Skip to main content

Child labour & Exploitation in India by Mayurakshi Sarkar

 Child labour & Exploitation in India

1 in every 10 worker in India is a child; a child who is guaranteed protections under the Indian Law, and guaranteed an education and mid-day meals, till the age of 14.

The sight of a chotu running to fetch you a chai on the train platform or at your local tea stall, isn’t much of a sight in India. In fact one could almost say that the chotu has become so ubiquitous, that him not being there would be a bit confusing for some of the regulars. It has been normalized and has become an internalized personality trait of the larger Indian society, which tacitly continues to support the chotu culture at the tea stall and within the home. 
In fact it’s become so natural that, when engaging with some of our more conscientious friend, both chotu and we, know the routine to pull off. You casually ask chotu how old he is as he cleans your table, and he, with a pail the size of his torso, responds saying he’s 18. His gangly limbs and prepubescent face are a dead giveaway, but now that he’s said he’s 18, there’s not much you can do is there? 

According to the UNICEF, there are about 10.1 million children employed in child labour in India today. That amounts to approximately 13% of our workforce, or in other words, 1 in every 10 worker in India is a child; a child who is guaranteed protections under the Indian Law, and guaranteed an education and mid-day meals, till the age of 14.

India has been trying to combat this blight since before it became a republic, with the passing of the Employment of Children Act, 1938. While primitive, it was evident that even under an extractive colonial regime, it was understood that the use of children in the production process was anathema. Post–independence, the Factories Act, 1948 and the Mines Act, 1952, banned the practice of using children below the age of 14 and 18, in their respective production processes.
This set the tone for the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986 which prevents the employment of children below the age of 14 years in life-threatening occupations identified in a list by the law and finally the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of children Act of 2000 made the employment of children a punishable offence.
The JJ Act came into force shortly after India ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), in 1992 and made the offence punishable with imprisonment from three months to one year or with fine no less than INR 10,000–20,000 rupees or with both.
The Right to Education Act, passed in 2009, was supposed to go beyond punishing people for child labour to creating a conducive environment for building the capabilities of all Indian children, so that they could have a complete education and enter the workforce out of choice and not compulsion. However, even after all this, child labour continues to be the norm in a lot of industries. 



With the onset of urbanization, while child labour has fallen in the rural regions, it has only increased in the urban, and child labour numbers have climbed from 1.3 million in 2001 to 2 million in 2011. More worryingly, these numbers (as terrible as they are) might not paint the whole picture, as millions of children labourers remain invisible, employed in homes as domestic help, and paid wages that are nowhere near those stipulated by Indian Law
Work here continues, to be gendered with the UNICEF noting that girls are often deployed in household domestic labour while boys are sent out to the fields and into the mines. A study by Oxfam further corroborated these findings, in their study of the sugarcane farmers of Uttar Pradesh, where it was found that labour contractors were selling children as labour to small scale farmers, because they were cheaper to feed and didn’t need to be paid. 
In several cases, child labour has looked like modern day slavery, with children only being fed enough for their subsistence and receiving little to no other compensation for their work. Children spend their lives working for the same household, with work hours only increasing as they grow older, and as a result grow up stunted, and with health problems.

All said and done the internalization of the chotu is not very different from the normalization of the child worker in the mines. In both circumstances, older, more privileged adults decide to exert their control over the present and future of a child, signing away their Right to a brighter tomorrow by funding an institution that profits off of their destitution. 
Unfortunately, no amount of legislation passed from the halls of Delhi, is going to kill this culture and the process needs to start at our own homes and tea stalls. Choosing to educate children and cutting off support from organisations and institutions that deploy child labour is an important first step and while one could go on and list out several more, considering our history with the phenomenon, let’s just take it from there. 

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more