Weave in pragmatism

There is a distinct naivete in Minister for Women and Child Development Renuka Chowdhury8217;s vision of craft lineages. She says she would like the ban on child labour eased in the service of traditional crafts and skills. Master craftsmen, she notes, pass on their expertise through their children, and the ban will imperil home-based arts like carpet-weaving and metal-work. In fact, she8217;d like the international ban on products made by children to be lifted. Reality, alas, is not as innocent as Ms Chowdhury makes it out to be. The thousands of children who have been rescued away from the drudgery at looms because of the product ban were not inheriting great skills. They were drafted into routine work that, at their age, results in immense damage to their health and well-being.

The minister8217;s argument does have further flaws 8212; her categorisation of some children as being so bereft of other avenues of economic benefit that labour is their means of acquiring the skills for later employment. This is obviously defective, but Chowdhury has done well to break an abominably politically correct silence that has engulfed the debate on child labour ban. A report in this newspaper on the status of children employed in dhabas and roadside eateries, for instance, showed how overnight children are being recast in their minds as criminals. Abolition of child labour is intimately connected to the delivery of certain social goods 8212; primary education, healthcare, and so on. That connection is glossed over in the ban.

The point is to enable children by assisting their guardians to gain them access to personal development. Sometimes, that is found by allowing children to work. The legislation must acknowledge these nuances, by separating hazardous and non-hazardous employment. Renuka Chowdhury is well placed to have started the process of amendment. Civil society organisations must bring their experience with child workers to imbue the legislation with pragmatic policies.