How important is the issue of child labour in India?

Ans:

India has the dubious distinction of having the largest child labour force in the world. It is estimated that 1/3 of the world’s working children are in India. The implications of this situation are enormous. It means that nearly 50% of the children in this country are deprived of their right to childhood and destined to end up as illiterate workers with no opportunity to fulfill their true potential. No country in this situation can hope to achieve anything significant.

What is the estimate of child labour in India?

Ans:

This pretty much depends on how you define child labour. It is estimated that there are about 2 million children working in the so-called hazardous industries. If one were to define child labour as wage earning work alone the official estimates are around 17 million. Independent estimates, working on roughly the same definition have put the figures at around 40 million. However, if one were to define all children out of school as child labour the figure would be closer to 100 million.

3.

One is aware of child labour in the ‘hazardous industries’ like carpet weaving, glass factories, match factories and so on but where is all this other child labour located?

Ans:

This is exactly the issue. One reason why policy makers are so casual about these figures is that they hold relevance only to the extent that they think they need to do something about it. If policy makers decide that only children in hazardous industries should be dealt with they just aren’t interested in any child labourer outside the 2 million groups. The reality however is that 85% of child labour, whichever way you define it, is in agriculture and allied activities. Even as per official estimates, all other child labour which constitutes the ‘visible’ child labour in factories, street children, children working in hotels and petty establishments and so on account for a very small percentage of the total child labour force in this country. This factor is completely ignored.

The fact that we have almost completely ignored this aspect of child labour in agriculture is the root cause for our failure to make any dent in the child labour situation in the country even after 5 decades of independence.

Why has this aspect been ignored?

Ans:

There are several reasons for this. The main one is that when it comes to children of ‘poor’ parents, policy makers tend to think that there is something inevitable about a child working. They believe that the child is working because the family is dependent on the income earned by the child for survival. They believe that if the child is withdrawn from work the family will starve. Child labour in their opinion is a ‘harsh reality’. This belief that child labour is inevitable and nothing can be done about it colours all aspects of child labour policy in India. It is mainly responsible for the view that the best approach is to attack the most exploitative forms of child labour first. Children in various ‘hazardous’ industries present themselves as the most exploited. They are also the most visible. As a result the emphasis has been on child labour in these industries, almost to the exclusion of all other forms of child labour. Child labour in the agriculture sector in particular has been ignored.

The other reason why this aspect has been ignored is that policy makers and program implementers tend to get bogged down by numbers. They are completely intimidated by the every large number of child labourers in agriculture. "What will happen if all children engaged in agriculture work stop working?" As a result the tendency is to justify child labour in this sector either by ignoring its presence altogether or by not classifying it as child labour at all but as being child work, which is good for the child.

5.

Is it not true that poor families need their children’s income in order to survive? What is wrong with this argument?

Ans:

This is the classic " Poverty Argument". The answer to this question depends on how you frame it. If the question is, "Is it not true that if a family is extremely poor and is in desperate straits then the parents would need to send their child to work?" Then the answer of course is ‘YES’. However, if the question is "Are all families now sending their children to work so poor that they need their child’s income in order to survive?" the answer is an emphatic ‘NO’. The tragedy of the child labour situation in this country is that it is simply assumed that every labourer is working because it is an issue of survival for the family. This is the most insidious aspect of the Poverty Argument. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Poverty Argument for all its appearance of being logical is completely flawed. Interestingly enough it is not even easy to prove. If it were true then in every village the poorest should drop out from school first and enter the labour market. However, rural areas are full of examples of children belonging to very poor families who are in school while their relatively better off counterparts are working. A large number of factors that have nothing to do with the economics of the situation, such as tradition, ignorance of parents on account of illiteracy, lack of access to alternatives, insensitive administration and so on govern the decision of the family to send a child to work or to school. The Poverty Argument ignores all these aspects and views every thing as a purely economic decision.

What is the connection between child labour and formal school education?

Ans:

As we have already mentioned there are a number of ways of looking at child labour and different people have different perceptions. Some believe that only wage-earning work done by children should be classified as child labour. There are others who focus only on child labour in hazardous occupations like carpet weaving, match factories, glass factories and so on and do not bother too much about other working children. There are some who assert that some kinds of work for children are not only not bad but also positively good especially when performed in a family environment. This is classified as child work (good) as opposed to child labour (bad). Distinctions such as child work, child labour, and hazardous work and so on only blur the issue. Is working on a loom more hazardous than working as a bonded labourer under a landlord? Are grazing cattle to be categorised as child work if done for one’s own family but child labour if performed for a wage? Suppose the wage rate is high and work conditions are good then who is to decide which is better. How does one categorise domestic work like fetching water, looking after siblings and so on? Does it constitute work at all? Many do not even include this work under the category of child labour at all. As a result they imply that there is a category of children who are neither at work nor in schools. These are sometimes referred to as the ‘nowhere’ children. The MVF model sees categorisation in regard to the work done by a child as purely artificial and only leading to more complications, not solutions. It regards every form of work done by children as child labour. It also asserts that in the rural Indian context there is no such thing as an idle non-school going child. Any child not in school will sooner than later is put to work. In this model there are thus only two categories of children, those who go to work viz. Child labourers and those who go to full time formal day school. This is the genesis of the MVF ‘non-negotiable’ that every child out of school is a child labourer.

MVF believes that every child has a right to childhood and an opportunity to develop to his/her full potential and that every form of work done by a child interferes with this right. Coupled with the understanding that only children who are full time students can be kept away from work it believes that the only way the child’s right to childhood can be fulfilled is by making the child a full time student. In the MVF model therefore, securing to a child his/her right to childhood, elimination of child labour and universalization of education are all a part of the same process. Anyone attempting to deal with one without taking cognisance of the other is bound to fail.

What exactly has been the MVF experience in this regard? How have the parents managed?

Ans:

In the MVF experience almost all parents, even from the so called ‘poorest’ segment of the rural society, are not only keen on withdrawing their child from work and sending them to schools but are also willing to make whatever sacrifices in terms of money and time that this decision entails. Once a child is enrolled and shows some progress, parents have even sold off their cattle, sheep and so on which were being looked after by the child and retained the child in school. Parents themselves and other older family members have taken over any work earlier performed by the child that inevitably needs to be done. There is some evidence to show that the mother tends to be burdened with the largest share. This however is very rarely resented. In the MVF camps, which are the transit camps to enable a smooth shift of a child from a work environment to that of school one can actually see the manner in which parents’ attitudes change. Once parents realise that their child is capable of picking up studies and their confidence in his/her abilities grows they no longer think in terms of sending the child to work. They also tend to pamper the child a lot more, give small presents when they visit them at the camp, get photographed with them and in general like to be associated with them in every way. Far from worrying about the loss of income from the child’s labour they end up spending much more on the child.

In how many villages does MVF work and how many children has it covered so far?

Ans:

MVF today works in 491 villages of Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh. It has so far withdrawn 100,000 children out of work and retained them in schools. In 169 villages in the project area all children in the age group 5-14 years are in school.

9.

If it is all so simple then why do children get to be sent to work at all? Why are all children not in schools?

Ans:

Only some aspects of the issue are simple. Parents are willing and capable of sending their children to school. That is the simple part but there are a whole lot of complex issues as well. In the first place to poor parents, especially those belonging to the communities traditionally engaged in agricultural labour who by and large are they illiterate, the very task of sending their child to school instead of to work is in itself a major revolutionary step. For generations they have been led to believe that the best thing for them is to initiate their child into work at the earliest and education was never a part of their economic agenda. This is exactly the opposite of what a middle class urban parent believes. Just as in the latter case it never occurs to the parents that their child should be sent to work, to a parent in the rural area who is essentially an agricultural labourer and an illiterate to boot, sending a child to work is the most natural thing in the world. The parents know exactly what is to be done, who to approach, how to negotiate and above all what is expected from their child if sent to work. Compare this with the complex situation that parents have to face in admitting the child to school. Birth certificate, caste certificate, schoolbooks, dress and so on all have to be obtained. Often the child is denied admission simply because such admission is being sought in August while all admissions close in July itself. And, of course, if for some reason the child has crossed the normal school age of 5-7 years there is absolutely no provision for allowing him/her to join in a higher class under an accelerated program, and he has to sit in the first class along with much younger children and often be made fun of for it. It is no exaggeration to say that for these parents it is much easier to engage their child as bonded labourer with some landlord than enroll him/her in school.

Once inside the school the whole attitude of the teacher is completely mysterious as far as the parents are concerned. They are not sure how to handle the child’s homework and the other demands made of them by the teacher. The teacher themselves are an unknown quantity and often behave irrationally. It has been MVF’s experience that a larger number of children have been pushed out than have dropped out from school. Teachers employ a number of methods to restrict the number of children in their class. Even a simple thing like not reading a child’s name during roll call is enough to perplex the child and the parents. Add to this issues like asking the child to get a new book or learn a poem at home or simply state at the end of the year that the child is not up to the mark, you have a good recipe for a push out. In one of the MVF’s workshop with teachers an entire list of methods employed by them to restrict the number of children in their class was made out.

Even if the parents and the child survive this onslaught initially, there is always the nagging feeling often reinforced by others in the village that may be they should simply continue what they have been doing for generations viz. sending their children to work.

Given the atmosphere that prevails at the village level therefore, mere desire to provide education for the child is not enough to convert it into a reality. On the other hand ignoring this desire would be catastrophic.

Does this mean that there is no relationship between poverty and child labour or illiteracy?

Ans:

Yes there is a relationship between poverty and child labour, but this has very little to do with any economic compulsion that poverty normally implies. It is a much more generic issue. Child labour and illiteracy is yet another example of the poor not being heard because they are not important enough. It arises out an inability on the part of the poor to access the right quarters and to articulate their demand effectively and has little to do with lack of income or affordability. It is an entitlement that the poor have been denied.

So what is it exactly that the MVF model advocates?

Ans:

The MVF starts with the basics. It believes that the only way to tackle the problem of child labour is to harness the desire of the parents for a better future for their children through education. It believes that the starting point for any program to withdraw a child from work and enroll him/her in school is to promote the norm within the community that no child should work. Tackling the community implies not dealing with parents alone but the whole set of people including employers, opinion makers, the elected local body representatives, the community elders, the local youth, teachers and so on. It involves sensitising all these members of the community to the issue of child labour and the manner in which they contribute to its persistence. It also involves sensitising the community to the long-term benefits of eliminating child labour for the community as a whole and not just the parents or the children themselves.

Once sending a child to work is seen as something that is neither necessary nor good for the child, enrolment into schools is automatic. This increases the community’s stakes in the school, which in turn leads to greater involvement of the community in the affairs of the school. Once this happens the quality of instruction and the response from the school to the requirements of the child show a dramatic improvement that promotes a greater response from the community until it becomes a self sustaining process. In the MVF model therefore, universalization of education is not seen as something, which is initiated by first setting up a school and then asking children to join. The strategy is to first create a demand and then access the school. In this strategy the source of the demand is the desire to abolish child labour.

The rejection by the community of child labour and the consequent development of the school as an institution that takes care of all aspects of a child’s development is the ultimate aim of the MVF model. All its programs aim at operationalising this strategy.

12.

How relevant is the kind of education that is ‘served’ in formal day schools today to the requirements of a rural child? With so many educated unemployed should we be encouraging children to go to these schools? Would it not be more sensible to promote some kind of vocational training so that children and the society would not have to face the problem of unemployment?

Ans:

There are number of aspects to the issue of relevance of education. The most important one is, why is it that the relevance criterion is applied first to working children and that not in school. Schools and the education system in general have for a very long time been ‘serving’ irrelevant education to everyone. Who can say if the famous Doon school provides the most relevant education? However, for those parents habituated to sending their children to school this has never been a reason for not sending a child to school. For them the choice has never been to send their child to school, which provides relevant education, or to send them to work. They simply send the child to whichever school they think provides the best education at the price they can afford. That is why there are schools of widely varying quality in existence. So why is it that one talks of relevance of education only when it comes to working children? The problem of relevance is something that afflicts the education system as a whole and cannot be an excuse for keeping working children away from schools. It has to be tackled at a completely different level.

The second aspect of the issue is that one should see school primarily as an institution that enforces a child’s right to childhood by keeping the child away from work. It is here that the true nature of formal day school emerges. Formal schools, especially in the rural context have always been accused of not providing relevant education that would enable the child to be a productive entity. They have been ridiculed for functioning in a manner that deprives the family of the child’s inputs in the labour market when it is needed most. It is therefore, suggested that schools should provide ‘ vocational’ education often on the lines of a ‘earn while you learn’ scheme and that schools should be closed during peak agriculture work season as for instance the harvesting season so that the child can contribute to the family income. A closer look at these so called ‘defects’ of the formal school system shows that it is precisely on account of these so called ‘defects ‘ that these schools should be supported. Vocational education very often is only a euphemism for perpetuating the presence of the child in the labour market from an early age. As for the timings of the school sessions, as an institution that keep the child away from work it is in fact imperative that schools function in full swing during peak agriculture season. Clearly, the one thing that the formal schools by any stretch of imagination cannot be accused of doing is supporting child labour. It is this that makes this institution invaluable for any program seeking to eliminate child labour. Above all the formal school is important because it is the only State institution that deals exclusively with children.

In the ultimate analysis when it comes to eliminating child labour neither the issue of irrelevance of education nor the nature of schools is of very great significance. The only aspect that is to be kept in mind is whether the child is being kept away from work or not.

Truly speaking the persons who are the best judges of the relevance of the education system are the first generation literates who have broken the mould and have overcome a number of barriers to achieve this status. Very rarely if at all does one come across a case of a literate, even an unemployed one, who would have preferred to remain illiterate. What the education system does not provide in terms of employment opportunity it more than makes up for in raising the self-esteem of the individual.

13.

Would it be preferable to take advantage of the family’s strength in the traditional family occupation and inculcate the child with the necessary skills?

Ans:

There is a tendency to romanticize the whole issue of traditional crafts. The view that is often expressed is that traditional crafts have for century’s sustained rural economy with efficiency which modern systems cannot achieve. As a result it is believed that initiating a child to the family profession as early as possible is beneficial to the child who will end up ultimately doing what he is likely to be best at viz. the family profession. Thus not only does the child not have to waste time obtaining irrelevant educational inputs but he can also become a productive citizen and earn a living.

Taken to its logical conclusion this approach implies that it is best for children to continue in their family profession. This is not too different from the traditional social system where certain professions were earmarked for certain communities. Such a system would ultimately result in a situation where a potter’s child would end up as a potter and a weaver’s child a weaver. In fact it is this system that mandated that an agricultural labourer’s child would become an agricultural labourer. In this approach the choice of deciding their future is completely taken away from the children at a very early stage. The fallacy in this approach is that it ignores the fact that the rural society is replete with examples of individuals belonging to artisan families who have risen to very high levels outside their family profession and who, in all probability, would have been misfits if they had not changed their profession. The true nature of education is that it equips a person to make a calculated choice at the right time. It is this capacity of child to decide his or her own future that we take away when we deny education in the name of providing secure employment.

Even the argument that a child initiated to the family craft at a young age picks up skills faster is not particularly true. In fact there is evidence to show that they do so much better after they achieve a certain proficiency in studies and after they attain an age of around 12-14 years. The whole attitude towards children, in this approach of incorporating them into the family occupation at an early age, is to somehow convert them into some kind of efficient workers. It is an approach that views childhood as a process of converting a child into a worker and divides the society into two broad categories. One comprising those who can afford to wait for their children to equip themselves before they face the challenges of adulthood, and the other comprising those who need to put their children to work as soon as possible so they do not become a burden on the society. It is an approach often advocated by those who themselves would never think twice before sending their own children to school and who have no intention of reverting to their own family occupation.

14.

What has been the nature of government programs to eliminate child labour/universalize education?

Ans:

Both the "poverty argument" and the concept of irrelevance of education have played a major role in the formulation of government programs relating to child labour and education. As far as child labour is concerned the government’s philosophy revolves around the ‘harsh reality’ of child labour and hence even the legislation passed in this regard refers only to eliminating child labour from the so-called hazardous industries, while regulating it in the formal sector elsewhere. This legislation specifically excludes child labour in family environment from its purview. Thus even of the official 17 million working children the various programs of the government target only 2 million children in the ‘hazardous industry’. Even these programs rely on such measures as compensating the parents for the loss in income from child labour, which completely betray a lack of understanding of the actual issues involved.

The education policy of the government succumbs to the poverty argument and the harsh reality of child labour even more. The biggest initiative in recent times, the Non formal Education program simply assumes that children have to work and hence advocates running of NFE centres that do not interfere with the work pattern of the children. Beyond this, apart from the empty rhetoric, little has been achieved.

Briefly stated, therefore, the government accepts unquestioningly the efficacy of both the Poverty Argument and the notion of irrelevance of education for working children. Both these concepts as we have already seen are flawed and need to be seriously challenged.

In terms of programs then what exactly are the basic defects in the government’s approach?

Ans:

The trouble with the government’s policies and programs in regard to child labour and education is that they operate completely on negative premises. They assume that ‘poor’ parents cannot and will not withdraw children from work and enroll them in schools. They assume that the parents feel that the education system is irrelevant and this is another major reason why they will not send their children to school. And, finally they believe that the formal school system is not the appropriate system for children of ‘poor’ parents.

This approach completely ignores the fact that even today a large number of the so-called poor parents are sending their children to school. It does not recognise the latent desire on the part of even ‘poor’ parents to seek a better future for their children through education and their capacity and willingness to make sacrifices in terms of time and money in order to realise this desire. Rather it gets bogged down much in the nature of a well-fed man who is unable to understand how someone who does not get to eat even two square meals a day can possibly want the same things he wants.

In this situation rather than dealing with the problem of child labour in its entirety the government programs adopt a piecemeal approach. This is doomed to failure from the very start because even if the program is successful in withdrawing some children from the workforce there will always be others available to take their place.

In terms of implementation mechanism the reach of the government very rarely extends beyond the last point where an institution exists. Thus all its programs essentially stop at the school level and processes and issues that stretch beyond the school to the community and the household are essentially beyond its reach

As a result even the best program of the government can impact only those in schools and those out of school and at work cannot even be accessed. Given the fact that the most of the problem lay in this domain the capacity of even the better-implemented government programs to alter the existing situation in regard to child labour and education is extremely limited.

What then in the MVF’s analysis are the components of a good program?

Ans:

Any program to deal with child labour and education has to be built around positive aspects. It has to recognise that parents, even poor parents, are motivated strongly towards providing a better future for their children through education. It has also to recognise that these parents are not only willing but also capable of making the necessary sacrifices to ensure that their child does not go to work but to school instead. It should reject all arguments in favour of a child working however ‘logical’ they may sound. In particular it should strongly reject the poverty argument and its implications. It should recognise that since any form of work deprives the child of his/her right to childhood, any attempt to categorise work done by a child is a purely academic exercise of no particular consequence to the child. As such it should recognise that any child out of school is a child labourer. Consequently it should take cognisance of the fact that withdrawal of a child from work and enrolment into formal day school as a full time student is two aspects of the same problem and cannot be dealt with separately. Once these aspects are internalised the basic components of the program emerge.

The essence of any program to eliminate child labour is, first of all, to create a norm within the community that no child should work and that all children should be in formal schools. The strength for creating this norm comes from the belief that this is what the community itself wants. This is why it is so important to harness the positive aspects of the situation. Once the norm is accepted then the program has to develop in a manner that covers all children out of school viz. child labour, in the area. In fact the acceptance of the norm itself ensures that the community plans for all the children. Specific strategies have to be adopted for children in different age groups and every single child in the area has to be planned for. It is quite possible that all do not respond immediately but the program itself should not be found wanting to meet such a response as and when it occurs. The formation of the plan automatically results in the school becoming the focus of all further attention, which in turn strengthens the role of the school itself. Sensitising teachers, various community leaders, employers and other affected persons to all aspects concerning child labour needs to be fully incorporated into the program as an independent component. Above all the program should invariably involve the youth; in particular the non-student first generation educated youth, as the prime movers of the program.

How does the MVF program incorporate all these components?

Ans:

The MVF program concentrates essentially on the positives. It is based on the belief that parents, even poor parents, are not only keen on sending their children to school but are also capable of doing so. It is also based on the belief that, in the context of eliminating child labour, formal day schools are not only relevant but, in the present context, the only institution capable of keeping children away from work. In order to make sure that this is at no stage forgotten it has evolved a set of guiding principles referred to as the ‘non-negotiables’ on which there is no compromise.

Since the program essentially deals with developing a norm on the child labour issue the first component is aimed at generating a discussion on the issue. To this end a survey of all children out of school is conducted in each village. In the initial stages MVF had to depend on its own staff to commence this process. However, the general tendency now is for the villagers, in particular the youth segment, to conduct the survey and hold all preliminary discussions before inviting assistance from MVF. Usually, this is preceded by the formation of a formal committee of interested individuals. The main purpose of the discussion is to check the village’s level of preparation to tackle the issue. Over several meetings the need to withdraw children from the labour force, the people who need to be involved in the process, the role of the village elders including elected non-officials, the role of the school and the school teacher are all discussed. Ultimately this leads to preparation of a plan of action with the assistance of MVF.

The plan of action invariably has two basic elements. The first is that it targets all children out of school and not just some sections of the child population. Secondly specific duties and tasks are allocated to all the committee members. This typically includes co-ordination with the school, conduct of community level meetings, discussions with employers of children, lobbying with the officials and non-officials for better facilities at the school. The entire list of all children out of school is prepared and the plan of action covers each one of them. MVF usually assists at this level.

The main problem encountered at this stage at the school level is lack of adequate number of teachers. Further there is a need to monitor all those children freshly enrolled after being withdrawn from work. While the committee is encouraged to lobby for more teachers, in order to set the plan in motion one or two village level education activists are appointed. The normal pattern is that the community and MVF do this on a 50:50 basis. The activists are usually first generation literate youth who combine the task of supplementing the teaching force at the school level and the monitoring of attendance of the children right down to the household level.

The work of the activist however commences even before the children are enrolled in school. Very often they are the motivators as well and are actively involved in the task of withdrawing the children from work. The training for this is provided by the MVF, which draws in its experience in other villages for this purpose. The activists also play a key role in identifying which of the children can be enrolled directly into school and which have to go through a longer process. In general the marginally older children in the 8-11 years bracket are put through a bridge course that is either residential (camp) or conducted at the school level directly. The bridge courses are meant to provide accelerated learning to the child so that he need not necessarily have to start from the lowest class. In case of the children in the 12-14 age group, emphasis is on putting them through a longer residential course for 18-24 months and making them appear for the 7th class examination directly.

At each level there a number of issues to be tackled. Parents and children have to be counseled and teachers sensitized, funds organised, officials petitioned, employers dealt with and so on. All these aspects are covered under the program through a series of campaigns, which includes processions by youth, street-plays by children and interactive sessions with the community. Briefly stated the MVF program has the following components:

18.

How does MVF view girl child labour? Does it have any special program to deal with the kind of problems faced by them?

Ans:

While MVF believes that ‘girls’ as a category face special problems, its general approach in dealing with these problems is not very different. Many studies that deal exclusively with girls identify the basic problems as:

But this is precisely what the MVF has advocated all along for all children irrespective of whether they are girls or boys. In fact the definition that all children outside formal school system are child labourers makes sure that girls working at homes are not ignored in any program dealing with child labour. Further, MVF has always advocated school and education as the only option for eliminating child labour. As a result girls have never been excluded from any aspect of MVF’s program. However, in terms of a program some additional elements become necessary especially since the age at marriage in the areas where MVF is working is around 12-14 years.

In the first place the program of motivating girls, especially the older ones, and their parents is a much more elaborately designed one. Short-term motivation camps at the village level are held where a lot of discussion takes place between the girls and the education activists and the more prominent members of the village level education committees. Other girls who have gone through the MVF program also occasionally visit these centres to motivate the girls through narration of their own experiences. The bridge camps designed for the girls are more elaborate and are of longer duration. This is not because they are slow learners when compared to boys but because it takes more time for them as well as their parents to get used to the idea. Special inputs in terms of health education are also given.

A major success of the MVF in this regard has been in relation to child marriages. A number of girls now see the MVF program as a means of getting away from an early marriage. To the MVF, marriage as an aspect that keeps a girl of school going age away from school, presents itself as a symbol of child labour. As a result preventing child marriages is well within its agenda of eliminating all forms of child labour. This is exactly how it is put forth before all the community-based committees at the village level, which have been formed in consequence of the program. Thus at some stage or other this issue comes up for discussion in these fora. This represents a major step forward because an issue that has hitherto been perceived as an intensely private one now becomes subject to more open discussion in a neutral forum. To the girl child the schools, as well as the various village level committees against child labour provide, for the first time, a forum to represent her problems in relation to marriage. This contrasts sharply with the normal situation in which, despite the promulgation of an act, which prescribes 18 years as the minimum age at marriage for girls, the only remedy available to any girl who wants the act enforced is to approach either the police station or the courts. In the MVF experience as the child labour elimination program has progressed more and more girls have begun defying their parents and asserting their right to continue with their education.

19.

How has the community responded? Does all this not lead to a situation of? 
Confrontation in the village especially when powerful landlords are deprived of cheap child labour?

Ans:

To begin with there is always some amount of resistance from various sections in the village. In the case of bonded labour children working against a debt the resistance is mainly from the employers. Usually these employers tend to be aggressive and on quite a few occasions the situation resulted in physical intimidation as well. Over the years however MVF has managed to train its village level activists to deal with these situations through a combination of methods. The main strategy is to indulge in some kind of moral persuasion through the village level committees. Advantage is taken of the fact that any issue concerning exploitation of children tends to be an emotional one and the employers are necessarily on the defensive whatever their public postures. Calling the employer’s bluff very often is a good method of handling the situation. But this needs the backing of the community as well as the government machinery. The MVF as a strategy does not adopt a confrontational approach. In fact the strategy is to involve the employers in a number of programs, honour them when they release their child labourer and make them sponsor other children publicly. The strength of the MVF in adopting this apparently ‘soft’ stand arises from the fact that in the MVF’s area of operation the community is fully aware that no issue concerning a child labourer will be avoided even if it results in a situation of confrontation. Employers therefore, know that the MVF’s approach results not from a weakness but from a sense of confidence. It is this aspect that has added strength to the MVF’s conscious policy of not allowing a situation of confrontation detract it from the main issue of redressing the grievance of a child labourer.

The employers on their part, after an initial period of resistance, have responded quite well. There have been innumerable cases of bonded labourer’s released, child workers sponsored for schools and so on. In several villages they have changed their cropping pattern (for instance from floriculture to paddy) to avoid having to employ children. The change of heart is as much due to compulsions of having to respond to community pressure as it is to a genuine desire to free child labour.

Broadly stated therefore, while a situation of confrontation does exist, properly planned, the situation need not necessarily lead to precipitation of this confrontation.

How has the government machinery, in particular the teaching community, responded?

Ans:

As already mentioned the MVF has strongly advocated utilisation of existing structures and institutions for delivering many of the components of its programs. Thus there has been a large amount of interaction with the government machinery. While the response from the latter has varied it has rarely been one of confrontation. On the other hand there have been large areas of cooperation. The impact of the MVF program on various government policies mainly in regard to the education policy has already been mentioned earlier. The real success, however, has been the teaching community.

Given the fact that the MVF program makes the school the centre around which the whole program revolves the teachers has a very large role to play. In the initial stages the teachers were somewhat reluctant to associate themselves with the program and viewed it with considerable suspicion. However, a series of workshops were conducted to focus on the role of the teacher in the context of child labour. This has been an enormous success and the teachers for the first time have identified for themselves a completely different role viz. That of a protector of a child’s right not to be engaged in work. This added dimension of dealing with child labour has greatly enhanced their sense of self-esteem. In many instances they have worked hard at evolving new teaching techniques specially designed for the working child. The success of these techniques, consciously designed by the teachers, has resulted in true teachers’ empowerment a fact that has resulted in their total identification with the program. One of the most significant developments in the state has been the formation of the BKVV, which is the teachers’ forum to combat child labour, which today has over 1500 members all advocating the cause of eliminating child labour through education.

21.

How does all this differ from the other programs to either eliminate child labour or universalize education?

Ans:

Most government and non-government initiatives to eliminate child labour accept poverty, irrelevance of education and so on as the cause of child labour. As a result they lack a comprehensive approach to the problem. These initiatives generally involve tackling a particular segment, by and large, the so-called highly exploitative forms of child labour. In other words these initiatives are not based on the belief that all forms of child labour can be eliminated. Very often the implementation of these programs involves providing financial incentives to parents to send their children to school or linking it to other economic incentives like a self-employment scheme for the parents. In other words they are not based on the belief that parents can and are willing to withdraw their children from work and send them to schools. There are some programs which withdraw children from one form of work and engage them in other, apparently more useful, form of work variously described as vocational education or ‘earn while you learn’ scheme. In other words these programs are based on the belief that childhood is essentially a process of converting children into income earning workers. There are some programs that talk of organizing child labourers into unions to assert themselves. But, this does little to remove them from the labour force and hence is not particularly relevant in the context of eliminating child labour.

As far as universalizing education is concerned policy makers in their wisdom have analysed the situation, arrived at some solutions and have gone ahead with implementing them. The approach has essentially been top-down. No effort has been made to create a demand and there introduce a program in response to the demand. These solutions even if correct can work only if they are seen by the community to be in response to their demands.
In terms of program the emphasis of the government and many other organisations has been on NFE. Again this assumes that a child has to work and that education should not interfere with the work patterns of the child. Finally, there has not been any significant success in introducing compulsory education laws on the ground that this would lead to harassment of parents. The problem in fact is inadequate investment in the sector and compulsory educations laws are avoided mainly to avoid having to provide the necessary infrastructure to support the legislation.

Is the MVF model replicable?

Ans:

This is another question often asked. In the initial stages when MVF ran the project with around 50 to 100 children the success of the program was attributed to the fact that the number of children handled was very small. Later even after the project expanded to over 50 villages and over 10,000 children the view was that it was still not large enough to serve as a model. Today the project covers 500 villages and as many as 1 lakh children have passed through the program. Skepticism on the project nevertheless remains in some quarters. No one really knows how large a size needs to be handled before it can be demonstrated as being replicable.

As far as MVF is concerned the fact that so many children and parents have responded to the program is a clear indication of the validity of the principles directing the program. The child labour situation in the area covered by the project is not in any way different from that prevailing in many parts of the country. In MVF’s view there is absolutely no reason why the program cannot be replicated.

A good indicator of the replicability of a program is the extent to which it seeks to replace existing structures. If the extent of replacement is large then the program is unlikely to be replicable. On the other hand it is marginal then it is definitely replicable. The MVF program very consciously attempts to provide for replication by not building up any parallel structures whatsoever. The approach is to utilise the existing institutions, the Government machinery, and the community to the extent possible. As a result apart from short- term camps, which are disbanded once, the camp is over there is no institution building in the physical sense. The reliance is on Government schools and hostels. The emphasis has also been on influencing government policies because MVF firmly believes that there is no way any significant impact can be made unless the government is fully involved. Thus for instance the changing of admission rules to permit admissions at any time of the year, the de-emphasising of the NFE program and the policy of having NFE centres attached to schools during day time, recruitment of education volunteers under the DPEP and the entire program of "back to school" run by the government have resulted from this approach of MVF. Government teachers who have formed themselves into BKVV and their total involvement in the program are another indication of the program’s influence over existing institutions. All these aspects contribute to the replicability of the MVF program as many of its components are slowly being internalised within government programs and policies. As a result over a period of time the MVF program has blended with the existing government programs enriching it rather than supplanting it.

Another aspect of replicability that is often raised related to the people who handle the program. A question that is asked is whether a program on the lines of one run by MVF would succeed if ‘ other people’ were to handle it. The answer depends on exactly what the question implies. If the ‘other people’ is someone who does not accept the basic principles that guide the MVF program then the answer is "NO" However, any reasonably competent person who accepts the basic principles of the program and who implements the program on the lines devised by MVF would be able to successfully run the program. In other words, the replicability of the MVF program arises not out of the capabilities of the people running the program but the principles behind the program. If these principles are not accepted then, it is MVF’s belief, that no program of dealing with child labour can be successful irrespective of who runs it. However, if these principles are accepted then it can be successfully implemented. As a result it is a question of the principles on which the program is run rather than who runs it. This is just like running any organisation say for example a financial institution.

As long as certain basic guidelines and practices are adhered to the institution will be able to deliver services successfully irrespective of who is at the helm. In this sense it is replicable. However, no one can deny the role of the individuals and there will definitely be some heads of institutions who are more imaginative, exercise greater initiative and hence be much more successful than others. 

These aspects of individuals may not be replicable but this does not mean that the institution and the services it renders are not.

In brief therefore, MVF believes that much of its success arises out of the clear set of principles that it has evolved and it is this that holds the key to the program replicability.

To what extent MVF model scalable in the AP context?

Ans:

To a large extent the scalability arises out of its replicability. Any large-scale implementation of the model has to be undertaken by involving the government and the fact that the program does not involve any parallel structures helps in its scalability. More important the project in effect implements an idea that has strong roots in the state government’s social welfare policy. Right from the early 60’s the government has been implementing a program of running social welfare hostels. The main purpose of these hostels that mainly cater to children belonging to SC, ST and BC communities is to provide an atmosphere more congenial to the continuation of their studies than the one provided in their households. Each hostel is provided with a warden who also functions as a tutor while the students are all attached to the nearest school during the daytime. As a model this is distinctly similar to the nearest school during the daytime. As a model this is distinctly similar to the one adopted by the MVF of providing a bridge between the household and the school, even if a conscious attempt to focus on child labour is missing, and even if it does not have a component of community based mobilisation. In fact it is this similarity that has promoted the government to run the ‘ back- to- school’ program on the broad lines of the MVF short-term camp. This program according to some reports initiated as many as two lakh children into schools in the year 1999-2000.

The main difference, apart from the lack of focus on child labour mentioned above, is that the MVF uses the hostel approach only for difficult cases like bonded child labour and other ‘hard core’ cases preferring to rely on direct entry to schools in most cases. It has been the MVF’s experience that for every child it needs to put through a short-term camps and hostel nearly ten others join schools directly. In terms of scalability, given the fact that the government hostels have a capacity of 4 lakh, this implies that, properly utilised, a program broadly on the lines of ‘ back to school’ combined with the major elements of the MVF model, can ensure that as many as 40 lakh children are sent to school.

24.

If the government hostels and schools have the capacity to get 40 lakh children back to school then why would any program be required to be taken by an outside agency?

Ans:

The main limitation under which government program operate is that they have very little capacity to extend to areas beyond the last level functionary or institution. In the context of education for instance government programs rarely have the capacity to cover issues beyond the school. But, as the MVF experience shows there is a vast area between and the school and the household that needs to be bridged if any program relating to elimination of child labour and universalisation of education is to be attempted. This is a critical area that is often out of bounds for government machinery. Thus while a good government program can, even when implemented effectively cover children already in school, an equal number of children not in school cannot be accessed. It is this aspect that can be best dealt with by an outside agency.

What is the kind of investment that is required?

Ans:

The basic unit of administration above the village level in A.P is the Mandal, which covers a population of around 35-40 thousands. In each Mandal on an average there are 5000 children of school going age (5-14 yrs) in school and 5000 out of school. In MVF’s experience the cost of sending 5000 children to school over a 5-year period and retaining them there is around Rs.40 lakhs per year or Rs.200 lakhs over a period of 5 years. This works out to Rs.800 per year per child. The total cost of covering all the roughly 1200 Mandals would therefore be Rs.2400 crores.

This does not include the cost of setting up new schools and providing additional teachers, which will have to be borne by the government. It however covers all costs of mobilisation including education volunteers.

The above costing also does not take into account the fact that once a critical mass of children is covered all over the state it may not be necessary to indulge in such intensive mobilization. The costs therefore, once a critical point is reached, are likely to be much less.