Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
39
CHAPTER 1
PROBLEMS OF CHILD LABOUR
Definitions
Historical Perspective
General Causes
Types
Magnitude of the Problem
Current Scenario
40
India is sadly the home to the largest number of child labourers in the world.
Use of children as labourers is rampant not only in the agriculture sector but also in
industries such as match box, leather, carpet, saree, stone quarries, gems cutting and
polishing, brick-kilns, lock manufacturing, hotels and dhabas, road side eateries,
venders, hawkers, rag pickers, repair workers, domestic servants and many more.
According to 2001 Census it is estimated that in India around 85 million children falls
in the age group of 5 to 14 years do not go to schools in which 12.7 million children
are living as labourers. These children are denied their fundamental right to
childhood, to education, to play and to dream like normal children. Child labour is
primarily found among the socio-economically weaker sections of society where
people are mostly illiterate and ignorant. The rich class exploit their vulnerability
while the law enforcing agency looks at the other side. In India, there is no set
criterion to determine the wages of child labourers the employers are free to exploit
them, and as such the children fail to satisfy the basic needs at home.
The present chapter deals with the problem of child labour and a detailed
account of aspects and phenomenon of child labour in India is depicted. The chapter
is divided into six sections i.e. definitions of child labour, given by various
authors/social scientists, historical perspective that deals with the background, general
causes, their types, the magnitude of the problems in which size of child labour is
discussed and its distribution across the country and finally the present scenario as
well.
1.1 Definition
A general valid definition of child labour is presently neither available in
national nor in international context. Child labour literally means the employment of
children as wage earners. Any such definition turns upon the precise meaning we
attach to two components of the term child labour, i.e. ‗child‘ in term of its
chronological age and ‗labour‘ in terms of its nature, quantum and income generation
capacity (Report of the committee on child labour, 1981). In fact, age is a universally
accepted criterion. Various acts passed by governments have defined child labour on
the basis of their age. But the minimum age criterion differs from Act to Act and from
work to work.
41
Thus a child labourer is differentiated from an adult worker on the basis of
criterion. The term ‗child labour‘ is at time, used as a synonym for ‗Employed‘ child
or working child. In this sense it is co-extensive with any work done by a child for
gain, but more commonly than not the term ‗child labour‘ is used in pejorative sense.
It suggests something which is hateful and exploitative, usually a child worker below
the age of 14 or 15 years who is involved in any productive activities whether paid or
unpaid, with family or outside. The United States Department of Labour defined child
labour as the employment of boys and girls when they are too young to work for hire,
or when they are employed at jobs unsuitable or unsafe for children of their ages or
under conditions injurious to their welfare. It is an employment that robs children of
their rightful heritage of the chance for healthful development, full educational
opportunities and necessary play time (Patterson, 1935).
Thus, Homer Folks, the former chairman of the United States National Child
Labour Committee, defined child labour as ―any work by children that interfere with
them in their full physical development, their opportunities for a desirable minimum
of education and needed recreation‖ (Stein, and Device (1940)). Child labour of late
20th
century has evoked deep concern among all who link the future of the country
with the present of the child. Child labour is viewed no less a scour age affecting the
destiny of the child than his malnutrition, under nutrition or morbidity. However one
must make a distinction between child labour and exploitation of child labour, both
the problems though of different in order. Child labour as distinguished from work
experience has mostly negative attributes. It can now be asserted on scientific ground
that work as direct fulfilment of child‘s nature abilities and creative potentialities is
always conducive to his healthy growth. But work when taken up as means for the
fulfilment of some other needs, becomes involving in character and deleterious in its
impact. The basic attributes of work are purpose, plan and freedom. When they are
conspicuously absent work becomes labour. Child labour as an economic practice
signifies employment in the so-called gainful occupations or a material contribution to
the labour income of the family as in the period before the wages and factory systems
or today agriculture on the home form ―when the business of wage earning or of
participation in itself or family support conflicts directly or indirectly with the
business of growth and education, the result is child labour‖ (Encyclopaedia of Social
Sciences, 1959). In other words child labour includes children prematurely leading
42
adult‘s lives, working long hours for low wages. These conditions are detrimental to
their health and their physical and mental development. Sometime children separated
from their families are frequently deprived of meaningful education and training
opportunity that could open up for them a better future (Report of the Director
General, 1983).
V. V. Giri has distinguished child labour in two sense, of term child labour,
interpreted in two different ways; first, as an economic practice and secondly as a
social evil. In the first context it signifies employment of children in gainful
occupations with a view to increase income of the family. In the second context in
assessing the nature and extent of the social evil, it is necessary to take into account
the character of the jobs and the dangers they are exposed and the opportunities of
development which they have been denied. Thus, child labour, in a restricted sense,
means the employment of children in gainful occupations, which are dangerous to
their health and deny them the opportunities of development. Three things are
necessary to include in employment of a child labour. Firstly, the child should be
employed in gainful occupation, secondly, the work, to which he is exposed, must be
dangerous….? Thirdly, it must deny to him the opportunity of development. Hence,
any work taken by a father from his child on his field or business place for long hour,
is also covered under this definition (Giri, 1965)
In India there is hardly any statutory provision which defines the term child
labour in precise term; generally age criterion is used to differentiate a child worker
from an adult labourer. The age criterion for defining child labour had been accepted
by the framers of the Indian Constitution and the Law makers as well. According to
the Article 24, of the constitution ―No child below the age of 14 years shall be
employed to work in any factory or mines or engaged in hazardous employment‖.
According to child labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 a child means a
person who has not completed the age of fourteen and is engaged in work, which is
detrimental to the growth and development of child. Indian Labour Legislation (the
Factory Act, the Mine Act, Employment of Children Act, 1938, Child (Regulation and
Prohibition) Act 1986 etc.) also use the minimum age for differentiating adult worker
from child labour. The definition of workers as, providing by the Census of 1971
differs from as that of provided by 1981 Census. According to 1971 Census a worker
is a person whose main activity is participation in any economically productive work
43
by physical and mental involvement (Census of India, 1971). The definition includes
children whose main activity has not been work, such as those working for only a few
hours a day after school. The 1981 Census defines ‗work‘ as ‗participation‘ in any
economically productive activity (Census of India, 1981).
The Gurupada Swamy Committee on child labour, constituted in 1979, India
also defines the term child labour. The committee recognised that the distinction had
to be made between child labour and exploitation of child labour as, though both are
problems of child labour, they are of different order. It had under-lined that all action
dealing with child labour, this basis aspect would have to be taken note, i.e. ―labour
becomes on absolute evil in the case of child, when he is required to work beyond his
physical capacity, when hours of employment interferes with the quantum, his wages
are not commensurate with the quantum of work done, and when the occupation he is
engaged endangers his health and safety‖ i.e. when he is exploited. The most suitable
and common definition of child labour is as follows ―child labour can be conceived to
include children under the age of 15 years in work or employment with the aim of
earning a livelihood for themselves or for their families‖. The Operations Research
Group defines a working child as ―that child who was enumerated during the survey
as a child within the 5-15 years age bracket and who is at remunerative work may be
paid or unpaid, and busy any hour of the day within or outside the family (Khatu, et
al, 1983). A Bangalore based group of Concerned for Working Children (CWC) also
defines child labourer as ―a person who has not completed his/her fifteen year of age
and is working with or without wage/income on a part-time or full-time basis‖
(Concerned for Working Children, 1985). There are several problems related to
defining child labour. The Census categories child labour by its participation in wage
labour force, while most of the child work takes place outside this sector. Children
contribute to the total economic activity of the household through their economic
values in different (Exploitation of Child labour, 1984). Children in rural areas are
engaged in a variety of activities from scaring away birds from fields to caring for
younger siblings and helping out with domestic chores (Krishwar, and Vanita, 1984).
They may or may not be attending school. Some of the activities under taken by
children are not perceived as work either by the parents or the children. Most of them
are doing unpaid domestic and non-domestic work, which nevertheless, releases the
adult from the consuming jobs.
44
The three conventions, ILO Convention 138, the UN Convention for the
Rights of the Child, and ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour,
form the basis for the international definition of child labour. The work or activities
undertaken by a child, defined as a person under the age of 18, should not be
hazardous or harmful to the child‘s health or physical, mental, moral, or social
development. In addition, for children of primary school age, the work or activity
should not interfere with the child‘s education. However, since the qualitative
conditions for child labour are difficult to translate into exact measurable figures like
the number of hours worked, some guidelines are necessary in order to develop
workable protection instruments. There are various age limits, depending on the kind
of work, on when compulsory education normally ends, and on whether the country is
developing or industrialized.
International definition of child labour*
Up to Age 18 Dangerous or
Hazardous
work
Full-time
work
Light work in
the labour
market;
vocational
training
Light work in
the
home under
the
guidance of
the
parents and
as a
part of the
socialization
process,
provided
the work does
not
interfere with
school or
threaten
health.
Up to age 14
developing
countries and age
15 in other
countries or
the age of
completed
compulsory
education (if
higher)
Up to age 12 in
developing
countries and age
13 in other
countries
*activities listed in dark areas are considered child labour, activities in white areas are not
Fig. 1.1
45
ILO Convention 138 on minimum age for employment defines three critical
ages. First, there is a general definition of a child as a person less than 18 years of age.
No person under 18 should undertake work that includes health-threatening or
hazardous activities. Second, the minimum age of legally entering the labour market
as a full-time worker is set to 14 years of age for developing countries and 15 in other
countries. In all cases full-time work must begin only after the age of completing
compulsory education. Third, the minimum age for entering the labour market doing
light work is set to 12 for developing countries and 13 in other countries. At this age
the child can do some work outside of the household, provided that it does not
interfere with schooling. If a child is under 12–13 years of age, he or she should not
be active in the labour market, but may still undertake duties within the household or
under the guidance of the parents and as a part of the socialization process, provided
the work does not interfere with schooling or pose a threat to health. Figure 1 gives a
graphic illustration of the definition of child labour (ILO, 1998).
The age criterion to define child labour assumes that children below a certain
age are not physically or mentally capable of taking the strain of adult work. By and
large all definition of child labour include an age criterion. But the Census definition
is unwilling to recognize that children play a very important economic role even if it
is not directly productive. The non-government agencies recognize that the child who
is at home, even if doing only marginal work, is in fact being deprived of the
opportunities of growth and development, partly at least because it is denied the basic
right of education. The term child labour not only applies to the children working in
industries but also to the children working in all forms of non-industrial occupation
which are injurious to their physical, mental, moral and social development.
Child labour is found in both poor and wealthy economies. In wealthy
economies child works at their own to fetch pocket money as news paper venders etc.
or little mature child workers in restaurants on hourly basis to meet their educational
expenses. Finally it may be concluded that the term ―child labour is a person below
the age of 15 and engaged in any economically productive activities, either within the
premises or outside the premises, which retard their physical, social and mental
development‖.
46
1.2 Historical Perspective
In the early days of the industrial revolution, inventors were often very
forthright about the aims of their innovations. The co-inventor of the roller spinning
machine, English mechanic John Wyatt, promoted it as a way for textile factories to
downsize their labour forces. The contraption was so easy to run, Wyatt said, that
businesses did not need as many skilled craftspeople with spinning wheels; they could
get by with children instead. "Adopting the machine, a Clothier formerly employing a
hundred spinners might turn off thirty of the best of them but employ an additional ten
infirm people or children," he wrote in 1741. The British attorney general was won
over and, in granting a patent, noted how "even Children of five or six Years of age"
could operate the machine. The mindset of the contemporary Indian industrialist is in
fact well matching to that of John Wyatt of 18th
century which may have increased the
number of children in the post liberalization period (Kaushik, 2003).
Child labour was not new to the world, during 1780 and 1840, there was a
massive increase in child exploitation and during the industrial revolution, and it was
very common to find children working in factories. In 1788, more than 60 per cent of
workers in textile mills of England and Scotland were children. Many laws were
passed to eradicate child labour, but hardly succeeded. In mines, children were to
crawl through tiny pits to reach the coalface, and also were to operate on the
ventilation ports. In mills, this child workforce grew annually. Out-working others
and long working hours with more intensity was the dream each child had, and this
would mentally challenge them.
According to report of the international labour conference, Geneva, 90 per
cent or more of the child population is engaged in the employment market in the
developing region of the world. The report has also indicated that 41.13 million
children, making 5.1 per cent of the world of 0-14 age group were engaged in 1960,
and in 1970, the number was reduced to 39.98 million which formed 4 per cent of all
the children. In the industrialised areas the number of child worker in the year 1960
was 4.09 million which formed 1.4 per cent of all children and in 1970 the number
were reduced to 3.34 million constituting 1.1 per cent of the total children (ILO,
1972))
According to Census data 1971, the working population is 180 million or
about 33 per cent of the total population only 10 per cent was in organised sector. Out
47
of total 180 million, 10.74 million are the children below 15 years of age which
constitute 4.66 per cent of the total child population and 5.15 per cent of the total
labour force of these about 7.9 million are boys and 2.8 million girls. These statistics
shows a considerable decline in the child labour force of the country as according to
1961 Census, there were 14.47 million child workers. This shows a decline of 3.73
million or 25.7 per cent over the inter-census decade. However, it must be pointed out
that no conclusive significance can be attached to these differences in view of the fact
that the 1961 Census adopted a more liberal definition of ‗worker‘ in terms of
‗activity‘ as well as reference period. But this has been a sudden increase in the child
labour force after 1971. According to global labour force estimates of the ILO, every
fifth child in the age group of 10-12 years was part of country‘s active labour force.
The number of child workers in India was estimated about 15.1 million (ILO, 1975).
The 27th
round (1972) of the National Sample Survey estimated of child
workers in the age group of 5-14 at 16.35 million as on March 1973. While the 32nd
round of NSS in 1977-78, estimated child workers in the age group of 5-14 at 16.25
million. The precise estimate of the overall magnitude of child labour in India is
admittedly difficult on account of the predominance of the informal and unorganised
nature of the labour market. As per the 1981 Census, there are a total of 263 million
children of whom 13.59 million are working either as main or as marginal workers.
Using another yardstick, the Baroda-based organisations, operations research group
states that there are 44 million working children in India. Out of these about 21 per
cent are in urban areas and the rest are rural base (Khatu, et at, 1983).
According to CWC, a voluntary organisation and the national sample survey
in 1983 revealed that there were 17.36 million working children below the age of 15.
But official statistics also state the 2/5th
of the total Indian population live in
conditions adverse to survived. From this we can assumed that a true reflection of the
number of working children in India today would be close to 100 million (Concerned
for Working Children, 1985). Thus there seems to be a gradual increase in the child
labour force since 1971. The Census of 1971 estimated the child workers at 10.74
million, 1981 Census, at 13.6 million and the operational research group is 1983 at
17.36 million, and these figures also indicate that it is very difficult to get the précised
estimate of the overall magnitude.
48
1.3 General Causes
Child labour is a complex socio-economic problem. It is generally considered
that poverty, illiteracy; ignorance, large family size, unemployment, breakdown of the
families, migration and government policies, low standard of living, etc. are roots of
child-labour. Mr. Madan, former Deputy Director, Ministry of Labour, stated
―children are required to seek employment either to augment the income of their
families or to have a gainful occupation in the absence of availability of school going
facilities at various places‖. It has been officially stated, ―Child labour is no longer a
medium of economic exploitation but is necessitated by economic necessity of the
parents and in many cases that of the child himself.‖ Thus, the causes of child labour
are complex and one cannot pinpoint any single cause some of the socio-economic
causes are as given below (Kulshreshtha, 1978).
1.3.1 Poverty
The most important reason of child labour is widespread poverty which exists
in developing nations. In other words, parents‟ poverty and indebtedness, recession
and unwise economic policies resulting in economic crises have encouraged child
labour (Omoni, 2010). In India, which is a developing country, poverty forces the
parents to send their children to seek employment. Diseases and other contingencies
may need extra money and the employment of children is restored to as an easily
accessible method to bring in that money. It is observed that majority of children have
joined the work force due to the economic compulsions. In some cases parents need
the subsistence income from the available labour force with the family for their mere
survival. The problem of child labour is inter-related to the problem of living wage of
adult worker. Inadequacy wages of adult family members compels them to send their
children to do some work in return of some wage and the employer also takes the
benefit of this weakness by providing work to their children on low wages in spite of
various protective laws. The report of I.L.O. also indicate that this problem of child
labour is not the problem of itself but it is the problem of the maintenance of child and
the living wage of the adult wage earner so that they should maintain their family at
adequate standard. It was observed in a seminar that parents force their children to
take-up employment because their own earning power is low. If their incomes are
49
enhanced, they are likely to desist from sending their children to work (Kulshreshtha,
1978; Tripanthy, 1989).
1.3.2 Illiteracy and ignorance of parents
Lack of education and awareness of the parents, children are sent to work. The
prevailing educational infrastructure is highly unsuitable to many children of
economically deprived families. Most of the time the non-friendly attitude of the
teachers, non supportive school environment, and lack of books, entertainment
facilities and lack of uniforms, etc deter children of poor families from going to
schools. It is indicated ―child labour is prevalent extensively in the lower socio-
economic groups because of the lack of appreciation on their part of the role that
education plays an important role in improving life and living conditions of people‖.
The children and parents of these show little interest towards school education. The
low rate of school attendance of these children compels them to go to the work place
and earn. The illiterate, ignorant parents do not think of future but the present, how to
pull the livelihood getting a full- bellied food daily. So, they are not interested to send
their children to schools that they take as unnecessary wastage of time and money
(Anker and Melkas, 1996; Rehman, 2002).
1.3.3 Indebtedness
Bonded child labour takes place when families receive an advance payment by
handing over a boy or girl over to an employer. In most cases, the child cannot work
off the debts nor can the family raise enough money to buy the child back. The
expenses or interest are deducted from the child‘s earning in such amount that is
almost impossible for the child to repay the debt. In some cases, the labour is
generational that is, a child‘s grandfather or great grandfather was promised to an
employment many years earlier with the understanding that each generation will
provide the employer with a new worker – often with no pay at all. The money lender
puts the child into bonded labour until the debt is paid. (UNICEF, 1997; Omoni,
2010).
1.3.4 Unemployment
Sometimes children seek work because of their unemployed parents or adult
relations in the family, which is sometimes due to under-employment of the adults,
50
also. In our country the agricultural workers are engages at the maximum for 290 days
in different agricultural and allied works; but absolutely sit idle for other 75 days that
sometimes force them to send their children for small employment (Tripanthy, 1989).
1.3.5 Family Size
Large families with comparatively less income cannot have the happy notions
in their mind. As a result, they cannot give sheltered-childhood to their children. If a
family is limited and well planned there will be no question of sending their children
to the labour market and the children can be carefully educated. But impoverished and
illiterate parents think just opposite to this. They think if God has given you life, He
will give you to eat, side-by-side they think that three or four children are better than
one. For them extra children mean extra income (Kulshreshtha, 1978).
1.3.6 Child labour is cheap and easily available
For more production required cheap labour. So mostly employers think that
the children in their establishment can do more work and this labour of children is
very cheap in comparison to that of men. In fact, it ensures them more margin of
profit over fewer investments. The poverty is a blessing to these employers as they get
the poor children more easily in the labour market. But some times enhanced demand
of labour increases the demand of children e.g., in agricultural harvesting season
when adult workers are not available to cope with the demand. In this country
children of very young age do domestic work because these children are very cheap.
The middle class families‘, which have lower income especially, keep little boys and
girls as domestic servant between 6 to 14 years of age, which is the age of eating and
playing. They get little pocket money and food from their masters (Kulshreshtha,
1978; Tripanthy, 1989).
1.3.7 Breakdown of the family system
Children may take to the street in order to escape traumatic family situations
such as desertion / death of parents, presence of stepparent, physical abuse, and
alcoholism of parents or pauperization of the family. Children are compelled to earn
in order to serve due to the absence of support structures in and outside the family.
51
1.3.8 Migration
The increasing industrialization since India‘s independence brought about a
migration to the cities, where these rural poor found greater opportunities for earning
a livelihood in mushrooming factories. The joint family began to break up with the
springing up of the nuclear family; land became fragmented and divided, resulting in
unviable land-holdings. Earnings from land became in sufficient creating a class of
agricultural labourers working on the farms of beggar landowners. The rapid
migration of families from rural to urban environments has increased child labour
rates, with new poverty arising from the growing urban population. In urban areas,
children work predominantly in the trade and service industries, but also in domestic
service, construction, and manufacturing and in Hotels and Dhabas. Sometimes
children migrate to cities on their own, so called ―run away child‖. It is the individual
decision of the child itself, these children may run away due to a hostile family
atmosphere, ill-treatment by parents, aversion to schooling, abandonment by parents
or the glamour of city life. These are emotionally deprived children who run away to
seek a living. These children are the most vulnerable of working children in the urban
cities (Gupta and Voll, 1999). Migration has tended to emphasize the impoverishing
effects on migrants. Households and individuals would have done in the absence of
the opportunity to migrate. In Indian writings, the term ―distress migration‖ and
―migration for survival‖ have often been used to explain migration by the poor as a
response to socio-economic problem, natural calamities and other shocks (Rao, 1994)
1.3.9 Absence of provision for compulsory education
Absence of any provision for Compulsory Education is another important
cause of child labour. The provision of compulsory education up to a prescribed age
could compel the children to attend the school so that there may arise no question of
entering of children into the employment. Mostly children finding non-availability of
school going facilities at initial stage seek some job as an alternative. The
Government set up number of child labour schools but has failed to wean thousands
of children away from their taxing jobs in various sectors. First, the schools have
failed to attract the child labourers in large numbers. Secondly, those studying in
school still continue to work after school hours. The labour school students have also
52
lost the interest due to the careless attitude of concerned department. The students
have not received the course books after a long period (Kulshreshtha, 1978).
1.3.10 Other Reasons
There are also certain other significant reasons of child labour. Firstly, the
process of protective labour legislation is slow which could not even cover the
agriculture and small-scale industries. Secondly, inspecting machinery, which is
provided by the state government, is inadequate to check up the child labour. The
factory Act itself is also defective in various respects. In some areas, the dominance of
a particular community and the practice of caste system engender exploitation of the
weaker section. The larger number of child workers belong to the backward class
particularly to the Muslim religious minority, schedule castes and tribes who are
compelled to work to repay their parents debt (Tripanthy, 1989; Gupta and Voll,
1999). In some cases political, cultural and natural calamities are also responsible for
the incidence of child labour.
1.4 Types of Child Labour in India
Child labour exists in many forms. Sometimes it can be easily observed;
sometimes it is hidden from our view. Most child work occurs in agriculture, mining
and in the informal sectors of the economy. While some of the children help in
farming, fishing and cattle rearing to beef up the family economy, others work in
mines and public settings, industries, workshop and in private households as domestic
servants. In public settings, you see them as newspaper vendors, shop and markets
stalls minder, car washers/watchers, cobblers scavengers and porters in the markets.
Children, offering to carry out any type of menial tasks such as street hawking,
mining, apprentices in workshops or work as bus conductors, iron benders and metal
workers, carpenters, tailors, weavers, barbers and workers in the catering industries
(Omoni, 2010). Child labourers are classified on the basis of nature and extent of the
work (Rehman, 2002).
53
A large number of children are employed in unorganised sectors and some
children also employed in organized sector. In organised sectors they are work in
factories, mines, railways (with the contractors), etc. and in unorganized sector they
work as domestic servants, in hotels, restaurants, canteens, wayside shops, and
establishment, or as hawkers, newspaper seller, coolies, shoe shine boys, venders, or
helpers in repair shops. The children are also taken with their parents in construction
work for loading, unloading and breaking of stones, etc. Children do work on wages,
as supporters or as a bounded labour.
1.4.1 Bonded child labour
Child work is also victim of the traditional evil namely bonded labour. It is a
nefarious design to keep human being as a security and is condemned by every
civilised society. Parents take loan and surrender their child as security or in other
words it in virtual mortgage where amount of loan is to be worked off by the child
(Kulshreshtha 1978). It is an agreement by which a landlord or sahukar (Money
lenders) lends money at inflated interest rates in exchange of their child. At this high
interest rate debtor become unable to return the money and the child keep on working
free and would not get freedom until and unless the money is returned and this
process runs from generation to generation. Children who have either been pledged by
their parents for paltry sums of money or those working to pay off the inherited debt
54
of their father are referred as bonded child labour and it is an acute problem in India.
This type of activity is illegal but still existing due to the blind eye of the law
enforcing agencies. In this case children are delivered by their parents to a job
placement agent in return for a cash payment.
1.4.2 Family labour
Children who are working as part of their family labour in agriculture and in
home-based work called as distinguished employed they work but get no wages.
Children working 8-12 hour a day along with their parents at the cost of their
education, their situation is similar to that of children working for other employers.
Some of the children neither go to school nor to work some time do they only help
their family in work. Hence they treated as unemployed family labour.
1.4.3 Self- employed children
They are also called Street children because they have no permanent base and are
often on the move. Children lives on and off the streets, such as shoeshine boys, rag
pickers, newspaper-vendors, hawker, etc. The dimensions of the problem of street
children are somewhat different from that of child labour in factories and workshops
in urban areas in terms of their working condition, nature of work, exploitative work
they perform, living condition and lack of basic facilities. For one thing, most children
have some sort of home to go back to in the evenings or nights, while street children
are completely alone and are at the mercy of their employers. They live in the
pavements, in the bus stations, railway stations and also the other places where they
work. Sometimes children migrate to cities on their own so-called ―run-away child‖.
It is the individual decision of the child itself. These children may run away due to a
hostile family atmosphere, ill-treatment by parents, aversion to schooling, and
abandonment by parents or glamour of city life. These are emotional deprived
children, who run away to seek a living. These children are the most vulnerable of
working children in urban cities (Gupta and Voll, 1999).
55
1.4.4 Employed children
(i) Domestic work: this sector includes activities like cooking, cleaning, child care,
washing clothes, floors, dishes, etc. here the working hours is not limited but varies
place to place. Children enter to this sector from the age of 6 to 14 years.
(ii) Non-domestic work: these include major forms of child activities in subsistence
economies which includes farm work and tasks as gathering fuels, hunting, fishing,
bringing water, message delivery, car cleaning, guarding goods, hotel work, etc. and
tasks associated with subsistence production activities. There is no limitation on hours
of work and minimum entering age to these activities.
The 1981 Census of India divided child labour into nine industrial divisions,
(i) Cultivation
(ii) Agricultural Labour
(iii) Livestock, Forestry, Plantation, Fishing
(iv) Mining and Quarrying
(v) Manufacturing, Processing, Servicing and repairs
(vi) Construction
(vii) Trade and Commerce
(viii) Transport, Storage and Communication
(ix) Other Services.
1.5 Magnitude of the Problem
Child labour is one of major problem of the whole world. Children worldwide
due to their financial problems and social problems are involved in works that is
hindering their education, development and future livelihood, which ultimately create
physical and psychological problems for them in the future. It not only create problem
for them but also take away their basic rights and due to this country also suffers in its
development.
1.5.1 Size of child labour in India
The Table 1.1 clarify that the absolute number of working children has not
changed much since independence time, but at the same time it is also appreciable
56
that despite increase in population the number and percentage of child labour has not
increased.
Table: 1.1 Size of Child Labour in India (1951 -2001)
Year Number (in Millions) Decadal Change
1951 13.39 -
1961 14.47 8.07
1971 10.75 -26.31
1981 13.64 26.88
1991 11.29 -17.30
2001 12.67 12.22
Source: Census of India (1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001)
The Figure 1.1 clarifies that overall there is a marginal decline in the
magnitude of child labour in India since 1951. But this Census figure of child labour
does not show a uniform trend of growth and has been fluctuating between 13.39
million in 1951 and 12.67 million in 2001 and shows that despite all the efforts at
governmental and non governmental level, the magnitude of child labour is still very
high in terms of number as well as percentage, as compared to the global level.
It is also shows from the Fig. 1.2 that as per 1951 Census there were about
13.39 million working children in the country which increased to 14.47 million in
1961 registering an increase of 1.08 million with a decadal growth of 8.07 per cent, it
decreases 3.75 million in 1971 with a decadal decrease of 26.31 per cent then further
increase in 1981 of 26.88 per cent over the inter-census decade. In 1991 the
population of working children declined to 11.29 million indicating a fall of 2.35
57
million or of 17.30 per cent during 1981-1991. This decline in the number of working
children over the inter-census decade of 1981-1991 also took place in relative terms.
According to 1981 Census the working children represented 2 per cent of the total
population, 7.6 per cent of child population and 6 per cent of total workforce. But this
proportion decline in 1991 to 1.34 per cent, 5.2 per cent and 3.59 per cent respectively
(Mishra, 2000). In 2001 the population of working children again increased to 12.67
million, which is 1.23 per cent of total population, 5.1 per cent of child population and
3.15 per cent of the total work force of India .A rise of 1.38 million with a decadal
growth rate of 12.22 per cent. The main workers and marginal workers of child
labourers account 1.85 per cent and 7.72 per cent of the total main and marginal
workers of India respectively. It is due to abrupt increase of population growth of the
country, therefore, the percentage of the children to the total population increase has
derailed the existing infrastructure and it is difficult to accommodate in schools,
families situation particular in rural areas and labour class is such that they are unable
to force their children into schools instead of work. Out of total child labour in 2001
Census 42.1 per cent engaged in agricultural sector, 34.8 per cent cultivators, 6.5 per
cent mining and quarrying, 5.4 per cent manufacturing industry, 2.5 per cent trade and
commerce, 4 per cent household industry and 4.6 per cent others.
Size of Child Labour in India
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
Year
Nu
mb
er (
in m
illi
on
)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Deca
da
l C
ha
ng
e (
in
%)
Number (in Millions) Decadal Change
Size of the child labour in India
Fig. 1.2
58
1.5.2 Child work participation rate
The percentage of working children or Child Work Participation Rate (CWPR)
as per Census 2001, indicate at regional level variation shown in Table 1.2. The child
work participation rate varies from 0.46 per cent in Kerala to 8.3 per cent in
Rajasthan, being the two extreme positions. The other states with very high
percentage of working of working children are Himachal Pradesh (8.1), Andhra
Pradesh (7.7), Chhattisgarh (6.9) Jammu & Kashmir (6.7) and Madhya Pradesh (6.7).
In some of these states, the higher percentage has resulted due to the higher
proportion of marginal workers in these states like Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and
Jammu & Kashmir (Fig. 1.3).
Table: 1.2 Child work participation rate, India 2001
States CWPR Main Marginal
Andhra Pradesh 7.68 5.33 2.35
Assam 5.09 1.97 3.12
Bihar 4.69 2.26 2.43
Chhattisgarh 6.69 2.49 4.45
Gujarat 4.26 1.89 2.27
Haryana 4.8 1.35 3.45
Himachal Pradesh 8.1 1 7.1
Jammu & Kashmir 6.7 2.05 4.65
Jharkhand 5.48 1.78 3.69
Karnataka 6.89 4.07 2.83
Kerala 0.46 0.3 0.17
Madhya Pradesh 6.7 2.45 4.25
Maharashtra 3.53 1.81 1.72
59
Orissa 4.29 1.24 3.05
Punjab 3.19 2 1.19
Rajasthan 8.27 2.55 5.72
Tamil Nadu 3.61 2.62 0.99
Uttar Pradesh 4.06 1.68 2.38
Uttaranchal 3.3 1.14 2.16
West Bengal 4.5 2.01 2.49
INDIA 4.99 2.77 2.72
ALIGARH 3.19 1.46 1.73
Source: Census of India, 2001
In fact in Himachal Pradesh the percentage of child workers in marginal category is
highest in the country (8.1) and due to this the state show high child work
participation rate despite having very low numbers of child workers as main workers.
Similarly in Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, the high percentage of
working children is due to their presence as marginal worker components. A majority
of states have higher proportion of marginal child workers despite increase in school
enrolment, probably due to their engagement in work after school time especially in
seasonal work in agriculture, horticulture and household manufacturing activities. The
seasonal work in agricultural field, plantation (especially in Himachal Pradesh and
Jammu & Kashmir) might have been responsible for high child work participation
rate, despite increase in school attending children in these two states. Kerala‘s
development in social sector especially education is also reflected in its good
performance in reduction of child labour, the state shows the least participation rate
with only 0.46 per cent of children in relevant working age group. Since the
proportion growth in Kerala has also been very slow during the period the absolute
number besides the percentage of the child workers happens to be very less. Punjab,
Uttaranchal, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Utter Pradesh, Orissa and Bihar are the other
states where the work participation of children is low, due to the different factors in
different states.
60
The higher rate of growth in child labour does not appear to be correlated with the
level of socio-economic development of the states as Punjab, Tamil Nadu on the one
hand and U.P., Orissa and Bihar on the other hand, had similar rate of work
participation for children. In fact the answer lies in regional and local factors like
Bihar has low percentage not because children are in school but because they don‘t
have job opportunities in already labour surplus economy. In such states with a large
population of children but lower percentage of them working, we have a large number
of children under the category of ‗now where children‘. The migration from Bihar,
Orissa and Utter Pradesh has been one of the crucial factors behind lower child work
Child Work Participation Rata, India (Census 2001)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhatisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Uttaranchal
West Bengal
INDIA
ALIGARH
Sta
tes
& A
ligar
h
Percentage
CWPR Main Marginal
Child work participation rate, India (Census 2001)
Fig. 1.3
61
participation rate in these states also tends to increase the rate in the state of
destination.
Table 1.3 shows state wise data for on the percentage child labour by sex in
India for the period 1961, 1971, 1981, 199, and 2001. In all except Manipur, Sikkim,
Nagaland, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Manipur and Sikkim, percentage of female child
labour is higher compared to the male. Overall percentage of child labour is higher in
states like Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The
percentage of child labour however has decline over the time period for all the states
instead of 2001 where percentage of child labour again increases.
Table: 1.3 State-wise percentage of child labour by sex in India (1961, 1971,
1981, 1991& 2001)
States 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Andhra
Pradesh
15.7 11.2 11.8 6.6 9.8 7.2 9.3 7.2 5.32 7.04
Assam 7.8 6.4 6.0 0.1 - - - - 6.20 4.06
Bihar 9.6 5.9 6.7 1.9 4.5 1.6 4.6 1.6 5.61 3.36
Chhattisgarh * * * * * * * * 6.24 7.70
Goa - - - - - - - - 1.86 1.78
Gujarat 7.3 6.6 6.2 2.6 4.7 2.2 4.6 2.2 3.96 4.63
Haryana (9) (9) 5.0 0.6 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.70 4.86
Himachal
Pradesh
12.1 18.1 4.3 5.8 2.9 4.3 3.0 4.6 7.69 8.62
Jammu &
Kashmir
1.7 6.3 6.1 0.9 6.8 1.9 - - 6.57 6.66
Jharkhand * * * * * * * * 5.41 5.54
Karnataka 11.9 8.2 9.3 3.7 8.3 4.9 8.1 5.1 5.43 5.31
Kerala 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.58 0.36
Madhya
Pradesh
11.8 10.8 8.0 4.1 7.4 5.3 7.4 5.5 6.41 7.03
Maharashtra 8.6 8.8 5.7 3.7 5.6 4.9 5.1 4.7 3.54 3.54
Manipur 3.2 7.6 3.3 3.9 2.6 3.7 - - 5.56 5.94
Meghalaya - - 8.0 5.8 8.0 5.8 - - 8.64 7.79
Mizoram - - - - - - - - 11.86 12.83
Nagaland 13.9 16.6 6.1 8.0 4.5 5.8 - - 8.25 8.73
62
Orissa 12.3 6.6 9.1 1.5 7.4 2.4 7.5 2.6 4.15 4.60
Punjab 7.9 3.8 7.7 0.1 5.2 0.3 5.1 0.3 3.90 2.43
Rajasthan 13.6 12.1 7.4 2.7 5.3 2.7 5.8 3.1 6.92 9.73
Sikkim 23.1 25.4 19.5 19.3 5.3 7.4 - - 11.92 12.17
Tamil Nadu 9.3 6.7 6.2 2.9 5.7 4.5 5.4 4.4 3.77 3.43
Tripura 5.2 3.3 4.2 0.8 3.4 1.4 - - 2.85 2.72
Uttar
Pradesh
8.6 4.1 5.5 1.4 4.3 0.9 5.1 4.4 4.76 3.32
Uttranchal * * * * * * * * 3.13 3.36
West Bengal 5.0 1.2 4.7 0.7 4.0 0.9 3.9 1.0 5.09 3.88
All India 9.4 6.6 6.6 2.6 5.5 2.8 2.9 1.6 5.60 5.52
Source: Census of India 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991 & 2001.
Note: Percentage from total child population.
Table 1.4 shows the state wise number of children starting from the year 1971
to 2001.Trend shows that the number of child labour has declined upto 1991 for all
the states, the trend is same for the whole economy. This may be to a decline in the
number of people below poverty line. But in the Census 2001 the number of children
working for a wage has increased for majority of the state including the whole
economy. Their number was 11.29 million in 1991, which has increased to 12.67
million in 2001 Census. This may be due to the implementation of the LPG strategy
which reduced social sector spending by the state, increased unemployment and
poverty by down sizing the public sector. On the other hand there is growth of
industrialization in the private sector. Private entrepreneur took the advantage of
flexible labour laws to use the children in their factory (Sahoo, 2009).
Table: 1.4 State-wise distribution of working children in India (2001Census)
State/UTs 1971 1981 1991 2001 Percentage
(census
2001)
Decadal
Growth
(1991-
2001)
Andhra
Pradesh 1627492 1951312 1661940 1363339 10.83
-17.97
Assam 239349* ** 327598 351416 2.79
7.27
Bihar 1059359 1101764 942245 1117500 8.87
18.60
63
Chhattisgarh - - - 364572 2.89
-
Gujarat 518061 616913 523585 485530 3.85
-7.27
Haryana 137826 194189 109691 253491 2.01
131.10
Himachal
Pradesh 71384 99624 56438 107774 0.85
90.96
Jammu and
Kashmir 70489 258437 ** 175630 1.39
-
Jharkhand - - - 407200 3.23
-
Karnataka 808719 1131530 976247 822615 6.53
-15.74
Kerala 111801 92854 34800 26156 0.21
-24.84
Madhya
Pradesh 1112319 1698597 1352563 1065259 8.46
-21.24
Maharashtra 988357 1557756 1068418 764075 6.07
-28.49
Manipur 16380 20217 16493 ** -
-
Meghalaya 30440 44916 34633 53940 0.43
55.75
Nagaland 13726 16235 16467 ** -
-
Orissa 492477 702293 452394 377594 3.00
-16.53
Punjab 232774 216939 142868 177268 1.41
24.08
Rajasthan 587389 819605 774199 1262570 10.03
63.08
Sikkim 15661 8561 5598 16457 0.14
193.98
Tamil Nadu 713305 975055 578889 418801 3.33
-27.65
Tripura 17490 24204 16478 21756 0.17
32.03
Uttar Pradesh 1326726 1434675 1410086 1927997 15.31
36.73
Uttaranchal - - - 70183 0.56
-
64
West Bengal 511443 605263 711691 857087 6.81
20.43
Andaman and
Nicobar
Islands
572 1309 1265 1960 0.01 54.94
Arunachal
Pradesh 17925 17950 12395 18482 0.15
49.11
Chandigarh 1086 1986 1870 3779 0.04
102.09
Dadra and
Nagar Haveli 3102 3615 4416 4274 0.04
-3.22
Delhi 17120 25717 27351 41899 0.33
53.19
Daman and
Diu 7391 9378 941 729 0.01
-22.53
Goa - - 4656 4138 0.03
-11.13
Lakshadweep 97 56 34 27 0.00
-20.59
Mizoram *** 6314 16411 26265 0.21
60.05
Pondicherry 3725 3606 2680 1904 0.01
-28.96
India 10753985 13640870 11285349 12591667 100.00
11.58
Source: Census of India (Borrowed from V. V. Giri National Labour Institute, Noida)
Notes: Includes figures of Mizo district also which then formed part of Assam, Census could not be
conducted, Census figures 1971 in respect of Mizoram included under Assam Figures for 1991
and 2001 relate to workers for age group 5-14 years State-wise Distribution of Working Children
According to 2001Census.
In its perception, child labour exists heavily in the poorer and densely
populated states rather than economically well off states. It is observed that it is found
to be true in observation, but it is not mean that child labour is absent in rich and
prosperous states. However, the concentration of child labour is found in each and
every state of India varies from less than 1 to more than 15 per cent. It is evident from
the Table 4.1, that the state like U.P. contributing the maximum percentage of child
labour i.e. 15.31 as against of India‘s average of 11.58 per cent, followed by Andhra
Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and so on contributing the
65
share of 10.83, 10.03, 8.87, 8.46 and 6.81 per cent respectively. Except Andhra
Pradesh and West Bengal all the state comes into the category of BIMARU states.
Andhra Pradesh is no more called poor state now, and hence the decadal growth rate
of child labour was started to decline from 1981 to 2001, and in 2001 it fallen down to
-17.97per cent, that shows the development of state. Union territories, smaller states
and north eastern states show very low percentage of child labour i.e. from negligible
to two per cent, mainly because of lack of urbanization and industrialization.
Whereas, riche and prosperous smaller states and union Territories has a good record
of curtail child labour and restrict the flow of child labour in their areas.
Higher the incidence of child labour more could be the illiteracy, ignorance,
poverty and backwardness. Kerala, with its highest literacy rate in India, accounted
for the lowest percentage of child labour among big states that is 0.21 per cent, with
also one of the lowest decadal growth of child labour with -24.84 per cent.
Maharashtra has the lowest decadal growth of child labour in among all states, shows
-28.49 per cent, next -27.65 per cent is Tamil Nadu followed with Kerala. Sikkim
accounted for maximum of 193.38 per cent of decadal growth rate of child labour
followed by Haryana, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh and so on with 131.10, 102.09,
90.96 per cent respectively.
1.6 Current Scenario
Statistics on children‘s activities is provided through several sources. Most
important is The ILO and its Statistical Information and Monitoring Program on Child
Labour (SIMPOC), the World Banks Living Standard Measurement Surreys (LSMS)
and the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). All have been used to
quantify the numbers of child labour and/or analyse child labour. The International
Labour Organization has provided several data sets on child labour and even some
global estimates also prior to the establishment of SIMPOC, of which two figures
often are cited. One is that the number of child labourers globally is 78.5 million; the
other is that the number is around 250 million. The first figure originated in 1990,
when the ILO Bureau of Statistics published an estimate based on labour market data
adding up the number of economically active children in 124 of 213 countries and
territories (ILO, 1993). Being economically active or in the labour market is, as
mentioned above, not the same as being a child labourer. To be defined as
66
economically active, a person needs to have worked one hour or more in the reference
week or to have been searching for work. Work here excludes so-called nonmarket or
non-economical production or work, such as housework. This group of house-workers
is therefore grouped in labour statistics under the non-economically active population.
In addition it is worth noting that the ILO figure of 78.5 million for the incidence of
child labour came about only as a sum of the data available and was not extrapolated
to represent a true worldwide estimate. Moreover, the surveys on which the statistics
were based had different minimum cuts of ages. As a result, 70.9 million of the child
labourers were found to be between 10 and 14 years of age. That amounted to 13.7
per cent of the children in this age group in the countries surveyed (ILO, 1993). In
1995 the ILO published a new figure based on labour market surveys where working
children had been specially surveyed, including four so-called experimental surveys
(Ghana, India, Indonesia, and Senegal) still using, however, the number of
economically active children as a proxy for child labourers. Of children between ages
5 and 14, 12 per cent were found to be working full time and an equal number
working part time. Among the full-time workers, boys were found to outnumber girls
at a rate of three to two. Based on this 12 per cent estimate it was extrapolated that in
developing countries alone, at least 120 million children between the age of 5 and 14
are in full-time work; the figure climbs to 250 million if those in part-time work are
included (ILO, 1995). Only recently, at its Sixteenth International Conference of
Labour Statisticians in 1998, did the ILO discuss in more depth the concepts,
definitions, measurements, and classification of child labour. The conference did
recommend that work of a domestic nature (household chores) performed by children
in their own parents‘ or other relatives‘ home where they actually reside should be
included in the investigation of children‘s schooling and non-schooling activities.
This would identify those children who are working more than the number of hours a
day that may be considered as normal to learn common household chores and related
activities that is, child labourers. It was recommended, however, that the final data
compiled on these children should then be tabulated separately from the data relating
to children who are economically active (as defined in accordance with international
standards). The recommendation is that nonmarket work of a domestic nature in the
parent‘s or guardian‘s household would then be classified and tabulated into various
ranges according to the number of hours that such work was performed so that a
threshold could be established beyond which the activity could be deemed as
67
constituting child labour. This would bring important but not sufficient improvements
in the data on children‘s activities. Information on schooling, for example, would still
be missing. ILO took however a further important step by launched its Statistical
Information and Monitoring Program on Child Labour (SIMPOC) in January 1998 as
an interdepartmental program to help member countries generate comprehensive,
reliable and comparable quantitative and qualitative gender sensitive data on child
labour. The overall objectives of the SIMPOC include developing standard indicators
of child labour at the national level, and to measure the incidence, causes, and
consequences of child labour as well as the impact of intervention programs and
policies.6 Labour market participation rates for children are not only collected in
specially designed surveys, but in a set of different types of household surveys, many
of which serve as sources for child labour data.
A typical household report of World Bank‘s Living Standard Measurement
Surveys (LSMS), the main objective of the LSMS is to collect household data that can
be used to assess household welfare, to understand household behaviour, and to
evaluate the effect of various government policies on the living conditions of the
population. Accordingly, LSMS collect data on many dimensions of household well-
being including consumption, income, savings, employment, health, education,
fertility, nutrition, housing and migration. The information on children‘s activities is
collected through a labour module in which work activities are recorded based on the
standard definition of adult labour market participation mentioned above. In addition
the LSMS surveys record the child‘s current school enrolment status and sometimes
the hours spent at school, hours in labour market work, and hours in doing household
work. Normally it is only possible to divide children into four groups: children only
attending school, those combining school and labour market work, those only in
labour market work, and those neither working nor in school. Without additional
information on the hours spent on each activity and the potential health threat posed
by the work activities, it is not possible to extract the number of child labourers from
a LSMS survey. In addition the surveys often are based on a relatively small sample,
making it difficult to analyze characteristics present in only a part of the sample. The
fact that LSMS surveys mapping all types of children‘s activities have only been
undertaken in a handful of countries and seldom repeated makes this source of
information from the World Bank insufficient for extrapolating any worldwide
68
estimates on child labour. The point of departure for the third mains source of child
labour data was the World Summit for Children Declaration and the Plan of Action
for Children, which committed the governments who signed to monitoring progress
toward the goals and objectives set for the year 2000 including the elimination of
child labour. The Plan of Action called for each country to ―establish appropriate
mechanisms for the regular and timely collection, analysis and publication of data
required to monitor social indicators related to the well-being of children‖. UNICEF‘s
initial monitoring strategy was to collect existing data from various sources. But it
was recognized that current data on key indicators for assessing progress were lacking
for many countries. In response, UNICEF developed the Multiple Indicator Cluster
Survey (MICS) as a household survey tool for countries to adopt in order to fill data
gaps. The focus of the MICS surveys is on a number of child welfare indicators
including infant mortality, education, water and sanitation, malnutrition,
immunization, health, childbirth, birth control and child labour. The surveys include
questions on children‘s work in their own household (non market work). A global
estimate on child labour based on the MICS survey is not yet (summer 2001)
published. An additional source of data used to estimate child labour has been primary
school enrolment figures. Use of these data is based on the notion that child labour is
defined as work that interferes with primary education; hence all children who are not
in school may be considered qualifying as child labourers. A worldwide provider of
such data is UNICEF.
According to UNICEF statistics (UNICEF, 1999) something like 130 million
children of primary school age are not in school, equivalent to 21 per cent of the
children in this group. When data on economically active children has been used as a
proxy for child labourer one reason will be that this is the only available figures in
many countries However two kinds of discrepancy or measurement error relative to
the internationally agreed definition of child labour occur from the analysis of child
labour based on the data such as the labour market statistics from the ILO, the LSMS
living condition surveys. First, many children worldwide, especially girls, never start
school or drop out at a very young age. Most of them do not enter the labour market,
but perform domestic duties in their own households. Child labourers working in their
own household will be excluded from the statistics of working children as long as
standard labour market statistics draw a distinction between market work (economic
69
activities) and nonmarket work (noneconomic activities) in such a way that if a person
is undertaking activities like caring for animals and fetching water for irrigation, he or
she is regarded as working or economically active, while if a person is undertaking
activities like caring for siblings and fetching water for cooking, he or she is regarded
as not working or non-economically active (ILO, 1990). The second type of
measurement error goes the other way. A child above 12–13 years of age who works,
for example in the family shop or on the family land, but combines work and school
in such a way that school performance does not suffer and otherwise is not exposed to
dangerous working conditions, is not a child labourer according to the definition. But
this child will be recorded as economically active by the ILO survey methodology and
therefore included in the statistics. The two measurement errors can be summarized as
shown in Figure 1.4.
In countries with a low primary school enrolment rate the figures of
economically active children will tend to be less than the number of child labourers.
In countries with a high primary school enrolment rate the combined figure of
fulltime and part-time economically active children will tend to overestimate the
number of child labourers. If all of the 130 million children who are not in primary
Fig. 1.4
Sources: ILO, 1990
Economically active children
70
school worldwide are at risk of being child labourers, this equals approximately 21
per cent of the children in this age group. Compared with the 12 per cent of the
children in the same age group working full time in the labour market according to
ILO statistics, the number of child labourers working in the household could at
maximum be close to the number in the labour market. At the same time quite a
number of the part time economically active children found in the ILO statistics
cannot be regarded as child labourers. This should lead to a global figure of full time
child labourers somewhere between 12 per cent of the children (percentage of full
time economically active children) aged 5 to 15 and 21 per cent (the percentage of
children not in primary education). In addition to this will be part time child labourers.
The gender composition of the child labourers would most likely not be, as stated by
the ILO, a majority of boys, but would instead be mostly girls. This measurement
error is a significant problem, affecting results in both magnitude and gender
composition. Possible national action and international aid aimed at reducing child
labour may be put to work in a less than optimal way if it is guided by the present
statistics. The growing literature on child labour shows how these inadequate data are
used as a basis for both analytical and practical-oriented publications. The OECD, for
example, in its ―Trade and Labour Standard‖ survey of 1996, based its analyses of
child labour on the ILO figures of 78.5 million child labourers (OECD, 1996). The
problem with these data is to some extent debated in the child labour literature.
UNICEF‘s State of the World‘s Children 1997, focusing especially on child
labour, the ILO figures from 1990 are mentioned, but the report notes that, on the
basis of the definition of child labour, around 90 million children (mainly girls) in
India alone should probably be added to this figure (UNICEF, 1997). In the paper
―Child Labour, Issues and Directions for the World Bank,‖ the above-mentioned ILO
data on 120 million full-time and 250 million part-time workers form the basis for the
analysis. The researcher do, however, add: ―Differences in child labour between boys
and girls are marked by performance, as the boys are commonly in more visible types
of employment while girls work in unpaid household work‖ (World Bank, 1998). The
World Bank paper ―Child Labour, A Review‖ states: ―There is no systematic data
collection centre on child labour‖ (World Bank, 1995). This paper is one of several
where the authors‘ examine, in addition to data on economically active children, other
indicators like the number of children not going to school. Returning to the problem
71
of inadequate data for policy making, the ILO itself, at the International Conference
on Child Labour in Oslo in 1997, presented indicators of child labour in countries
where national surveys were conducted. Of children aged 5 to 14 years, 27 per cent of
the boys and 22 per cent of the girls were working. Working girls were more likely to
attend school than working boys, and the boys were working longer hours than the
girls and in more hazardous occupations (ILO, 1997). As shown above, these findings
are more the result of the way child labour is measured by the ILO than an actual
reflection of the situation on the ground. When presented as the basis for policy
making, as was the case at the Oslo Conference, they may therefore create confusion
and distort the real proportion of the problem.
Concluding Remarks
The term child labour means any work done by the child for profit. Child
labour is a derogatory term which translates into child exploitation and inhumanity.
According to social scientist, researchers, development workers, medical
professionals and educationists‘ child labour as harmful and hazardous to the child‘s
development needs, both mental and physical. The problem of child labour continues
to pose a challenge before the nation. Considering the magnitude and the extent of the
problem and the fact that it is a socio-economic problem inextricably linked to
poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, large family size, government policies, etc.
Government statistics say that there are 12.67 million child labourers in India that
accounts about 14 per cent of children between the ages of 5 and 14 years. Child
labourers are found in all activities like agriculture, mining, fishing and cattle rearing,
industries, workshop, domestic servants, newspaper vendors, shop and markets stalls
minder, car washers/watchers, cobblers scavengers and porters in the markets, bus
conductors, iron benders and metal workers, carpenters, tailors, weavers, barbers and
workers in the catering industries, etc.
72
References
Anker, R. and Menkas H. (1996), Economic Incentives of Children and Families to
Eliminate or Reduce Child Labour, ILO, Geneva, pp. 8-9.
Census of India (1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001), Government of India, New
Delhi.
Concerned for Working Children (1985), The Child Labour Employment, Regulation,
Training and Development bill, Bangalore.
Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences (1959), The Macmillan Company, New York, Vol.
3, pp. 412-13.
Ennew, J. (1997), Measuring and Monitoring Child Work and Child Labor, Paper for
the International Conference on Child Labour, Oslo, October.
Exploitation of Child labour (1984), Anti-Slavery Society for Protection of Human
Right, London.
Giri, V. V. (1965), Labour Problems in Indian Industry, Asian Publishing House,
Bombay, p. 360.
Gupta, M. and Voll, K. (1999), Child Labour in India: An Exemplary Case Study in
Voll, K. (ed.), Against Child Labour, Mosaic Books, pp. 86-96.
International Labour Organization (1972), Report IV of the 57th
Session of
International Labour Conference, Geneva.
— (1975), Director General, Geneva.
— (1983), Report of the Director General, Geneva
— (1990), Survey of Economically Active Population, Employment,
Unemployment, and Underemployment, An ILO Manual on Concepts and
Methods, Geneva.
— (1993), Statistics on Child Labour, A Brief Report, Bulletin of Labour
Statistics, No. 1993-3, Geneva, September.
— (1995), Child Labor Surveys: Results of Methodological Experiments in Four
Countries, 1992–93, Geneva.
— (1996a). ILO/CLK/! (Press Release) Child Labor Today: Facts and Figures,
Geneva, June 10.
— (1996b), Methodological child labour Surveys and Statistics, ILO‘s Recent
Work in Brief, Geneva, March.
— (1997), Child Labor: What is to be done, Geneva, October.
73
— (1998), ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and
its Follow-ups, Geneva.
Kaushik, B. (2003), The Economics of Child Labor, Scientific American Magazine,
October, pp. 23-36.
Khatu, K. K et al. (1983), Working Children in India, Operational Research Group,
Baroda.
Krishwar, M. and Vanita, R. (eds.) (1984), in Search of Answers: Indian Women’s
Voices from Manushi, Zed Book Ltd., London.
Kulshreshtha, J. C. (1978), Child Labour in India, Ashish Publishing House, New
Delhi, pp. 1-18.
Mishra, L. (2000), Child Labour in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Omoni, G. E. (2010), Another Dimension to Child Labour: Counselling Implications,
Edo Journal of Counselling, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 31-34.
Patterson, S. H.(1935), Social Aspects of industry-A Survey of Labour Problems and
Cause of Industrial Unrest, Mo. Graw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, p. 119.
Rao, U. (1994), Palamoor Labour: A Study of Migrant Labour in Mahabubnagar
District, Deshmukh Impact Centre, Council for Social Development,
Hyderabad, India.
Rehman, M. M. et al. (2002), Child Labour and Child Rights: A Compendium,
Authors Press, New Delhi, pp. 13-18.
Report of the Committee on Child Labour (1981), Ministry of Labour, Government of
India Press, Nasik, p. 7.
Sahoo, S. (2009), Why Child Labour as an Institution Persists?, Indian Institute of
Dalit Studies, New Delhi, pp. 6-7.
Stein, E. and Device, J. (1940), Labour Problem in America, Farrar and Rinehart Inc.
Publisher, New York, pp. 112-113.
Triparthy, S. K. (1989), Child Labour in India, Discovery Publishing House, New
Delhi, pp. 25-29.
UNICEF (1997), State of the World’s Children 1997, World Bank, 1995, Child Labor:
A Review, Policy Research Working Paper No. 1454, Oxford University Press,
Washington, D.C.
World Bank (1998), Child Labor: Issues and Directions for the World Bank, Social
Protection, Human Development Network, Washington, D.C.
