nv a) - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/65723/12/12...frequent shaking make the...
TRANSCRIPT
:--V
gUu4f
AAt
- - -
Nv" A)
*• -
k .. ! I
I;
I
4;: 7
LEADING TO
I HTLD LABOUR
CHAPTER FIVE
FACTORS LEADING TO CHILD LABOUR
Analysis of the data further throws light on the circumstances
which facilitate the employment of children and the factors that induce
the children to get into the labour force.
LABOUR INTENSITY OF INDUSTRIES
The industries selected for the study, namely, cashew, beedi,
coir, brick, rubber sheet, shellac, and match are labour intensive. They
involve numerous tasks / processes. The tasks / processes require
intensive manual labour and hence these industries are labour
intensive.
CASHEW INDUSTRY
In the cashew industry, the following manual processes are
involved : (a) roasting, (b) shelling, (c) bormah drying, (d) peeling, (e)
sorting and grading, and (f) packing.
Roasting In this process, the raw cashew nuts are
roasted to make the shell brittle and loosen the kernel from the shell.
To facilitate the process of roasting, drums are used. The nuts are
fed into a drum and held in a slanting position. The drum is heated
so that the shell portion of the nuts is ignited and burnt.
Shelling: After roasting, the nuts are scrubbed using wood ash,
raw dust or sand and cleaned. Then the shells are broken into two
halves by one gentle hit. The shell cracks open and the kernel inside
is carefully removed.
Bormah drying : After shelling, the kernels are heated in a
drying chamber called 'bormah' for three to seven hours. This is done
in order to loosen the thin brownish skin (testa) adhering to them.
Peeling : The dried kernels, after removal from the drying
chamber, are subjected to peeling. The outer covering, that is, the thin
brownish skin adhering to the nuts (testa) is peeled. This is done with
the finger tips and nails.
Sorting and grading. After the removal of the thin skin (testa),
the kernels are sorted out into different grades as wholes, splits and
brokens.
Packing: The graded kernels are then packed in tin containers.
BEEDI INDUSTRY
The beedi rolling is a laborious process. The first step in the
activity is the preparation of beedi tobacco powder and leaves (tendu
leaves) for rolling.
The tendu leaves are cleaned and soaked in water for a few
hours to make them soft so that they may not break while being
rolled. The moistened leaves are cut into wrappers of specified size.
At the next stage, the tobacco powder is spread evenly down the
length of wrapper leaves and the leaves are rolled in conical shape to
become beedis. After this, the top broader ends of the beedis are
closed using the finger tips. Then the rolled beedis are turned in and
tied with a thread at the lower edge. The rolled beedis are dried in
sunlight or in smoke chambers for a few hours. The dried beedis are
then labelled and bundled.
COIR INDUSTRY
Coir making is also a laborious process. There are several
steps in coir making. First, the raw coconuts are dehusked and the
husks are split into eight to ten pieces so that they can be handled
easily. The husk pieces are then soaked in the tanks. This is done
with a view to making the tough husks soft and flabby. After six or
eight months, the soaked husks are taken out and the outer skin is
peeled off. The husks are then put in a machine called fibre -taking
mill and fibres are extracted from the husks. The fibres, thus
extracted, are combed and dried in sunlight. The sundried fibres are
beaten with a bamboo mallet. A few beats of the mallet with
frequent shaking make the fibres free of dust and pith. The fibres
thus cleaned of dust and pith are spun into rope.
Spinning is done by a 'raat' or spinning wheel. Three ply coir
yarns are prepared on the spinning wheel. To prepare the ply coir
yarns, two wheels are required. One is a stationary wheel and the
other, a movable wheel. The stationary wheel contains three spindles
ICC
set in motion through the centre of the wheel.. The movable wheel
contains one spindle only. From each spindle of the stationary Wheel,
slivers of coir are taken, hauled and twisted into ply coir yarns. Then
the twisted ply coir yarns are put together into the notch of the
spindle of the movable wheel. The movable wheel and the stationary
wheel are then rotated at high speed in opposite directions at a time
as a result of which the three ply coir yarns get twisted into one
strand (rope). Then the strand, thus formed, is hauled towards the
stationary wheel while the two wheels are still in motion. In this
process, the strand gets further twisted and becomes strong. When
the strand reaches a required length, it is cut and rolled into a coil.
BRICK INDUSTRY
There are several manual works involved in brick making. The
process commences with digging of clay suitable for brick making. The
clay that is dug out is stamped and seasoned for long hours. Then the
seasoned clay is watered and tempered. The tempered clay is
moulded into bricks in a process called brick cutting with the help of
wooden moulds. The clay moulds, that is, the wet cut bricks, are kept
in hot sunlight for about three days. After drying, the sun-dried bricks
are stacked in "window format" and made amenable for baking. Then
the dried bricks are transferred into hot kilns and baked. After a
week, the baked bricks are collected from the hot kilns.
RUBBER SHEET INDUSTRY
Rubber sheet making is also a multi—task process. First, latex is
collected from the rubber trees through a method known as "tapping".
Then acid is added to the latex so as to make it coagulate. The
coagulated latex is processed into rubber sheets with the aid of a
pressing machine. Then the rubber sheets are dried in sunlight for a
few days and packed into bundles.
SHELLAC INDUSTRY
In the process of shellac making also, several manual tasks
are involved. First, the raw materials, oyster shells are cleaned by
ridding them of the flesh adhering to them inside. The cleaned shells
are then drilled with the aid of needle and fastened together with a
thread to form different kinds of artifacts, called shellacs.
MATCH INDUSTRY
In the match industry, the splinters of albizzia or ailanthus tree
form the basic raw material. The timber of these trees is cross-sawn
into blocks first and then cut into strips. These are further sliced and
cut into splints of required length. To prevent afterglow, splints are
treated with ammonium phosphate or boric acid bath. They are then
dried and polished.
The match industry comprises two components. One is the
manufacture of matches. The other one is the manufacture of match
boxes. The process of manufacturing of matches out of albizzia or
ailanthus splinters begins with a step known as frame filling. In this
process, a frame made of iron rods and wooden scales weighing 4 kg
is used. It has iron rods on either side which hold together fifty two
scales of 32 cm x 2 cm. Each scale has 50 grooves with 54 holes
(approximately 2 cm in diameter) on either side. All these scales are
clamped one upon another by needling holes on both sides through
frame rods. The worker has to place one wooden stick in each groove
on each side. On the lower part of the scale is glued a thick and
soft cotton cloth tape which helps in holding back the sticks from
falling.
Once all the filled scales are clamped tightly, the splints are
stamped with a wooden plank for leveling. After this, the heavy
frames are carried to a different room, where the splints are
paraffined and heated on a hot plate. On heating, the molten wax
spreads over the sticks. Splint heads are then dipped in the ignitable
paste containing potassium chlorate, tetra phosphorus trisulphide, and
manganese dioxide. These chemicals are mixed in water to make a
paste. Splints are held upright in a metal tray for head coating. Then
the frames are placed either on wooden racks or dried in the sun.
In the process of match box making, wood (albizzia or ailanthus)
veneers are used. Boxes are filled each with 50 numbers of match
sticks and stacked in a wooden tray. A mixture of red phosphorus
and sand or glass powder is applied on the sides of each match box
to act as friction strips. These boxes are then labelled, pasted with
excise duty bandrolls, and packed into bundles.
As all these industries involve multiple manual activities in the
production, they need large amount of manual labour. As children constitute
a cheap source of labour, they are preferred by the owners of production
units. Hence in these industries, child labour is markedly found.
Sandhya Barge, Richard Anker and M.E. Khan (2004) state that
child labour is a product of the interplay- between the economic forces of
demand and supply. While demand emanates from the employers, in
response to it supply comes from the parents. Because of this interplay
between demand and supply, the children land in employment.
EMPLOYERS' REASONS FOR TAKING CHILDREN FOR EMPLOYMENT
Even though both adults and children are available in the labour
market, the employers' preference is for children. The Committee on
Child Labour set up by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under
the chairmanship of M.S.Gurupadaswamy in 1979, in its report (1981),
revealed a number of reasons as to why employers prefer children in
employment in their ventures. In employers' view, children have less
developed ego and status consciousness. They are also less afflicted by
feelings of guilt and shame. So, they can be put to non-status, even
demeaning jobs without much difficulty. Further, they are more active,
agile and quick, and feel less tired in certain tasks. They are more
amenable to discipline and control. They can be coaxed, admonished,
pulled up, and punished for defaults without jeopardising relations. Further,
they may do the same amount of work as an adult, but they cost less in
terms of wages and maintenance. The adaptive abilities of children are
much superior to those of adults. Being of an impressionable age, they can
be socialised by the employer according to his taste or demands of the
situation. In short, the child workers are a great source of profit, for
they generate a large surplus value for the employers.
The Committee further notes that there is another reason for the
employers to prefer children as workers for their industrial units as the
child workers are not organised on lines of trade unions which can militantly
fight for their cause. As such, children submit meekly and silently to the
excesses visited on them by their masters. A child worker at best is a lonely
worker who can afford no showdown with his / her employer. Employers
view child workers as not only innocuous but also innocent.
In a study conducted in Varanasi city on child labour in the year
1979 to provide information to the Committee on Child Labour constituted by
Ministry of Labour, Government of India, B.N. Juyal, Sudarshan Kumari, and
L.M. Chandola (1985) found that about 36 per cent of the employers
preferred child workers because child labour was cheap. For about 27 per
cent of the employers, easy availability of child labour was the main reason
for engaging child labour. As the children appeared to be more suited to the
jobs in hand for about 14 per cent of the employers, they were preferred.
About 6 percent employers preferred child workers because they felt that
it would be easy to handle the child workers. But about 17 per cent
thought that the children could be prepared for skilled work and used in the
later years as skilled workers.
In a study of working children conducted in Bombay in the year 1980,
Musafir Singh, V.D. Kaurva, and S.A. Khan (cited by Singh, 1990)
interviewed the employers of the working children and sought the reasons as
to why they went in for employment of children. About 31 per cent of the
employers reported that they employed children from poor families and this
they did considering their economic plight. They stated that the children of
poor families had no other alternative but to work for the economic
improvement of the family. Moreover, as they were easily available, they
were taken in as labourers. About 13 per cent confessed that the children
were most amenable to discipline. About 24 per cent stated that they
preferred the children as they were best suited for some types of jobs
which required soft and smooth handling of materials. About 9 per cent
employers openly admitted that the children were cheap. While about 21
per cent stated that the children were quick and efficient, about 2 per
cent believed that the children were honest.
In a study of child workers employed in carpet-weaving industry
in Varanasi district, Amar Nath Singh (1990) found that the employers
employed the children on the following considerations:
1. The children were easily available and could be put to any
work including domestic work (for 6% employers).
2. They were cheaper than adult workers ( for 18.5%
employers).
3. It was easy to put them in any job (for 15% employers).
4. They were more disciplined and it was easy to handle them
(for 7% employers).
5. They worked hard (for 33.5% employers).
6. They worked for long hours (for 11% employers).
7. They would not create much trouble (for 5% employers).
8. They did not organise trade unions (for 3.5% employers).
In their sample study of 125 employers employing child workers,
chosen equally from (i) construction work, (ii) domestic services, (iii) shops
and establishments, (iv) garages and workshops, and (v) hotels and
restaurants, K. Hanumantha Rao and M. Madhusudhana Rao (1998)
noticed that 64.80 per cent of the employers took children on the ground of
their suitability for the jobs in hand. Nearly three-fifths of the employers
employed children to reduce labour cost; more than half of the employers, to
extract more work; 28.80 per cent, on account of the docile nature of
children; and more than one-third of the employers, due to their sympathy for
children's families. Apart from these reasons, employers preferred children
on such considerations as that they could easily be removed; they would
not create industrial relations problems; and there was no need to pay
retirement benefits to them.
In a study conducted by the Centre for Social Research, Madras
in the year 1984 on the working conditions of children (N = 900)
employed in unorganized sector in Sivakasi, when interviewed, the
employers gave two reasons in the main for preferring child labour.
They were : (i) it was easy to manage children, and (ii) less wages
could be paid to them (cited by Singh, 1990).
In the present study, the employers interviewed (N = 46) give certain
reasons for the employment of children in their ventures. Their reasons are
presented in the following table.
Table 5.1
Employers' Reasons for Taking Children irto Employment*
Reason Frequency Per cent
Children are more docile and less troublesome 43 93.47
Children are active, agile, and quick
Low wages may be paid to them
Children will do the work finely and neatly
No need to oontribute to provident fund
Sympathy for children's family
37
80.43
33
71.74
28
60.87
22
47.83
10
21.74
(* Multiple Responses)
64
Fig. 5.1Employers' Reasons for Taking Children into
Employment
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency
From the table given above, it is seen that the most important
reason for the employers to prefer children for employment is that they
are more docile and less troublesome. In their view, any amount of work
can be extracted from the children and any rate of wage can be paid to
them for which there would be no protest from them. They are so docile
and meek that they would not indulge in bargaining for reduction in the
amount of work or for increase in the rate of wages, and above all they
will not organise trade union for it.
Sympathy for children's family
No need to contribute to provident fund
Children will do the work finely and neatly
U)CU
Low wages may be paid to them
Children are active, agile, and quick
Children are more docile and less troublesome
Another major reason advanced by them is that the children are more
active, agile, and quick in their work. They will not dodge their work nor will
they work slowly. Further they can work for longer hours.
Another reason for the employment of children is that they have
better eye sight and can sit in the same posture for hours together. Further,
they have special dexterity by having nimble fingers and flexible body with
which they can complete the work finely and neatly.
Low wage level is also another factor in the employers' scheme of
preferring children for work. In their view, children are so amenable that
they will accept low wage. For the level at which wages are paid to them
the adult workers will not be available. But the children can be employed at
the low level of wages. By paying them low wages, labour costs may be
kept at minimum and more profits can be obtained with less
investments.
A. Gani and M.A. Shah (1998) state that the employers employ
children for various reasons such as easy availability, cheapness,
easier supervision, less employee-employer problems and because
children, unlike adults, would not question the treatment meted out to
them. However, it is the cheapness that holds primacy over the other
reasons in child labour. As the child employment is cost effective and
yields maximum output at minimum wages, the employers prefer the
child workers.
M. Gupta also echoes the same view. Based on his study of
child workers in carpet-weaving industry in Jaipur, he asserts that the
principal reason for the employers' preference for child labour is that
the children provide cheap labour. They are an uncomplaining labour
force. They can be made to do any work, for any length of time, and
for any wage. They may be paid substantially lower wages than their
adult counterparts. This keeps the cost of production low ( cited by
Sharma, Kumar and Padmadeo,1993).
Jerome Davis concludes that it is because of the cheapness of
child labour that the employers prefer children in employment. The
dexterity and ability of children does not guide their consideration.
"Child labour exists not because children are more able workers, but
because they can be had for less money" (as quoted in Kulshreshtha,
1994:16).
The fact that there is no need to contribute to provident fund for
child workers also seems to be a motivating factor for the employers to
employ children*. As no provident fund facility need be created for them,
the employers feel that they could reduce such labour costs as provident
fund contribution for the workers and could save a lot.
Sympathy also finds a place in the scheme of employers' preference
for children. But this sympathy is not towards the children as pointed out by
* This reason was stated by the employers in beedi and cashew industries. Asthey have adult workers who are covered under the provident fund scheme,they refer to this factor for the employment of children.
the National Commission on Labour (1969). The Commission, in its study
of working children in 1969, found that the children in distress made a
sentimental appeal to them and out of the feeling of sympathy, they got
employment from the employers. In the present study also, the
sympathy factor finds a place. But it is not the sympathy for the
children, but for their parents that weighs with the employers. The
employers (N=10) state that as the adult workers in the employment roll of
their industrial units insist upon the employment of their wards by reference
to their economic hardships, they consider their request sympathetically and
agree to give employment to their children. They contend that even
though they are not obliged to pay heed to the request of the adult workers,
on sympathetic grounds, they accede to their request and give employment
to their wards so as to provide some economic succour to them.
But the sympathy may not be a guiding consideration for the
employers' 'gesture' towards the workers' children. As B. N. Juyal,
Sudarshan Kumari, and L.M. Chandola (1985) remark, the reason for the
employers' decision to employ the workers' children on sympathetic ground
is not all that altruistic. The employers benefit economically by employing
children. In the wake of employment of children, the labour costs are low;
the flow of production is uninterrupted and smooth; and profits are certain.
It is these economic benefits that act as guiding considerations for the
employers to employ the children.
PARENTS' REASONS FOR SENDING CHILDREN TO EMPLOYMENT
When there is thus a demand for child labour from the employers,
children find employment. However, mere demand from the employers
will not be sufficient for a labour situation to arise involving child workers.
There shall be a responsive supply to the demand. When there is no
response from the supply side, demand will be of no avail. In practice,
when there is a demand for child labour from the employers' side, there is a
response to it from the source of supply, that is, from the parents. When the
demand and supply thus come into interplay, child labour takes place.
In the interplay between demand and supply, the demand does
not always directly meet the supply. In other words, when the
employers have a demand for child labour, they do not directly
approach the parents for hiring the children. The parents themselves
approach the employers who are inclined to hire children, solicit them,
and procure jobs for their wards. Sometimes the parents receive
information about job opportunities for the children in the industrial
units through the children working there. Then they approach the
owners of the industrial units and ask for jobs for their children.
Sometimes the employers themselves who are in need of child
workers go round the villages and canvass for child workers. Then the
parents come into contact with them and get job opportunities for their
children.
In this study, in 65.04 per cent of the child labour cases, the
parents have reportedly approached their own and other employers and
solicited their favour for tle wage employment of their children. In 5.54
per cent of the cases, the parents have come to know about the job
prospects available for
in the industrial units through their own
children working there d then approached the employers for the
wage employment of their children. In 27.68 per cent of the cases,
the source of information about the job prospects available for children
in the industrial units has been the neighbouring child workers. In 1.74
per cent of the cases, the employers have visited the villages and
canvassed for child
The parents have then come into
contact with them and
their children to meet their need.
The parents respond to the demand of the employers and make
supply to meet it. their supply is made not because of the
demand , but for their reasons. The present study brings out the
reasons for the parents
ing their children to employment and the
following table presents thbse reasons.
Need to meeteducational expenses
of wards
Need to assist parentsin economic activity
(0C
Need to meet marriageCn
expenses of wards
Lack of interest ofwards in studies
Poverty
Table 5.2
Parents' Reasons for Sending Children to Employment *
Reason
Poverty
Lack of interest of wards in studies
Need to meet marriage expenses of wards
Need to assist parents in economic activity
Need to meet educational expenses of wards
Frequency
602
520
228
196
Percent
65.36
58.85
56.46
24.76
21.28
(* Multiple responses)
Fig. 5.2Parents' Reasons for Sending Children to Employment
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Frequency
Poverty
From the above table, it is seen that poverty is the major push factor
in child labour. In the poverty-stricken families, there is a "struggle for
survival". Owing to the lack of income, the poverty-stricken families
struggle for survival and when faced with such struggle, they send
their children to work to get extra income. As the employment of
children appears to be a quick and easily accessible way to get extra
income, the parents resort to putting children in work.
Thus, the roots of child labour "lie in abject poverty" (ILO
Report, cited by Singh and Sharma, 1999). This is confirmed by the
Committee on Child Labour also. In its report, the Committee states
that poverty is responsible for the prevalence and perpetuation of
child labour in India. In the poverty-stricken families, there is a dire
need to augment the income. So, the children are sent to work to
fetch supplementary income to the family. They are compelled "to
shed sweat of brow to keep the wolf [poverty] away from the door".
The parents are indeed not intent on sending their children to work or
seeing them work as labourers. The economic pressure forces them to
send the children to work and earn. To them, the gain obtained from
the employment of children may be small. But they cannot sacrifice
such "smaller gains of the present for the larger gains of the future,
as they do not have any surplus to sustain them. The income
accruing from child labour may be a pittance, but it plays a crucial
role in saving the family from the shipwreck" (1981 : 10).
No doubt child workers would not fetch substantial income to
the family. Their contribution to the family income would be of small
magnitude. A survey conducted by the New Delhi-based National
Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development in the late
1970s on working children in Bombay found that the economic
contribution of the child workers to the family income was of the order
of 23 percent of the family earnings (cited by Mishra, 2000). Studies
conducted by Sukhbir Kaur in Muktsar district of Punjab and by Rajan
Kumar in Chandigarh pointed out that the children's earnings
constituted only 30 per cent of the total income of the families (cited
by Gupta and Nagaich, 2000). Despite being apparently small, the
working children's economic contribution enthuses their families,
because as the Committee on Child Labour (1981) observes, it plays a
crucial role in saving the family from the shipwreck. It enables the
family to maintain an economic level of living. The families welcome
every rupee earned by the child while they are hard pressed for
money in the dire economic straits.
Thus, poverty appears to be the driving force for child labour in
the impoverished families. As the Committee on Child Labour notes in
its report (1981 : 9), in the impoverished families "the child, since his
very appearance in this world, is endowed with an economic mission".
Due to economic compulsion caused by poverty, the children have to
work at a tender age. As Elias Mendelievich observes, poverty
stands as "the driving force behind every case of child labour ...
(1979:9).
A number of studies also confirm the relation between poverty
and child labour. A study conducted by Jinesh Chandra Kulshreshtha
(1977) on child labour in Aligarh lock industries also shows that
poverty is the major factor of child labour. All the children covered in
the study were from the poor families whose monthly income was
around Rs. 1,000.
A study conducted on working children in Bombay by the
National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development in the
late 1970s (cited supra) brings out the relation between poverty and
child labour. In that study, around four-fifths of the children came from
the families whose average monthly income was less than Rs.300.
Further, of the 287 parent respondents covered in the study, 170
(69.2%) mentioned poverty-triggered economic compulsion as the major
reason for their sending children to work.
A micro-level survey of sample households having child
labourers conducted during the period of 1986 - 87 by M. Sumangala
and B.S. Nagarajan (1993) in Kamarajar (currently Virudhunagar),
Madurai, Anna (currently Dindigul), and Thanjavur districts in Tamil
Nadu reveals that poverty and inadequacy of income mainly force the
parents to send the children to work. Of the 400 parents interviewed,
50.6 per cent mentioned poverty and inadequate family income as the
reasons for their sending children to work.
In the present study, all the parents of child workers belong to
the income bracket ranging from Rs.1 ,000 to 4,000 per month. The
average monthly income of the parents comes to Rs. 1,737. If this
amount is related to the average size (numerical strength) of the
family (i.e., 6), the average monthly family income comes to Rs.280 (Rs.
279.71) per capita. Whether the average family income or the average
per capita income of the family is taken into account, by any
standard, the family income or the per capita income of the family of
the respondents does not come close to the point of adequacy.
Under this condition, it is no wonder that poverty constitutes the major
push factor in child labour in the area of study.
Need to Meet Marriage Expenses of Wards
About 56 per cent of the parent - respondents mention the "need
to meet marriage expenses of wards" as the reason for sending
children for employment among other things. Here by 'wards', they
specifically mean the daughters. In India, marriage of girls is more
expensive than that of boys. The parents , whether well-off or poor,
have to give their daughters at the time of marriage a minimum of 10
sovereigns of gold jewellery, utensils of worth not less than Rs. 5,000
and articles required for running the family.
The parental obligations do not end with provision of jewels and
other gifts to the daughters. Their obligations extend also to the sons-
in-law. The payment of dowry to the bridegroom is a principal
obligation of the girls' parents. Under the force of tradition, they have
necessarily to give dowry to the sons-in-law no matter whether they
can afford to pay it or not. The dowry is paid in the form of cash of
not less than Rs. 5,000 and at least 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments
to the bridegroom. Besides, they have to bear the expenses
connected with marriage.
In view of these onerous financial commitments towards
daughters' marriage, the parents have to mop up savings. The parent-
respondents of the study have no scope of larger savings in view of
the nature of job they do and the level of income they earn. To
make up this economic constraint, they send their daughters to work
and earn.
This tendency of sending the girls to work to meet their
marriage expenses appears to be common in the areas where child
workers, particularly girl workers, work. Swam inathan S. Anklesaria
Iyer, in his study of young girls in the match industry of Sivakasi,
found that as the parents had to give their daughters dowry when
they (the daughters) were given in marriage, in order to have
sufficient money for giving dowry and defraying other marriage
expenses, they sent the daughters to match works. They made the
girls work full-time and earn money (cited by Sharma, 2001).
The earning the daughters bring in by way of their work is no
doubt a pittance. Yet as it adds to the coffers of the family - albeit to
a little extent, it is welcomed by the parents. The earnings of the
daughters help the parents to meet their marriage expenses in a
small way.
Need to Meet Educational Expenses of Wards
About 21 per. cent of the parent - respondents report that they
made their children work and earn with a view to meeting the
educational expenses of wards. By the wards they refer hereto their
children who work on part-time basis. As the part-time child workers go
to school while attending work, the parents have to meet the
expenses connected with and incidental to schooling. So they send
their children to work and earn. The earnings they fetch are to be
used for meeting their educational expenses among other things. The
earnings the children fetch may not be much. Yet they supplement
the family income and help to meet their educational expenses to a
certain extent.
Lack of Interest of Wards in Studies
The Table 5.2 shows lack of interest in studies on the part of children
as another reason for the children being sent to work. This reason covers
only the full-time child workers, because it is they who work at the cost of
education.
The Table 5.2 shows that this reason is cited by about 59 per cent
parent - respondents among other things. Even though, unlike poverty, this
reason is not cited singly by the parent - respondents, it occupies a
substantial frequency in the list of reasons cited by the parent - respondents
for the employment of children.
1 -lic
Many studies discuss how the enrolment rate of children in schools
decreases and how drop-out rate increases as a result of employment of
children. In other words, they discuss education vis-à-vis child labour. But,
in this study, the responses of the parents throw light on child labour vis-à-
vis non-schooling of children. When the children do not go to school and
discontinue their studies, the parents think of an alternative to keep the
children somewhat busy and useful to the family. The alternative is
sending the children to work.
The Committee on Child Labour (1981) reports the reasons for non-
schooling of children. According to this Committee, as the schooling
facilities are scarce and inaccessible, children do not go to schools. Further,
as, in most places, the school presents a drab and dismal picture and
holds little attraction for the children, the children stay away from the
schools. Further, many children are forced to stay at home because their
parents cannot afford the prescribed minima of uniform, books and
stationery, etc. Schooling of children is eschewed by them also because it
not only touches their pockets but deprives them of the income that accrues
from child labour. Stagnation and wastage, comparatively low in lower
classes but high in higher grades, make poor children drop out of the school
system. The result of these situations is the employment of children. When
the children do not go to schools, they will remain idle at home. In
order to save them from the demoralising effects of idleness, the
parents put them to work. By this step, the non-school going children are
made somewhat busy and useful to the family in a way.
Elias Mendelievich in his book, "Children at Work" (1979) gives
certain reasons for non-schooling of children. He holds a view that
when the children are doing badly at school, the parents have no
other alternative but to take them out of school and put them in
some other useful activity. If they let the child continue to go to
school, it is likely that the child will encounter more difficulties during
his years at school. Hence, they withdraw the children from the school
and as an alternative, put them to work. 'However, in many cases,
the parents prefer to send the child out to work rather than to school,
either because there is no school within a reasonable distance of the
family home, or because they cannot do without the income of the
working child brings in, or because they cannot meet the costs of
sending the child to school, or again because they cannot see what
use schooling would be to him" (1979:9).
M. Sumangala and B. S. Nagarajan (1993), in their study of
working children in Kamarajar (i.e., Virudhunagar) , Madurai, Anna (i.e.,
Dindigul), and Thanjavur districts during 1986 - 87 period, noticed the
following reasons for the non-schooling of children.
1. The parents had different forms of economic difficulties as a
result of which children could not be sent to schools.
2. The parents found no scope for education to assure their
children better jobs in future and so they did not favour
education.
3. The school was far away from the place of residence.
4. The children had 'difficulties in studies' and so they did not
continue schooling.
5. Harsh treatment by teachers kept the children away from
schools.
For these reasons, when the children did not have education or
did not continue education, the parents put them to work as an
alternative.
In this study also, the relationship between non-schooling of
children and child labour is brought out by parents' responses. The
parents do not cite any reason connected with the nature of school
curriculum, or conditions of school, or non-availability of educational facilities
and materials for the non-schooling of children. They cite the lack of
interest in educational pursuit on the part of the children for their non-
schooling. In their view, for some reasons, the children show no interest in
studies or their interest in studies sags at some stage. Under this
condition, they stay away from the school or withdraw themselves from
the school. The net effect of this deviance is non-schooling. When the non-
school going children remain idle at home without any purpose of action and
do nothing, the parents think of an alternative for saving them from the
demoralising effects of idleness. They put them into work so that they
may be occupied and also useful to the family in a way.
In their study of "Child Labour in Carpet Industry of Kashmir",
A. Gani and M.A. Shah (1998) also noticed the lack of interest of
children in studies as the main reason for non-schooling and the
resultant employment of children. They found that when the parents
felt that their children were befouling themselves in the streets instead
of attending the schools, they put them in carpet weaving, best suited
to their age.
Need to Assist Parents in Their Economic Activity
This reason is cited by about 25 per cent of the parent -
respondents. These 25 per cent of the parent - respondents are the
mothers of the child workers. They are all engaged in beedi, shellac
and match works. Together with them, their children also work.
In beedi, shellac, and match works, the women employees are
given a quota of work for a given rate of wages. Wages due are
paid to them only upon the completion of the quota. The quicker they
work, the more output they can turn out and the more income they
can earn. Therefore, the women employees take the children as the
helpers to them to complete the quota of work and earn the wages
given for it.
In beedi works, wages are paid for a specific amount of output.
For every 1,000 pieces, a sum of Rs. 52 - 62* is paid as wage. As
soon as the output is reached, the wages due are paid. So the
women workers take the children to assist them to complete the quota
and to earn due wages.
* The variation in wage rate is due to the differentials in the wage policy of thebeedi companies.
In shellac works, different rates of wages are paid depending
upon the kinds of shellac items. For shell chain, Rs. 2 are paid per
dozen; for half-door shell curtain, Re. 1 per piece; for full - door
shell curtain, Rs. 3 per piece; for shell lamp shade, Rs. 2 per piece;
for small-size shell peacock mirror, Rs. 5 per piece; and for big-size
peacock shell mirror, Rs. 12 per piece. The wage amount goes up
when more shellac items of specific kind are turned out. In the case
of shellac chain, in a day ordinarily 10 to 15 dozens can be turned
out ; in the case of half-door shell curtain, 20 to 30 pieces; in the
case of full-door shellac curtain, 5 to 10 pieces; in the case of shell
lamp shade, 10 to 15 pieces; in the case of small-size shell peacock
mirror, 4 to 6 pieces; and in the case of big-size shell peacock
mirror, 2 to 3 pieces. So in order to turn out more shellac products of
a specific kind, the women workers employed in shellac work take
their children to help them in their work so that they can produce
more pieces and thereby earn more.
In the match industry, there are four kinds of work involved.
They are : (i) frame filling, (ii) box making , (iii) box filling, and (iv)
packing. For each of these works , wages are paid in accordance with
the number of pieces turned out. In frame filling, the workers have to
place the match sticks in each groove in the frame. There are 2,700
holes in a frame. If 2,700 match sticks are placed in all the 2,700
holes, the frame-filling task is completed. For filling of one frame, Re.
1 is paid as wage.
For box making, Rs. 8 are paid per 1,000 trays and 60 paise
per gross (that is, 144 numbers) of outer box. For box filling, Rs. 2 are
paid per gross.
In the case of packing, 10 match boxes are packed into one
small bundle. Then 60 of such bundles are packed into one big
bundle. For each such big bundle, Re. 1 is paid as packing wage.
In each of these kinds of match work, since more wages will
be available when more pieces are turned out, the women workers
take their children (particularly daughters) as helpers to them in order
to make higher turnout and thereby get more wages.
CHILDREN'S REASONS FOR GOING TO WORK
While the parents have thus their own reasons for sending /
taking children to employment, the children have their own reasons to
go to work. Their reasons are furnished in the following table.
Table 5.3
Children's Reasons for Going to Work*
Reason
Poverty
Large family
Need to meet marriage expenses
No interest in studies
Need to meet educational expenses
Need to supplement family income
Irresponsible drunken father
Adult unemployment
Death of father
Parents' indebtedness
Frequency
537
482
477
242
212
204
185
107
84
24
Per cent
58.31
52.33
51.80
26.28
23.02
22.15
20.09
11.62
9.12
2.61
(* Multiple responses)
Parents' indebtedness
Death of father
Adult unemployment
Irresponsible drunken fatherCl)
Need to supplement family incomeU)ca
Need to meet educational expenses
No interest in studies
Need to meet marriage expenses
Large family
Poverty
Fig. 5.3Children's Reasons for Going to Work
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Frequency
The above table shows that children spell out more reasons
for their employment than their fathers do. Poverty of the family, large
family, need to meet marriage expenses, no interest in studies, need
to meet educational expenses, need to supplement family income,
irresponsible drunken father, adult unemployment, death of the father,
and parents' indebtedness are cited by them as the reasons for taking
up employment.
Of the reasons cited by child worker - respondents, poverty
stands first with the highest frequency. In a number of studies
conducted on child labour involving the child workers as respondents,
a number of reasons are reported for children's employment. Among
them, poverty is the foremost factor. In a study on the working children
in Hissar, Himachal Pradesh in the year 1982, the majority of the child
workers reported that due to acute poverty of the family, death and
chronic illness of the earning members and lack of other sources to
supplement their family income, they joined the labour force. Among
these factors, poverty occupied the prime position (cited by Singh,
1990).
In a study conducted on the working conditions of children
employed in unorganized sector in Sivakasi by the Madras - based
Centre for Social Research in 1984 (cited by Singh, 1990), child worker
- respondents referred to poverty, absence of earning member in the
family, and parental compulsion as factors that pushed them into
employment. However among them, a majority (95%) reported that
due to economic compulsion caused by poverty in the families, they
had to take up employment. About 6 per cent of respondents stated
that though they were interested in continuing their studies, they were
forced by their parents to work and earn in order to support their
families or to supplement their family income. Some child workers
stated that due to the absence of earning members in the family, they
had to take up employment to provide economic support to the family.
In a study conducted by the students of the Madras School of
Social Work in 1970s in Madras, Madurai, and Coimbatore, the child
workers referred to poverty and death of the father or guardian as
the main reasons for their employment. Around three-fourths of them
(72%) reported that they took up employment to supplement the
family income owing to the poor financial condition of the families
(cited by George, 1977)
As the children are directly experience poverty and suffer from
its pangs, they are aware of the economic pressure faced by the
family to augment the income. So, they willingly accept employment.
Their earnings are no doubt a pittance. Yet they know that they
should to some extent help to reduce the poverty faced by the family.
The child workers refer to large family, need to meet marriage
expenses, need to meet educational expenses, need to supplement
family income, irresponsible drunken father, adult employment, death of
father, and parents' indebtedness as the reasons for their having
taken up employment. All these factors actually light up the main
reason, that is, poverty. Poverty lies behind all these reasons. If the
children have to work because of large family, it means that the
current earnings are not sufficient for the family. Similarly, the
conditions warranting need to supplement the family income, need to
meet marriage expenses, and need to meet educational expenses are
the byproducts of insufficiency of family income, that is, poverty. The
factors of adult unemployment, irresponsible drunken father, and death
of father are actually not independent factors, for the other side of
these factors is poverty of the family. The death of father means
death of the bread winner. Adult unemployment means that the adults
who are to provide economic support to the family remain unemployed
probably due to want of job, disease, disability, or old age and make
no contribution to the family fund. Irresponsible drunken father means
that the father who has to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining
and supporting the family is squandering the scarce family funds on
his drinking bouts, resulting in depletion of the family income and in
poverty.
Even the parents' indebtedness referred to by the children is
not an independent factor. Beneath it lies poverty as motive force. At
times the parents are driven by the economic necessity to borrow
money from others. As their employers are easily accessible, they
approach them and borrow money. As they need extra money to
discharge their debts, they put their children in employment under their
own employers or other employers to mobilise the extra money.
About 27 per cent of the child worker - respondents admit that
since they have no interest in educational pursuit, they have joined
the working force. Actually, they have not joined voluntarily the labour
force as an alternative for having to remain idle at home due to non-
schooling. It is the parents who provide an alternative to such children
by putting them in employment in order that they should not go idle
and become a nuisance to the family at one stage or another. By
such an alternative arrangement, the non school-going children do not
stay idle at home, but happen to be active and in a way
economically helpful to the family with the result that the family
benefits economically from their work and earnings.
COMPARISON
Even though the parents and the working children state reasons
separately for child labour, there is no significant difference between
them in the identification of factors leading to child labour. The
ANOVA test shows that the parents and the children have the same
view in stating the reasons for child labour. As the P value (0.52533)
for the opinion of parents and children for child labour is greater than
the level of significance (cx = 0.05), it indicates that the parents and
children have the same view regarding the reasons.
Poverty appears to be the foremost reason in the point
estimation among both the working children and their parents. It is
followed by the need to meet marriage expenses in the family and
lack of interest in studies in the point estimation. The following table
of analysis of point distribution shows the point estimation of the
various reasons cited by the working children and their parents.
Table 5.4
Point Estimation of Reasons Cited by Working Children andTheir parents
Working Parents Total Percentage RankNo Reason Children
(1) points calculated scored(2)
1. Poverty 537 602 1,676 45.49 1
2. Large family 482 -- 964 26.17 4
3. Need to meet477 520 1,474 40.01 2marriage expenses
4. No interest in studies 242 542 1,026 29.21 3
5. Need to meeteducational expenses 212 196 620 16.83 5
6. Need to supplement 204 -- 408 11.07 6family income
7 Irresponsible drunken 185 -- 370 10.04 7father
8. Adult unemployment 107 -- 214 5.81 9
9. Death of father 84 -- 168 4.56 10
10. Parents' indebtedness 24 -- 48 1.30 11
Need to assist11. parents to complete -- 228 228 6.19 8
the work
From the above table, it can be seen that the reasons, Sl.No. 1
(Poverty), SI.No. 3 (Need to meet marriage expenses in the family),
and SI. No. 4 (No interest of wards in studies) command first three
ranks. This shows that these three reasons are highly influential and
well accepted by both working children and their parents for child
labour.
CHAPTER SIX
I
Will Llv^"li^
WG €N'EJITflib
CHID RERS #