Logout
Welcome
Edit News Article
Title
*
Select Subject
Working Conditions
Wages
Construction workers
Bonded labourers
Welfare schemes
Social security
Unorganised sector workers
Minority communities
Id cards for migrant workers
Trafficking
Slum dwellers
Seasonal workers
Contract system of labour
Employment
Child labour
Children of migrant workers
Trade union
Migrants Crisis
Demonetisation
None
Description
Indian government thinking has been hugely influenced by the Mahalanobis model of central planning. Apart from the deleterious impact it had on overall economic growth, the state-led model focused on building and developing a higher education superstructure. The state sponsored and subsidized institutes of academic excellence such as IIT and IIM while neglecting primary education. Among the many devastating outcomes of these misconceived priorities was the not just the intractable problem of illiteracy but the widespread employment of children. Strictures against child labour were first included in the Constitution under Article 24 that specifically prohibits the employment of children less than 14 years of age in any factory or mine or any other hazardous occupation. Over the years, Parliament sought to strengthen these laws but there were always loopholes that allowed the employment of children. A 2004 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) is revealing: It estimates that ending child labour in developing nations would cost $760 billion but the resultant benefits to the economy would be more than six fold, about $5.1 trillion. Despite overwhelming economic and humanitarian evidence that child labour does little to alleviate poverty but actually perpetuates it, it has persisted in India. Many influential voices hold that poverty forces children to find employment in order to augment family incomes. As such, there may be an inbuilt elite bias against primary education; in fact, the state has been urged by such influentials to consider an alternative system of informal education for children in their workplace. Myron Weiner, an eminent American political scientist, called this “mistaken egalitarianism.” This notion that poverty forces children to work remained intact when, in 1986, Parliament passed the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. The chasm between intent and outcome is evident in the use of the word “regulation.” As such, the original bill accepted there were circumstances in which child labour can be permitted by law under certain regulations. This comes, according to Weiner, “perilously close to notions of slavery,” the view that “the child is the property of the parent, to be used as he parent sees fit.” That could be why the 86th Amendment was tagged to Article 21 on the right to life and liberty. In the latest tweak to the problematic issue of child labour, the government brought in an amendment to the 1986 Act. The laudable objective is to bring Indian law closer to global standards codified in the protocols set out by the International Labour Organization, in particular: Convention 184 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour and Convention 138 on the minimum age.
Keywords
India, government, Mahalanobis model, central planning, state-led model, subsidy, illiteracy, prohibition, International Labour Organisation
Upload Image
(only .gif or .jpeg files or .x-png files. Max upload size is 20MB)
Source
Display in both Policy and News
No
Yes
Enter Video url/Embed Code :
Url
Embedded Code
External Link URL
Status
Active
Inactive
Show On Home Page
Yes
No