Journal of the Social Sciences October 2020 48(4) Children without childhood: An analysis of the pattern and incidence of child labour in India Barsa Priyadarsinee Sahoo Assistant Professor Alliance School of Law Alliance University Bangalore Abstract The paper aims to understand the ambiguity that lies in defining the concept of child labour and its effect on the nature and pattern of child labour in India. It primarily relies on the data collected from secondary sources. The census of India data and the NSSO 66 th round data (2009-10) on employment and unemployment in India have been used for the fulfilment of the objectives of the study. The dependent variable on child labour has been computed by the author for the analysis in the paper. The paper found that in the absence of a proper definition of child labour, the data that has been presented by different scholars vary which does not provide a clear picture on the estimation of child labour in India. The author argues that the NSS estimation on child labour only includes the economically active children whereas the author’s estimation shows that more children are engaged in household work and they should be included while estimating child labour in India. As far as gender aspect is concerned, the paper found that both in rural and urban areas, the participation of boys are more in economic activities, whereas the participation of girls are more in other activities. Keywords : 1.Child labour, 2.Child work, 3.Pattern, 4.Trends, 5.Work participation. Introduction Child labour is a complex developmental issue of any society which needs attention of the researchers from all areas. Though working of children is not a new phenomenon, but the exploitation and the experiences that these children go through while working, should be a matter of concern for all. However, the children were not always been exploited as they have been working with their families by helping them in their household activities. When the United Nations declared 1979 as the International year of the child, while exposing the magnitude and dimensions of the problem; emphasis started increasing on the protection of the needs and rights of these children. It was for the first time in 1985 that the issue of child labour attracted public attention and widened the debate in India (Burra, 1995). The growing concern of various international and national organisations fascinated the academicians. As a result, a large number of studies have been conducted since then to understand the situation and extent of the problem. However, defining child labour always creates controversy and debate because of the absence of any homogeneous definition of child labour. In simple terms, child labour is a combination of two words ‘child’ and ‘labour’. However, these two terms have different meanings that may vary across context, which makes the definition of child labour complicated. Again, children engage in a variety of work in different conditions and all the works done by them cannot be termed as child labour. Taking the economic aspect, Fukui (1996) defines child labour as any activity which directly or indirectly puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the children and forces them to contribute to the family economy (as cited in Bhukuth, 2008, p, 386). On the other hand, taking the developmental aspect of childhood, the International Labour Organisation (ILO, 2013) defines child labour as, “works that deprive children of their childhood, their potential and dignity, and that is harmful to their physical and mental development”. 2650 Journal of the Social Sciences October 2020 48(4) Apart from the presence of these different perspectives regarding the definition of child labour, there exists a debate concerning the use of terms like ‘child labour’ and ‘child work’. One group of scholars use these terms interchangeably, and for them, there is no distinction between these two terms. For instance, Neera Burra (2005, p, 1) defines child work as “all paid and unpaid work done by children for the household as well as for the market, whether it is full-time or part-time”. On the other hand, some scholars have argued that there is a need to distinguish between these two terms; otherwise the problem will appear much larger (Lieten, 2002). In the 1980s, ILO made a distinction between ‘child labour’ and ‘child work’. Child labour includes the form of works that are exploitative, harmful to children, which mainly takes place “outside the family” “for other” and is “productive”; on the other hand, child work is not harmful, and it is “reproductive” in nature, and it is practised at home for the child’s family (Liebel, 2004). Similarly, some scholars (Bhukuth, 2008; Lieten, 2006a, 2006b) consider child labour as interference in the childhood, which put an economic burden on the children and also a form of forced labour which is “bad” and unacceptable. On the other hand, child work is the activities that involve no exploitation, no interference in childhood and not even forced work but the acceptable form of work, i.e. “good work”. However, this distinction runs into problems when the question arises - who will decide which works are acceptable and which are unacceptable work and on what basis? Moreover, rather than distinguishing between child labour and child work we are distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable work. Second issue comes in analysing the data on child labour in India as the Census and National Sample Surveys (NSS) are two major data sources used for research on child labour and both of them do not have any direct question on child labour rather they have questions on employment and unemployment, work participation and other aspects pertaining to labour. The third issue which one encounters while estimating the number of child labour is the age criteria as this distinguishes child labourers from adult labourers. Defining a ‘child’ is as much contentious as child labour, and one cannot define child labour without defining the ‘child’. So, who is a child? When does childhood cease or begin? There is no single answer to this question. A whole range of philosophical debate emerges during the 20th century on the idea of child and childhood starting from Philip Aries (1962) to James and Prout (1997). Different legal documents define ‘child’ as per the requirement of the policy. Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. The age of majority may differ from country to country like it is 14 in Iran and Saudi Arabia, 18/19 for Canada, 18 for India, China and so on. The Indian Majority Act, 1875 says “every person domiciled in India shall attain majority on completion of 18 years and not before” (Bajpai, 2007). Other Indian legal documents like ChildLabour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and The Child labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 defines a child is a person, who has not completed his/her 14th years of age. Similar definitions have also provided under Plantations Labour Act 1951 The Motor Transport Workers Act (1961), The Apprentices Act (1961), The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, The Dangerous Machines Act (1983), Minimum Wage Act 1984, and so on. A distinct definition has given in the Factories Act (1948) as per which a child is a person who has not completed his 15th year of age. In the same way, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (2009) defines child between six to fourteen years. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (2012) defines a child as below the age of eighteen years. Hence, there is no single minimum age to define a child, and it varies as per the requirement of the law and the country. Therefore, conceptualising child labour is not an easy task. Starting from the definition of child to the debate between “labour” and “work”, there is divergence and dilemma everywhere. In order to understand the nature and magnitude of the problem, one needs to have a clear definition of child labour. In the absence of a proper definition, the estimates on child labours also vary from research to research. 2651 Journal of the Social Sciences October 2020 48(4) Objectives of the paper The primary objective of the paper is to provide a clear data on the incidence of child labour in India by computing the variable on child labour by using the National Sample Survey Organisation 66th round data on employment and unemployment which is elaborated in the methodology section. Secondly, to understand the nature and distribution of child labour in India. Thirdly, to understand the pattern and incidence of child labour in India across various social categories. Methodology The present study primarily relies on the data collected from secondary sources. The census of India data and the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) 66th round data (2009-10) on employment and unemployment have been used for the fulfilment of the objectives of the study. Sample NSSO 66th round (2009-10) provides questions on the employment and unemployment situation in India, which has been used for the construction of the variables. The stratified multi-stage sampling design was adopted by the organisation, and the number of households surveyed in this round was 1,00,957 (5,49,129 in rural areas and 41,828 in urban areas), and number of persons surveyed was 4,59,784 (2,81,327 in rural areas and 1,78,457 in urban areas). In the present survey 95,818 number of children in the age group of 5-14 years were included and 40,702 children were included in the age group of 15-18 years. Construction of variables The questionnaire, i.e. schedule 10 does not provide any direct question on child labour, hence for the analysis; an index has been made by taking the questions on the usual activity status of a person and the age. Some other variables have been constructed as well, keeping in mind the research objectives. Usual activity status for children (UPSS): Usual activity status has been computed by taking both ‘principal and subsidiary activity status’ which means any person who is employed in any usual principal activity and/or usual subsidiary activity are clubbed into usual activity status. UPSS is categorised as below1- Working children 2- Other Workers 3- Child non-workers Here, ‘working children’ include those who are economically active or engaging in paid work as per the definition of the NSS, and the ‘other workers’ are those who are engaging in the household work, begging, prostitution and not attending any educational institution. Finally, ‘Child non-workers’ include those who are attending an educational institution, are disabled or getting any remittance. Other variables which have been constructed for the analysis are Gender (male and female), sector (rural and urban), social group (SC, ST, OBC, General), religion (Hindu, Muslim, Christian and others). 2652 Journal of the Social Sciences October 2020 48(4) Results and discussion Firstly, the descriptive statistics have been performed to understand the distribution of child labour in India. In the second step, cross-tabulation and chi-square have been done to see if there is an association or not between the independent variables and the dependent variables. Descriptive Statistics The basic descriptive statistics are presented in tableI which shows the distribution of child labourers in India. We can see from table that, in India, around 4.2 million children are engaged in economic activity which is 1.4 per cent of the total child population. What is interesting is the percentage of the ‘other workers’ is higher than the percentage of the ‘working children’, which shows that more children are engaged in household and other activities as compared to the economically active children. Hence, when the working children were combined with the other workers, the percentage got even higher for India which stands at 8.5 per cent. Table I Child labourers in India: NSS 2009-10 Working Children 4223218 1371 1.4 Other Workers 20188373 6780 7.1 Working+ Other Workers 24411591 8151 8.5 Child non-Workers 197325856 87667 91.5 Total 221737447 95818 100 Source: Derived from unit level data of NSS 2009-10 The figures on child labour provided by the ministry of labour and employment (Government of India) does not include ‘other workers’ while calculating child workers, and some scholars like Lieten (1999) have argued that including these children will magnify the problem of child labour. However, as per the Right to Education Act (2009), these children should be at school and not at work, and if they are not attending any educational institution and engaging in some work it can be counted as child labour, whether it is household activity or begging or prostitution; because working at the expense of education can never be helpful for any child. Hence, when including working children with the other workers, the percentage of working children increased to 8.5 per cent, which is 7.1percent higher than the government figures. The reason for making these two categories is to find out the difference between the government figures and the present figures so that the problem of child labour can be seen clearly. Table II Distribution of children across activity status by age, sex and locality in India (Row Percentage) Locality Rural Sex Male Age 5-14 15-18 Working children 1.9 (636) 29.1 (3971) 2653 Other workers 6.6 (2174) 2.6 (362) Child non workers 91.4 (30010) 68.3 (9329) Total 100 (32820) 100 (13662) Journal of the Social Sciences Female October 2020 48(4) 5-14 15-18 Urban Male 5-14 15-18 Female 5-14 15-18 1.3 (370) 12.6 (1416) 1.4 (265) 22.1 (1879) 0.6 (100) 7.0 (507) 9.1 (2587) 26.7 (2999) 5.1 (952) 3.0 (257) 6.7 (1067) 20.3 (1477) 89.6 (25570) 60.8 (6834) 93.4 (17274) 74.9 (6379) 92.7 (14813) 72.7% (5292) 100 (28424) 100 (11249) 100 (18491) 100 (8515) 100 (15980) 100 (7276) Source: Derived from unit level data of NSS 2009-10. N =136520 Pattern and incidence of child labour in India Table II presents the distribution of children across different activity status by age, sex and locality in India. We can see that in rural areas, among 5-14 age group, 1.9 per cent boys are working. This means they are engaging in economic activities, whereas 6.6 per cent are engaging in other works. Among girls, 1.3 per cent is working, and 9.1 per cent are engaging in other activities. Also, in urban areas, 1.4 per cent boys in the 5-14 age group are working, and 5.1 per cent are engaging in other works; whereas 0.6 per cent girls are working and 6.7 per cent are engaging in other works. This shows that, among 5-14 age group, more children engage in other activities, than economic activities across gender and locality. Among the 15-18 age group, the picture is somewhat different. In rural areas, 29.1 per cent boys are working whereas 2.6 per cent are engaging in other activities. 12.6 per cent girls are working, whereas 26.7 per cent are engaging in other activities. In urban areas, 22.1 per cent boys are working, whereas 3 per cent are engaging in other activities and among girls 7 per cent are working whereas 20.3 per cent are engaged in other activities. This shows that in both rural and urban areas, the participation of boys are more in economic activities, whereas the participation of girls are more in other activities. This may be since boys join the labour market after 14 whereas girls engage in household activities. A chi-square test has been done to find out the association between sex, locality and the working children and the study found, the p-value is less than 0.05 which is significant, and that implies - gender and locality of a person have an association with his/her decision in joining the workforce. As far as gender is concerned, the table shows that the participation of boys are more in economic activities in comparison to girls; and participation of girls are more in other activities in comparison to boys. This pattern remains same across age. Analysis of child labourers is often related to the socio-economic background of a child, which includes the composition of the household, its size, caste, religion, type of household, monthly per capita expenditure, parent’s education, parents’ occupation and so on. 2654 Journal of the Social Sciences October 2020 48(4) Table III Distribution of children across social groups in India by age (Row Percentage) Social Groups Scheduled Tribe Age 5-14 15-18 Scheduled Caste 5-14 15-18 Other Backward Castes 5-14 15-18 Others 5-14 15-18 Working Children Other workers Child Non-Workers Total 2.0 (279) 21.4 (1275) 6.9 (954) 10.2 (610) 91.1 (12578) 68.3 (4070) 100 (13811) 100 (5955) 1.8 (300) 25.3 (1697) 9.7 (1606) 16.5 (1108) 88.4 (14576) 58.1 (3890) 100 (16482) 100 (6695) 1.4 (504) 19.4 (2964) 1.0 (285) 14.3 (1829) 7.6 (2815) 14. (2129) 4.9 (1396) 9.7 (1242) 91.1 (33777) 66.6 (10157) 94.1 (26662) 75.9 (9688) 100 (37096) 100 (15250) 100 (28343) 100 (12759) Source: derived from unit level data of NSS 2009-10. N =136391 Table-III presents the distribution of children across social groups in India by age. We can see that for 514 age group, though the percentage of children belong to the Scheduled Tribe remains higher among working children, but in case of other workers, the participation is more from Scheduled Caste. This means, in India, more children from Scheduled Caste are engaging in other activities; whereas more children from Scheduled Tribe are engaging in economic activities. In case of children in the 15-18 age group, more children from the Scheduled Caste are working, and the pattern remains same for the ‘other workers. It is not surprising that more children from Other or general caste group constitute the child non-workers, which means more children from general caste are attending an educational institution whereas more children from Scheduled Castes are working. Here also we found the age variation as the participation of children from 15-18 age group is more in comparison to the children from 5-14 age group. Conclusion This paper argued that, in the absence of a proper definition of child labour, the data that has been presented by different scholars vary which does not provide a clear picture on the estimation of child labour in India. The number of working children provided by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, based on Census 2011 and NSS 2009-10 data (43, 53,247 and 49, 83,871 respectively) vary a lot from the author’s estimation (1,01,28,663 census 2011 and 2,44,11,591respectively) of working children. The author found that the NSS estimation on child labour only includes the economically active children whereas the author’s estimation shows that more children (as compared to the figures presented by Ministry of Labour and Employment) are engaged in household work and they should be included while estimating child labour in India. As far as gender aspect is concerned, the paper found that both in rural and urban areas, the participation of boys are more in economic activities, whereas the participation of girls are more in other activities and the pattern remains the same across age. The social group a child 2655 Journal of the Social Sciences October 2020 48(4) belong seems to have a strong relationship with working children as the percentage of children belong to the Scheduled Tribe remains higher among working children. Though the sectoral distribution of child labourers differs from state to state, child labour is predominantly confined to agricultural sector followed by services and industry. References Basu, K., & Van, P. H. (1998), “The economics of child labour”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 88 No.3, pp. 412-42. 2. Bhukuth, A. (2008), “Defining child labour: A controversial debate”, Development in Practice, Vol.18 No.3, pp.385-394. 3. Burra, N. (2005), “Crusading for children in India’s informal economy”, Economic and Political Weekly, Dec., pp.5199-5208. 4. International Labour Organisation (ILO), (2013), “Marking progress against child labour: Global estimates and trends 2000-2012”, International Labour Office, Geneva. 5. International Labour Organisation (ILO), (2017), “Global estimates of child labour: results and trends, 2012-2016”, International Labour Office, Geneva.(Accessed on 25th November 2019). 6. Liebel, M. (2004), A Will of their Own: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Working Children, Zed Books, New York. 7. Liten, G. K. (2002), “Child labour in India: Disentangling essence and solutions”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. Dec No.28, pp.5190-5195. 8. ……., G. K. (2006a), “Child labour: The effect of public concern and neo-liberal policies”, in K. Satyarthi, & B. Zutshi (Ed.), Globalization, Development and Child Rights, Shipra Publication, Delhi, pp. 19-24. 9. ……., G. K. (2006b), “Child labour: What happens to the worst forms?”Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. January, pp.103-108. 10. NCPCR Position Paper (2008), Child Labour and Right to Education. National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, (accessed on 22nd November 2019) 1. 2656