:--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 #