Is anti-child labor legislation anti-children?

by Gautam Bastian

“The task before the policy reformer is indeed overwhelming.  The situation provokes the prayer;
‘Good Lord, protect me from my friends; against mine enemies, I can defend myself.’”
- B.R. Shenoy

They deliver tea, make firecrackers, embroider intricate designs, manufacture bangles, and most of them don’t go to school.  Policymakers and moralists claim it is contemptible, yet these little laborers are holding out a slim lifeline to impoverished families in the hinterland, or are just trying to keep themselves from starvation.  The child laborer has a tough life, but those that loudly proclaim themselves to be his saviors may in fact be making his life more difficult.

Since 1933 there have been laws in force that ban or regulate child labor, including Article 24 of the Constitution [of India] that expressly prohibits it.  None of these provisions has been effective in curtailing its proliferation.  This invites quite a few questions, both about the nature of the problem and these legislative “solutions.”

A rigorous implementation of the laws could have some rather undesirable consequences.  Many services and products that people take for granted today would disappear or become far more costly; the corner tea shop would no longer deliver ‘chai’ at Rs. 2.  However, the greater cost would fall in the lap of child laborers and their families, who without work, would be pushed to the brink of starvation.

This is not to say, however, that everyone is worse off because of these laws.  Police officials regularly threaten child labor employers and are paid a ‘hafta’ in order to ensure that they don’t “see” the child labor units.  There are also the “socially aware” elites who want to see the “scourge” of child labor lifted from their civilized society and are placated by the existence of these laws.  Bertrand Russell points out (in his essay ‘The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed’) that insulated from the grave realities of deprivation and poverty, they harbor romantic notions of childhood and innocence.  This is especially poignant because India is quite similar today to the United States or Europe in the 19th century, where children played an important role as industrial laborers, and even today work on farms and in small businesses.

Repealing the ban on child labor, though politically difficult, would eliminate police rent-seeking behavior, decriminalize these marginalized industries, and grant social workers a chance to educate both employers and workers through health and literacy programmes, something currently hindered by the former’s misgivings, and reluctance to cooperate.  In an effort to draw neat distinctions between oppressor and oppressed, it is often forgotten that the entrepreneurs in many of these cases are also of meager circumstance, and are engaged in trades to which they were introduced as child laborers.  Eliminating the stigma of criminalization would allow them to legitimize their businesses and proudly contribute to the economy, rather than eke out a living on the margins.

Indeed, we must draw a lesson from the facts: despite strong opposition from policy makers and international organizations, child labor thrives.  The demand for and supply of child labor will only diminish as the economy develops and the value of education rises along with income.  It will then be possible and even preferable for children to spend more time at school and less at work.

Undoubtedly there are instances of cruel, unjust, and deceptive employers as well as harsh working conditions in hazardous industries.  But this is true for all workers, not just children, and the health implications are equally grave for all.  Only technological developments and an increase in capital intensity can ameliorate these circumstances, neither of which can be accomplished by this policy.  Forcing the poor into destitution, by demeaning their efforts to help themselves, is the cruel reality of ant-child labor legislation.

First published at www.aworldconnected.org