopted for older children above 14
years has always ended up not only as being treated as a poor child's educational
programme but also being implemented as such. What is required, therefore, is to draw on
the advantages provided by the formal education system in regard to reduction of child
labour and address improvements to the educational system as a whole rather than just that
part which deals with working children.

Compulsory Education Law

The issue of compulsory education has always been something of an enigma. At a theoretical
level, very few find fault with the concept that all children should receive education, at least
upto the primary stage or with the fact that children should not work. In fact, the State has
committed itself not only to universalisation of primary education but also to the abolition of
child labour through various pronouncements, not least of all the directive principles of State
Policy, enshrined in the Constitution of India. This has been further strengthened by the fact
that the Convention on the Rights of the Child based on the UN General Assembly
resolution provides for a variety of rights to the child including the right to compulsory and
free primary education. In spite of all this, the general attitude of the policy planners has
been that the country cannot afford the distraction of a compulsory education norm. A
number of reasons are given for this, but two major objections are worth noting. The first

8
questions the role of the State in determining the manner in which the children are to be
educated. The second stresses the non-implementability of such legislation which would
remain only on paper.

As far as the first objection is concerned, in a society where the State has always been playing
a very large role in shaping the social behaviour of the citizens through legislative means, it
would be difficult to question the desirability of the state's intervention through legislation in
this matter alone. When we talk about the Indian society today, we talk of a society which
has seen legislations on issues ranging from a minimum age of marriage to protection of civil
rights and abolition of untouchability. For the State to legislate on an issue concerning a
child's right to development, therefore, would not be something out of the ordinary.

The second objection, however, merits a more detailed examination. It has been observed
that in this country a large number of laws governing social issues have been passed which
have never really been implemented. Although, the legislation set out to achieve laudable
social goals, the State has not been able to put them to effect. Any number of examples
ranging from the SITA to BLSA are cited to illustrate this. A legislation to provide
compulsory education, therefore, is most likely to meet a similar fate. Further, it is argued, as
previous experience with legislation governing compulsory education has shown there is a
greater likelihood of the act turning into an instrument of harassment of parents.

These arguments view the issue from one perspective only, viz. that of the State apparatus. A
State apparatus whose understanding of the problem is flawed by its own limitations and to
whom compulsory legislation not only implies a large enforcement machinery helplessly
pursuing reluctant parents to ensure attendance in schools but also creation of, at heavy cost,
infrastructural facilities which at today's levels of demand cannot be utilised. The fact of the
matter, however, is that, notwithstanding the claims of the government that more than 94%
of the children have been provided access to schools, the established infrastructure cannot
cater to the full requirement of even the demand that exists. This is because development of
infrastructure has been a function of budgetary allocation rather than of demand. Once the
logic of the harsh reality of child labour is accepted, low allocation to the primary education
sector especially in the rural areas can always be rationalised as being a response to the low
projected demand for schools. Similarly, it is only when one accepts the absence of demand
for education, legislations are an instrument for forcing unwilling parents to send their
children to school. Thus, any assessment which assumes the reality of child labour, harsh or
otherwise is bound to lead not only to low per capita investment in the sector but also to the
view that compulsory education laws are unimplementable.

Legislation of this nature has for long played the role of compelling the State to take action.
The Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976 (BLSA), for instance, has proved to be an
extremely powerful weapon for institutions such as non-government organisations to deal
with the problem of child bonded labour, in situations where the State has not been prepared
to take action. Thus, even though existence of a legislation does not automatically imply that
its objectives would be achieved, it creates an enabling provision whereby the State can be
compelled to take action. At the very least such legislations are assertions of the desire of the
state to promote an ideal and a progressive value system. More important, these legislations
provide others working in the field with a legitimacy which otherwise would not exist. The

9
importance of this aspect would be fully appreciated when one considers the number of
occasions the state has been compelled to act through the use of the BLSA to release bonded
children. Thus, while administrators and academicians may lament on their non-
implementability the fact remains that legislations of this nature have the power to compel
the State to act. A legislation to provide for compulsory education, therefore, would be of
immense significance in situations where the state does respond to the requirements of the
people. It has already been seen that the government response to the problem of illiteracy
and child labour has been quite equivocal. On the other hand, experience in the field has
shown that there exists an enormous unrecognised demand for formal education and that
parents are willing to make sacrifices to utilise educational opportunities. As long as the
existing infrastructure can meet the demand, there is no crisis but the fact is that more often
than not the infrastructure is inadequate. Under the present circumstances, there is
absolutely no way by which the State can be compelled to provide these facilities. A situation
thus exists where the same parents and children who have been written off as victims of the
'harsh reality' of socio-economic circumstances, are demanding educational facilities and the
State is either unable or unwilling to respond. A legislation binding the State to provide
compulsory education therefore is absolutely essential.

Summing Up
To sum up, therefore, what has been put forward in the foregoing is a child labour policy
which:
1. Defines the target group in the true spirit of Article 32. All non-school going children (90
million) are child workers in one form or the other. Agricultural child labour constitutes
the core of the problem. Without tackling this issue, the more emotive issue of child
labour in hazardous occupations cannot be handled.

2. Recognises the fact that a child going to a formal school is a child withdrawn from
labour. Child labour policies and education policies have to be formulated and be
operated in tandem and not independent of each other.

Adopts a more positive attitude towards child labour. Parents do want their children to be
educated and poverty as a limiting factor is highly over-rated. In particular, such a policy
recognises the fact that even today there are 'poor' parents sending their children to school
instead of work. Motivation and availability of infrastructure rather than poverty are the key
factors. There is no other explanation as to why factors like parents' educational status make
a difference in the literacy level of children.

Realises that the NFE system cannot be a solution to either the problem of illiteracy or child
labour. It is at best a temporary solution which has no relevance unless simultaneously
backed by adequate strengthening of the formal education structure. #

10