In Boot Polish, the breadwinner of the family is a little boy, who shines shoes and takes care of his aged grandparents and little sister. Who can forget Mithun da’s famed dialogue “Madam, mujhe koyi paisa pasand nahi hai jis mein mere pasine ka mehek nahi aata (I do not like money that does not smell of my sweat and toil)” or Amitabh Bachchan’s “Paisa mat phenko, mai bheek nahi maang raha hoon (Do not throw my money at me, I am not begging)”. In fact, Bollywood was once rife with depictions of young orphaned boys who begin working at an early age and grow up to be the noble hero of an epic drama.
Now, however, they all go to fashionable US-type schools where basketball and Shakespeare are taught and everyone dances with perfectly choreographed steps. Unfortunately, it does not mean our realities have changed, but that cinema has in fact become more about aspiration. The common man is now being inspired to reach for elitism, which means movies are further divorced from the hard truth—over 60 per cent of our children do not even go to school, let alone candy-floss ones shown in the average Bolly flick.
Cinema aside, this brings me to the point of child labour and the argument around the new child labour amendment. In a most unprecedented move, the Union Cabinet has proposed to amend the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which prohibits children below 14 to be employed in any commercial enterprise, and allow children to work in family businesses. The argument around this is not a simple one, the debate in fact has gotten even more complex.
Whether we would like to acknowledge it or not, many children in our nation are forced to work. In fact, in agrarian families, where an extra hand to the plough is always welcome and the concept of going to school is something that the city-bred do, the average age of children working is after six. Girls begin to look after siblings and take on housework sometimes at the age of five, although this is never counted as work. It is perhaps after taking these realities into account that the amendment of the child labour act was proposed by the Cabinet.
One cannot, however, always assume that working in the family business is without abuse or ill-treatment. It is important to monitor these ‘family’ spaces as well. Many boys working at their father’s or uncle’s dhabas along the highway are raped and abused by truckers who have been on the road and away from family values. One also has to take into account that children in family business are often not even paid, and it is only later when they become aware of their rights as workers that they are able to demand it.
Children, especially young boys working in family businesses of carpet-making, weaving or bangle-making, also suffer severe forms of tendonitis, juvenile arthritis, premature vision deformities and other such ailments that are the product of overworking.
Hence, while the amendment seeks to strike a balance between the need for education for a child and the reality of socioeconomic conditions, it has to insist with the same vehemence that children made to work at an early age are treated humanely, even within families.
We are aware that children work in hazardous matchbox and firecracker factories, some even in sweatshops under sub-human conditions, for a pittance. These are considered ‘family businesses’ in many instances. Under current laws, child rights activists have argued that the new norms could be used to deny education to the girl child who will be stuck with household work, without pay which her male siblings at least have access to.
Furthermore, it sends out mixed messages to a society that is desperately trying to stamp out child labour. We know that despite the 1986 Act, there are employers who flout the law with no apologies and meet none or little punishment for ill-treating child employees. Passing an amendment like this will only impact the endeavour and dream of a labour-free childhood negatively.
In Boot Polish, the breadwinner of the family is a little boy, who shines shoes and takes care of his aged grandparents and little sister. Who can forget Mithun da’s famed dialogue “Madam, mujhe koyi paisa pasand nahi hai jis mein mere pasine ka mehek nahi aata (I do not like money that does not smell of my sweat and toil)” or Amitabh Bachchan’s “Paisa mat phenko, mai bheek nahi maang raha hoon (Do not throw my money at me, I am not begging)”. In fact, Bollywood was once rife with depictions of young orphaned boys who begin working at an early age and grow up to be the noble hero of an epic drama.
Now, however, they all go to fashionable US-type schools where basketball and Shakespeare are taught and everyone dances with perfectly choreographed steps. Unfortunately, it does not mean our realities have changed, but that cinema has in fact become more about aspiration. The common man is now being inspired to reach for elitism, which means movies are further divorced from the hard truth—over 60 per cent of our children do not even go to school, let alone candy-floss ones shown in the average Bolly flick.
Cinema aside, this brings me to the point of child labour and the argument around the new child labour amendment. In a most unprecedented move, the Union Cabinet has proposed to amend the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which prohibits children below 14 to be employed in any commercial enterprise, and allow children to work in family businesses. The argument around this is not a simple one, the debate in fact has gotten even more complex.
Whether we would like to acknowledge it or not, many children in our nation are forced to work. In fact, in agrarian families, where an extra hand to the plough is always welcome and the concept of going to school is something that the city-bred do, the average age of children working is after six. Girls begin to look after siblings and take on housework sometimes at the age of five, although this is never counted as work. It is perhaps after taking these realities into account that the amendment of the child labour act was proposed by the Cabinet.
One cannot, however, always assume that working in the family business is without abuse or ill-treatment. It is important to monitor these ‘family’ spaces as well. Many boys working at their father’s or uncle’s dhabas along the highway are raped and abused by truckers who have been on the road and away from family values. One also has to take into account that children in family business are often not even paid, and it is only later when they become aware of their rights as workers that they are able to demand it.
Children, especially young boys working in family businesses of carpet-making, weaving or bangle-making, also suffer severe forms of tendonitis, juvenile arthritis, premature vision deformities and other such ailments that are the product of overworking.
Hence, while the amendment seeks to strike a balance between the need for education for a child and the reality of socioeconomic conditions, it has to insist with the same vehemence that children made to work at an early age are treated humanely, even within families.
We are aware that children work in hazardous matchbox and firecracker factories, some even in sweatshops under sub-human conditions, for a pittance. These are considered ‘family businesses’ in many instances. Under current laws, child rights activists have argued that the new norms could be used to deny education to the girl child who will be stuck with household work, without pay which her male siblings at least have access to.
Furthermore, it sends out mixed messages to a society that is desperately trying to stamp out child labour. We know that despite the 1986 Act, there are employers who flout the law with no apologies and meet none or little punishment for ill-treating child employees. Passing an amendment like this will only impact the endeavour and dream of a labour-free childhood negatively.
archanadalmia@gmail.com
Dalmia is chairperson of Grievance Cell, All India Congress Committee