Series 01: Honestly, What Does It Take?

I have been pursuing one dream since the time that I remember - of catalyzing the existence of an integrated approach towards healthier, happier, wealthier human beings. In my first ever series of LinkedIn articles, I am here to ask what does it take?

Allow me to walk you down my memory lane.

In 2008, I was a Student Social Worker, pursuing my Masters in Social Work at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. My chosen field of practice was Criminology and Justice. In 2009, I submitted two papers based on my field work and academic studies to the 33rd All India Criminology Conference: Scientific Section: ISC. I was invited to present and was lucky to meet some fantastic people from whom I learnt the lessons I still carry today.

Today, in this long, meandering article, I am going to delve into the experience behind one of those papers, the one that stemmed from a moral dilemma filled field experience that led me to question the very essence of the non profit sector's saviour complex. It cemented my belief in working with the system and finding a balance in the jig-saw world of grant fueled, sometimes ideologically piece-meal non profit work and eventually had me take up a job offer with National AIDS Control Organization, Department of AIDS Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare and avoid working for non profits for the longest time till I found myself in one, working with leaders whose vision of pragmatic sustainability and uncompromising compassion, I found a natural alignment towards.

The study report that this paper was based on, among other things went on to help Maharashtra think through a previously ill planned Government Resolution and re-align to Article 24 of the Constitution of India. (More on this Article and a bunch of other context below)

In what was considered a regressive step by many and understandably so, the Maharashtra Government issued a resolution by the State Labour Department on 2nd March, 2009 stating that anyone employing children below 14 in hazardous industries will be prosecuted and fined Rs 20,000 for each child employed. This caused its 2006 GR (Government Resolution) of rescuing all children upto age 18 even when in family enterprises to turn null and void.

A lot of activists raised a hue and cry while many cried tears of relief that day.

And both were right.

Here is the story on "Why"

in 10 chapters.

Strap on your seat belt. It's going to be some heavy duty reading.

Chapter 01: The one where the cookie crumbled.

My field placement was at an Observation and Childrens’ Home in Mumbai. These are residential institutions where children deemed in need of care and protection and children in conflict with law stay in separate quarters.

After my first few months of weekly field work there doing case work and group work and supporting the Probation Officers, I was tasked with conducting an extensive study on the implementation of the law relating to child labour in the city of Mumbai during my block placement.

This study challenged every notional understanding that I ever had and called into action all the skills of being a qualitative researcher that I had ever attempted to master. It took me to the odds and ends of Mumbai I could imagine only in the world of fiction and films and brought me face to face with reality in ways that slam dunked my entire perspective about child labour.

The study was not just a study of the implementation of the law, but a study of how the rescue and rehabilitation was being carried out by different stakeholders - the non profits (who had a rescue target to meet), the government, the police (who by the way, also had a rescue target to meet) and more. It was a study of the perspectives and issues identified by the children who were "rescued" from labour.

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a 16 year old who told you he wanted to go back to work because that was the only thing that gave him the will and wherewithal to live? I have. And something died in me that day.

It was a study of the possible extent to which the current welfare measures help achieve the long term developmental goals of the rescued child and it tore apart the rosy lens I had of "rescue and rehabilitation", my own "superhero saviour complex" with the stark reality of the mess that was in privileging “priority of rescue” over rehabilitation.

I met Advocates, Academics, NGO members, A Politician, A Journalist, Probation Officers, Superintendent of a children’s institution, A Child Welfare Committee Member and believe it or not, employers of these children including family members running family enterprises where these kids were errand boys.

Let me take you back with me to 2009.

In Maharashtra, in 2009 the rescue and rehabilitation process of children rescued from child labour was set amidst multiple acts in legislature.

The following may be called the main points on the basis of which these processes were carried on:

1. The Constitution of India with regards to children:

Article 24 says that "No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment."

Inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 are the following:

21A. The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.

51A. It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

2. The 2006 amendment of the Juvenile Justice Act said in its Definitions:

(d) "child in need of care and protection" means a child--

(i) who is found without any home

From the point of view of the State of Maharashtra, after the Government Resolution (GR) to make Maharashtra State free from Child Labour (Govt. Resolution No. CLA- 2006/ (299)/Lab-7A) dated 25th April, 2006 (now reversed), certain practices emerged in the said field.

Under point 3 of the GR which deals with ‘the responsibility of each department’, section B dealing with the responsibility of the officers of the commissioner of labour under point 4 said:

“Even if the child is engaged in non hazardous occupations, he shall also be rescued from the employer and handed over to the police, in order to be mainstreamed into education”

Point 8 said:

“Sec. 2(T) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000 defines child as one who has not completed 18 years of age; during raids of the Task Force such children who are also above 14 years of age but less than 18 years should be rescued from the unscrupulous employers and handed over to the police.”

Hence the Government Resolution clearly overlooked the provisions of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act while also ignoring the Constitutional allowances and possibilities. It did not discuss how the child will be ‘mainstreamed into education’ by the State if s/he happens to be older than 14years of age since as pointed out above, according to the Constitution in 21A. The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.

The question really remained - whose responsibility is the child? Who is to take up the issue to mainstreaming him or her into education?

The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Act) 2006 moreover did not define ‘working child’ leaving it for interpretation. So, the gray area remained.

Chapter 02: But hey! Who were these kids they rescued? And, what happened to them?

Intensive field experiences of probation officers and supporting statistical interpretations on the basis of the data collated from June 2005-October 2008 cases of children taken into custody as children in need of care and protection on being rescued from child labour showed highest numbers in the age distribution of 16 to 18 in both Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Area. Their ordinary place of domicile of most of them were from the states of Bihar, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh.

(Later in 2010-2014 when I was working on the Migrant Strategy for HIV/AIDS these States emerged as traditional source migrant ones- but more on that in a later series)

Once children in labour were rescued, they were brought after the initial procedure at the Police Stations to initiate a case against the employer to the reception unit of Children’s Home.

Here is the what the child went through step by step after being rescued:

1. On rescue, the first responsibility was to produce the child before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and equally important was the medical check up and health plan for the child- on whether the child should be quarantined, what medicines s/he may need, what type of health precautions are needed is decided.
2. At the reception unit, their personal belongings were put into safe keeping after registration of the belongings and the child was given toiletries.
3. The child was interviewed by the Superintendent at the earliest (generally within a few hours of arrival at the Reception Unit). The Superintendent counselled the child regarding the institution and recorded statutory data and referred the child to the Probation Officer.
4. Within 3 days, the child was interviewed by the Probation Officer who recorded statutory family details as provided by the child; the appearance of the child; his/her social background and history; and recommendations to be considered by the Child Welfare Committee.
5. A phone call was placed or a letter send to the family of the child and to the police station of the area bearing the information of the child being in custodial care and protection at the Home.
6. The police station was also requested to send in a home enquiry report.
7. The child was then brought before the CWC.
8. At CWC, the employer was also informed of the way he has to contribute towards the rehabilitation of the child by way of investing for the child in National Savings Certificates.
9. The parents could come and claim custody of the child. If they could not for some reason, come to Mumbai during the release of the child, they could either authorize before the Probation Officer some other individual to take custody of the child or they could accept that the Escort Police would bring the child to a Children’s Home near their ordinary place of residence,from where they may take custody of the child.

At Mumbai City CWC, the trend was to obtain a bond of around 5000 rupees from the parents to ensure that the child is mainstreamed into education and not send back to work/ not allowed to be working. If the child was found working again, the parents would be liable to pay that amount as decided by the bond. Remember, we are talking about parents who could not afford the basic minimum for their children and this practice pushed them further into desperate poverty and marginalisation.

Despite completion of enquiry and despite the arrival of parents, the CWC did not give release orders for the rescued child labourer unless the child completed 2 months in the custodial care of the institution.

After the child was released to the custodial care of the parents or guardian or any ‘fit person’ decided by the CWC against the bond, I was unable to find any plans for follow up of the child.

How feasible was the tool of conditional release by bond in cases where the parents were economically backward - the most common reason behind children working to fend for themselves in the first place?

When parents came to take custody of the child, they often expressed that they would agree to anything just to have their child back. Whether that agreement of the conditional release by bond materialized into a follow through, and more importantly if the follow through was at all possible given their socio-economic reality remained unseen. Did no one realize that in the case of a migrant child in labour, there are no mechanisms to ensure that the child remains out of labour in his home state or area. The 2 months stay demanded by the CWC deterred the child from working in Mumbai, but it did not deter him/her from working elsewhere. Hence, although it may be addressing the issue of migrant child labour, it may not be able to address the issue of child labour per se.

When it was proclaimed that Mumbai as a city is xx% child labour free, it cannot be held to mean that the children are no longer working.

Chapter 03: The strange case of being rescued but having no scope for rehabilitation.

Once the child went home and if he was above 14 years of age he did not have opportunities for either a free education or free vocational training.

Although the Apprentices Act, 1961 was still operational when I conducted the study, it was not in public knowledge and the inclusion of a formal contract and an approval from the Advisory Board as a requirement of the Act made it difficult to be used as an entitlement at the grass root level.

Based on my experiences during the concurrent field work in the month of August ’08, I found that the rescued children were disinterested in the current education system. Also, for children of the 16-17 age range who have not been to school, education of the class room and mainstream education did not appeal. There were no appropriate non formal education and vocational training across the country to cater to this segment of the child population - the rescued.

If we were to look at the available training at the children’s home on which the study is based; we would find it inadequate, outdated and having no market value. Neither were the children provided with any sort of certification which could further their lives.

Referring to the Apprentices Act, 1961, such Apprenticeship was also not set up and most of the bodies referred to in the act were either totally absent or inadequate. On the other hand, as the Probation Officers pointed out while government recognized institutions could provide training to the children by law, individuals may not thus further muddying the said act.

The options for an illiterate child who had been working and was above the age of 14 are further limited; as the training of ITI which is what is offered in most cases requires that the child has passed at least the 8th Standard. Since there is no free education- formal or non formal and limited training options once this child is ‘rescued’, how does the suggested mainstreaming into education happen?

When the State proclaimed that children (even those above 14 and below 18 years of age) irrespective of being engaged in hazardous or non hazardous work should be rescued and mainstreamed into education; does it have measures and means to strengthen the family to keep the child out of work and more importantly, does it provide any sort of facilities for the education and training of the children (aged above 14 and below 18 years of age) free of cost?

I asked 2 pertinent questions:

1. Other than the current educational system which may not be feasible for whatsoever reason for some children; does the state / the centre provide at every district level any form of institutions imparting skill training and non formal education for children above the age of 14 years?
2. The Government Resolution of Maharashtra is effective only in the state of Maharashtra. Hence, children who are found working in Maharashtra are rescued and repatriated. Once back to their own states, under the application of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, children above the age of 14 years may be free to work. Since Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act) of 2000 does not define ‘working’ as mentioned here earlier, ‘working’ in the act may be interpreted in relation to Child Labour Act as that act is the primary act with reference to Child Labour in the State of ordinary residence of the repatriated child. Such contradictions in legal affairs may hinder welfare of the child.

Chapter 04: Why did we do this to our children?

So here was the catch the 21 year old me was struggling with. Why were we rescuing children with no concrete plans of rehabilitation?

What sense did it make to take children who were making a living, going to night school, not working in hazardous conditions, in family enterprises and then putting them through a system ill equipped to take care of them. Further then sending them back into families that could not protect them and sometimes pushing them into the abyss of deeper poverty and risk.

So, I did what most students do. I went to Non Profits and asked this question.

After many meandering conversations, I was told - and this stuck with me and made me averse for years to have anything to do with non profits - "We have to push for the rescue so the government sees the size of the problem. Once they see the numbers they are dealing with they will be forced to address the rehabilitation side of things. Yes, these children will suffer but in any change, there are always some who will suffer for greater good. So we will continue to rescue them and place them at the doors of the government so they are forced to do something about the problem." More on this in a later chapter.

I left these meetings, my heart broken, disillusioned and many coffee cups untouched.

And till date, I struggle with the notion that for so many of us in the social development sector, it is okay for institutions to learn at the cost of individual human lives. To many that I meet in the sector, that is how change is brought about. To me, it is a sense of entitlement having lived privileged lives and not valuing what it takes the marginalized to live out their lives in a fractured space. If you cannot fix yourself and your space without risking human life, it is a waste of human intelligence. To me, by being willing to sacrifice individuals in your grand scheme of things, you have left behind your ability of being even remotely humane.

In 2009, we needed to question ourselves whether rescue and rehabilitation should on the greater whole be parallel processes rather than giving rescue primary importance and rehabilitation secondary.

Chapter 04: The one in which we did not think through things and refused to work together.

Consider a child repatriated after being rescued on a bond which has to be paid if the child is found working again.

By way of ensuring rehabilitation and to give a headstart to the child the current Child Welfare Committee of Mumbai City also requests National Savings Certificates in the name of the children from their employers along with any balance in payment and in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act to determine how much economically is owed to the child.

However, how far would this rehabilitation measure actually help the child remained to be seen.

With children who hailed from families that could not provide for the child or where they did not feel inclined to schooling; they went back to work and earning; if not back in Mumbai, then somewhere else. The well intended passion of removing children from labour once and for all was defeated.

The solution seemed too simple to be true but never found implementation impetus. You see, if the rehabilitation process was parallel to the rescue process; giving access to the needs of the child atleast in the same district or a nearby one to his/her parents once rescued; perhaps a more wholesome measure of rehabilitation could be achieved.

Additionally, the planning and programming of rescue and rehabilitation could only be holistically achieved in the best interest of the child if the Task Force (a group comprising of police, NGO representatives), CWC and the authorities of the institutions committed to child welfare and custodial care and protection could come together and discuss the limitations and the best ways to go around them and get things done. However, due to increasing specialization, this did not seem to be occurring.

And therein was my second grand moment of disillusionment. I realized that integrated approaches did not exist in a field driven by grants and a complete lack of trust amidst stakeholders all out on a noble venture to rescue the child.

Perspectives related to the functioning of various bodies related to work of rescue and rehabilitation processes of children found in labour varied to some extent. While some of the respondents felt that the ‘Task Force’ in Maharashtra and NGO’s in Maharashtra and beyond should only concern itself with the rescue which is the primary need of the hour and leave the rehabilitation process on the Government; some felt that the said ‘Task Force’ and NGO’s should also take an active interest in the rehabilitation process.

Additionally, while the ‘Task Force’ and NGO’s were doing a commendable job in rescue, often the rescue was done without any sort of extensive social investigation.

Hence, many children who had been using the workplace as a studyplace (given the inadequate space to have a separate one) or even children who had been present in the area because their guardian is, had been taken into custody.

By the Juvenile Justice Act and its subsequently framed notification, these children went through the entire investigation procedure too.

Another issue that cropped up in terms of the prioritization of rescue was the presence or absence of the consent of parents.

A member of the Task Force suggested that considering that in a village a child may be brought by an employer offering false promises to work, it is a safer bet to ignore the presence of the consent of parents.

Some members of the ‘Task Force’ maintained that a thorough social investigation before rescuing a child would hamper any sort of mass rescue programme as employers may get alerted and send children away or even remove all traces of the employment; it also has to be accepted that such children brought by an oversight are at the suffering end.

By leaving the children's homes to deal with classification of children after bringing them in custody under provisions of child in need of care and protection caused a lot of dysfunctions in meting out measures of child welfare.

After my discussions with all respondents in general, I discovered that there seemed to be no consensus on who should take responsibility of the child.

Chapter 05: Whose child is it?

Some suggested that the team which had rescued the child in the first place should also do a follow up of the rehabilitation steps and plans for the child instead of closing the case once the child is handed over to the reception unit of the children’s home identified by the State. However, majority suggested that it should be the state.

This roused the question as to which state should take the greater responsibility of the rehabilitation of the child – the state of ordinary residence of the child or the state in which the child has been rescued.

While one respondent opinionated that since a state’s first priority and responsibility should be in providing for those individuals who are the indigenous people of the state, the ultimate rehabilitation of the child rescued from child labour should be the responsibility of the state of the child’s ordinary residence. On the other hand, another respondent opinionated that the state in which the child was rescued had been the state benefiting from the child’s contribution to its economy; hence the ultimate responsibility of the rehabilitation of the child should be with the state from which the child has been rescued.

The easiest way for either state to assume responsibility in case the parents or legal guardians of the child were unable to educate the child till s/he attains the age of 18 would be to institutionalize the child. However, the Convention of Child Rights, recognized that the family is the ideal place for the child. What a weird problem for the good Samaritans out to rescue the children! And hundreds of children were caught in adult inabilities to solve it.

It is well known that the primary unit for the child's upbringing should be the family and not an institution when safe for the child.

The Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) also recognized that institutionalisation is not the best option and asks for other options to be used. Even when institutionalization is used, it is idealized that the institution should be near the family abode so that the child can maintain familial ties.

Considering this line of thought and considering that operationally there are very few free institutions recognized as fit institutions for a child’s training and education – formal or non formal after the age of 14 years of age and before 18 yrs; I questioned how the state can suggest assuming responsibility through institutionalisation when challenged with such infrastructural incapacities.

In course of the discussions with the respondents, two issues came to fore.

Firstly, that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act) of 2006 was then a recent act. Hence, the infrastructural development to cater to the needs for the implementation of the same in its ideal state would take time. Additionally budget allocations also needed to be looked into as funding was a real problem. It should be noticed that the rescue operation is taking place and the rescue of such problem has been taken as a priority. Rehabilitation options are still being explored as training to staff members also need to imparted for the best implementation of the act and to cater to the needs of the beneficiaries.

Secondly, certain respondents questioned the said lack of funds with the State. However, given the current situation, it can be seen that while rescue processes are going on in full swing, the rehabilitation process is being delayed. Considering this, it can be questioned whether the child at all benefits from being rescued in the first place?

This gave rise to the question on whether that would mean leaving the child in an exploitative situation because rehabilitation measures were not in place.

Chapter 06: The very real problems of the State machinery.

My respondents suggested that the rescue be on an age-situation basis and the rehabilitation measures be speeded up. If the state was not ready to take up large scale rehabilitation measures then alternative agencies needed to be identified.

In response to this suggestion when I presented it to the government officials I was speaking to, the issue of understaffing and lack of time to identify such agencies came up on the part of the State.

To me the problem had only one solution. There needed to be stronger co-ordination and better integration between the Task Force, CWC and authorities of institutions committed to child welfare recognized by the Government Ministries. If this was achieved, a better plan of rescue and rehabilitation could be arrived at.

By the hyper specialization of work, the Task Force was only concerned with rescue and the CWC with recommendation for rehabilitation and the authorities of institutions acting either on classificatory basis or as attempting to rehabilitate a child with minimum resources and stringent budgets.

Considering this situation, none of the bodies seem to be in synergy nor working in coordination with each other.

The Task Force was generally unaware of the what happened to the child once rescued and it did not involve itself in any sort of social investigation of the child in the area where the child was rescued from to ascertain information of the child’s mental state, willingness to be repatriated or rehabilitated.

Once the child was rescued in say Mumbai City by the Task Force, s/he was brought to the Childrens’ Home where the child after classification and interview by the Probation Officer was presented to the CWC who decides the fate of the child.

The first priority was given to repatriation and through it reunification with the family.

Once, the child reached the family however, no follow up was done with the family or the child to ensure rehabilitative measure; neither was the family granted any sort of aid in case of poverty. On the other hand if the family was found to be unable to support the child, the CWC could choose to institutionalize the child; something which was rarely accepted as a solution by the family.

I hypothesized that if the child was worked with from the beginning following a policy by which the experiences and learning of all the three bodies are involved, the rescue and rehabilitation process for the child would be more fruitful. I also found out through extensive conversations with respondents that other than the above, problems also arise while rescuing a child because of lack of co-ordination between the bodies.

The stark gaps remained mainly in issues of taking responsibility of the child, social investigation before rescuing a child by an ad-hoc process of mass rescue and follow up of a rescued child. 

Chapter 07: What did the children who were rescued have to say?

I explored the feelings of the children rescued from labour through both one-to-one interactions with the children as well as informal sessions of chatting. Additionally I had extensively worked with the Probation Officer involved with interviewing the children.

It had been recorded that often children above the age of 14 have been driven to work due to poverty or basic disinterest in studies. Dropouts would resort to agricultural labour in their villages and during the seasons where there would be no rain, would explore chances in the city for a less strenuous work and steady wages.

Like a 17/18 year old child pointed out during the informal chat session, while in the agricultural field one had to work in the sun and get paid Rs. 1000 monthly of which most would go towards fooding; in a hotel, even serving tea would bring in more than Rs. 1500 monthly and additional tips; with fooding, lodging and the uniform free of cost and one could stay indoors and take informal breaks from work when one wanted to. This was not an option as an agricultural labour where one would have to work at a stretch.

He also pointed out that it was difficult going back to school in the area he hailed from for most families were poor and schools after class 5 were not free.

All children reported to have been told that they would be send back home (some were even promised that they would be brought back to their work place) in 4-5 days during the rescue operation.

All children reported that they had been taken hold of while working and taken to the police stations along with their employers where photographs were taken of the two. The employers took care of their hunger needs in course of their stay at the Police Station after which they were brought to Children’s Home, where they came to know that they would have to stay there for 2 months despite their families coming to claim custody and the employer promptly arranging the National Savings Certificates.

The children sat in the classes but disliked being made to take on daily chores as is the pattern at Children’s Home as a method of creating useful occupation for the children. Some had adjusted to the life here, but disliked it yet. The children also reported that they were uncomfortable with the older children. Current infrastructural inadequacies at Children’s Homes meant that children of all ages stayed together.

For educational reasons, the children were divided into classes according to their level of literacy not according to age. All the children hoped to be send back home at the earliest. The children said they felt unhappy with the idea of staying for 2 months despite their families being ready to receive them and their employer completing all formalities.

However, they appeared resigned to their fate. One even commenting that

“What is the use of crying and feeling bad when we won’t be allowed to leave before 2 months?”.

This was in response to the confessions of some children who said they kept crying for the first 10 days in the institution. While certain children felt that it was right of the ‘Police’ to take them away from work and put them back to education, some were indignant that work was the only option for them at their age.

The children were aware of the Sarva Shikshya Abhiyan and even pointed out that it would be useless for them to be taken to school above 14 years of age as education would not be free and they may not be able to pay for it.

Some children however, felt that the money that they had been earning would help pay for their education.

On the 3rd of February, 2009, I brought together 16 children rescued from child labour in the months of December and January and kept in custodial care for an informal group session.

By way of conversation which was more like a chat, the children explored their feelings and ideas. All children said that working was a choice they had made given the situation they had been in. For them, there had not been any option. For some, it was because of the situation of poverty their family was in which could not support them unless they earned their living. For some, it was simply because, they had dropped out of school and wanted to do something instead of agriculture. For some, it was because of the lack of rains which meant agricultural work did not have to be done, and an alternative was to come to the city for work. None of them felt that they had been forced. Only 2 children were sure of going into education. Rest of the sixteen children wanted to go back to work. Some of these sixteen children however, were thinking of studying part time.

Their major concern was the payment for the education and also the problem of what the villagers would say and the discomfort in going back to school already left.

Even if they were thinking of working, they had decided , they would do so in their villages and not come back to Mumbai as they did not want to repeat a stay at the Children's Home. They disliked their stay. Mostly, they disliked having to do the daily chores. Some children complained that although the food was good, the chapattis were not ‘Phulka’. They also disliked having to stay with older children who made fun of them or used abusive language on them or bullied them. They said, they had been crying when they had come in. But now they were getting resigned to it all. They also said that there were no vocational training available inside the premises.

They wanted to be released from this custodial care at the earliest. The children said that they had been told during the rescue operations that they would be at home within the week latest, and only after coming had they been told that it would be 2 months atleast before they could go home. The children felt unhappy and angered. They questioned why they were being kept back despite their erstwhile employers providing the NSCs and their families being in contact with the Home. They said they were aware that they had been taken into custody because of being child labourers.

The children were asked if they thought that such rescues should be done. The children were initiated into a discussion regarding this within themselves. At the end, they arrived to a decision , that the younger children should be rescued and put to education. But, the older children should be allowed to work.

When I asked why some of them were working in the city away from their families. They pointed out that working in a place like a hotel was more comfortable and the pay was better. They could take long breaks as and when the customers were few. They would get payment and tips and good food and they would be in the shade. As a child from Kolhapur pointed out, in his village, this was the season of tending to sugarcane plants in the field. This requires hard work, and a lot of time spend in the sun. At the end of the month the payment is as less as Rs.1000. There are no breaks in agricultural work in the village either. So work like hotel work is preferred. Another child pointed out that in a hotel, one could after working for sometime become a waiter or a head waiter. He hence wanted to go back to his village and find work in one of the hotels there. Another child wanted to study first and then come back to Mumbai when he was 18 and become a waiter in a hotel.

The children were asked about the Sarva Shikshya Abhiyan in their village when they said that they had had to pay for their education. The children pointed out that it was only till class V. They said there was no free education for older children. The children appeared a bit relaxed because of the presence of the NSCs in their name arranged by their employers. Some children also planned to study using the money they had earned while working.

For the entire rescue and rehabilitation process, the target group is the children. However, it is questionable how many children have been spoken to before creating the processes.

The children’s decisions to drop out of school was affected by certain factors like

1. The position of the school- a child in course of the conversation said that he had dropped out of school because it was far and he felt scared to go there. The school had now come to his village, but he was apprehensive that his age was too old to go back.
2. Whether the school needed to be paid for or was free – a child who had dropped out in the 9th standard had done so because his mother could not afford to continue paying for the school. Two children from Rajasthan said that in their village, primary education also needs to be paid for.
3. The situation of the family- a child said that he had dropped out of the school because of frequent fights between his parents.
4. The environment in the village- some children from the same village were apprehensive about going back to school. When probed, one of them explained that in their village if a drop out who had begun to work, leaves work and returns to school, he becomes the talk of the village with the villagers laughing and passing snide remarks. 

Chapter 8: Rehabilitation schemes and protective measures for rescued child labourers in 2008-2009

Three major schemes were in place in 2008-2009 enacted by the Central Government

1. The National Child Labour Policy
2. The INDUS Scheme
3. The Grants-in-Aid Scheme.

The National Child Labour Policy was formulated in 1987 is consonance with the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act enacted in 1986. The Policy sought to adopt a gradual approach focusing on rehabilitation of children working in hazardous occupations and processes through a three step action plan - Legislative Action Plan, Focusing of General Developmental Programmes for Benefiting Child Labour and Project Based Plan of Action looked towards commencement of projects in areas of high concentration on child labour.

After a detailed study in 2001, the 10th plan looked towards expansion of the National Child Labour Projects and the linking up with Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of Ministry of Human Resource Development.

The target group for the national child labour project comprises of children working in hazardous occupations who have not completed 14 years of age and who are working in occupations and processes listed in the Schedule of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986; and/or Occupations and processes, which adversely affect their health and psyche.

The NCLP through the construction of a special cell- The Child Labour Cell- also looks towards encouraging voluntary agencies to take up activities like non-formal education, vocational training, provisions of health care, nutrition and education for working children. The Grants-in-Aid scheme is for voluntary agencies which look towards taking up action oriented projects for the cause of welfare of child labour and women labour.

On the INDUS Project structure, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and US, Dept. of Labour developed it under ILO-IPEC for Prevention & Elimination of Child Labour in identified Hazardous Sectors. The project is structured at three levels – national, state and district levels. There is close interface with the Ministry of Labour and Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, in the Central Government, as well as with the US Department of Labour. The project is supervised by the National Steering Committee, which is chaired by the Secretary, MOL, and has representatives from government agencies, NGOs, employers’ and workers’ organizations. The project management team at the national level provides institutional support and basic infrastructure to the central project team. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) society has been considered responsible for the implementation of the education component of the project in the state. The National Child Labour Project (NCLP) Society, headed by the Collector, will be responsible for project implementation at the district level. The NCLP society will be assisted by the District Project Team. The SSA’s District Project Implementation Unit will be responsible for implementing the public education component.

Package of services for INDUS would be:

In each of the selected district there are three groups of direct beneficiaries: 1. 1000 younger children (5-8 years) who will be directly enrolled in regular schools and support services 2. 2000 older children (9-13 years), who will be provided with transitional education and support services 3. 1000 adolescents (14-17 years) who will be provided with vocational training.

The services to be provided by this scheme include: ● identifying children working in hazardous and non hazardous occupations; ● withdrawing children and young persons from these hazardous situations; ● placing the withdrawn children in meaningful and quality education or vocational education/training; ● providing viable income generating opportunities to the families of child workers; ● strengthening public education infrastructure in the target areas; and ● creating a positive environment for prevention of hazardous child labour through public awareness-raising and through involvement of the community in monitoring hazardous child labour.

As can be seen, most of the above are in keeping with the child labour (prohibition and regulation act) 1886 providing for children below 14 years of age. Only the INDUS project looks towards the 14-17 age range but that too for children rescued from hazardous occupations or processes.

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 10th December, 1996 in Writ Petition (Civil) Number 465/1986 gave certain directions regarding the manner in which children working in the hazardous occupations are to be withdrawn from work and rehabilitated; and the manner in which the working conditions for children working in non-hazardous occupations are to be regulated and improved. It did not provide any rehabilitation opportunity or process and programme for the older child.

Neither the NCLP nor the INDUS project are present everywhere and a prioritization has been made. Scheme for Working Child in Need of Care and Protection provides non-formal education, vocational training to working children to facilitate their entry/re-entry into mainstream education and prevent their exploitation and in the 11th plan, it has been mentioned that (Box 6.9) between 2005-2007, 6996 children benefited from this programme.

In 2008, I observed that the following welfare measures were undertaken by the Child Welfare Committee of the Mumbai City for rescued child labourers above 14 years of age.

1. An NSC was obtained from the employer to meet the expenses of the child on attaining maturity of the NSC
2. A bond was prepared and made to be signed by the guardians to deter them from encouraging or sending the child to work again and to channelize the child towards mainstream education.
3. In certain cases, where the family accepted that they cannot take care of the child and are ready to commit him/her to institutions for care and protection, the CWC recommended the child to certain institutions already declared fit and which can best cater to the needs of the child – developmental and educational.
4. To further deter the child and the parents from involving into child labour again, the child is kept in custodial care and protection at Children’s Home for atleast a period of 2 months unless the child is a school going child. This, according to both the Probation Officer and the CWC has drastically reduced repeaters rate.

Chapter 9: Children, caught in ineffective systems put in place by generations of adults.

The infrastructure at the Childrens’ Home was unable to support the children rescued. The authorities had repeatedly requested the state government to look towards sanctioning a budget to tackle the infrastructural problems but it had been pending since the past few years. There were no marketable vocational training courses. In the months prior to my study, there were infact no vocational training courses. Additionally, the Children's Home due to infrastructural problems had been unable to follow the notifications to the complete extent.

The vocational training courses even when present were inadequate (For eg mobile repairing has been taught theoretically rather than practically) and cannot be completed to the best possible extent within the short spans of time that the child remains.

Additionally, there was no certification of the training.

By learning a skill also, the child could not work nor benefit from it, till s/he turns eighteen because of both the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act, 2000) and the Government Resolution in case of Maharashtra.

So, the whole idea of sending the child back to his community and family after 2 months of initial training remained challenged.

It is only if the child becomes an apprentice, under the Apprentices Act of 1961, that a child may continue skill training from an individual after the above. Otherwise, the child may learn at a ‘fit institution’.

But the question remained about the existence of such training institutions in the districts close to the home of the children. And that too, if these training institutions are free of cost for the child who is above 14 years of age. Because the State need not take responsibility for the child above 14 years of age, these institutions need not be free in the first place.

For the one Children's Home I was attached to alone, for meeting the infrastructural requirements of the notification, a budget of around 2-3 Crores was pending.

The respondents had agreed that the current rehabilitation options are shoddy. And that a new plan should be developed to cater to the needs of children rescued from child labour.

But there was some good news.

Short term syllabuses were under construction for the children. And scopes for sending children to organizations for marketable vocational training with certification was also being explored. The ILO-International Programme for Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) was launched in 1991. It complements and builds upon the existing government initiatives by co-ordinating internationally as well as internally with the Ministry of Labour and NGOs and Ministry of Education. Every state aspired to have or already had its own rehabilitation for rescued child labourers programme often clubbed with the programmes for children from poverty stricken backgrounds.

The Eleventh Plan set as an important initiative the recognizing of everyone below the age of 18 as children and respecting their rights. It felt that the challenge would be to amend all legislations and law to ensure a uniform definition of children as stipulated under the UNCRC and JJ Act.

It recognized that The Child Labour Act and related legislations like The Factories Act, 1948, The Mines Act, 1952, The Plantation Labour Act, 1951, The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961,The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment)Act, 1966, The Bonded Labour System (Abolition)Act, 1976 continue to prohibit employment of children under 14 years only. The ITPA, 1956 draws heavily from the Indian Penal Code 1860, which define a child as someone who is less than 16 years of age under ITPA as well. It can be assumed that this would further broaden the rescue process. However, what I was really keen on seeing was the rehabilitation measures would equally develop.

Of the current welfare measures, I had to ask:

1. The NCLP looks towards the rehabilitation of children below 14 years of age. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 as discussed earlier in the report attempts to prevent all children below 18 years of age from working. When a rescued child of above 14years of age is repatriated, what sustainable and free of cost options are available for him in the sector of non-formal education and vocational training?
2. The INDUS programme focuses on children rescued from hazardous work. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 does not give any definition of ‘working’. According to members of the ‘Task Force’ and the CWC, the implementation of the act does not in practice discriminate between hazardous or non hazardous labour but simply seeks to protect all working children and keep them in custodial care after rescue till they are repatriated or a rehabilitation process is initiated.
3. What options of rehabilitation do these children have at a national level at the moment? As mentioned above, the children’s homes have infrastructural lacking. Additionally, once repatriated there is no sustained follow up of these children at the moment. Consider Uttar Pradesh, of 72 districts, there are at the moment only 13 CWCs.

Even tools for planning of rehabilitation were sadly lacking.

As various respondents pointed out in course of this study, there was a lack of co-ordination between the crucial departments like those of Health, Food and Education in the field. A child cannot be expected to participate in mainstream education unless his basic needs of food and shelter and his health needs were catered to.

Additionally, if the child was to be kept in the family setting, a stronger response to the family’s needs had to be set up which was missing.

There is always a grey area in the context of child labour on whether the family depends on the child or the child on the family.

I found out that often the child went against the wishes of the family and joins the workforce. Reasons for this kind of action varied. While some children said they were disinterested in school, some said that they would rather like to contribute to the family even though unasked for it.

Chapter 10: The one in which I asked "What on earth were you thinking?" to NGOs.

Collating information obtained on the basis of the conversations with various respondents;

I learnt that the reason behind prioritizing the process of rescue over rehabilitation at present was that even after 10-15 years of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 was passed, children were found in abominable working conditions and were not being rescued.

So, rescue became a priority. However, rescue work was still to an extent quite minimal because inadequacies of the rehabilitation options were kept in mind. But it was then realized, that one could not wait for rehabilitation options to develop and thus neglect children who should ideally be rescued.

By the above idea, some respondent have said that in order to create a ripple effect- that once more and more children were rescued, rehabilitation processes would fall into place to cater to them, the rescue process was speeded up and expanded. The rescue seemed to have been undertaken by the civil society and the rehabilitation by the government.

To me, the question still remains - do such rescue programmes which relegate rehabilitation to the secondary importance at all cater to the sustainable child welfare needs?

I believe, not.

In the absence of rehabilitation programmes catering to all children who were rescued, the reality remained that the child often went back to work, sometimes in worse off conditions.

I was never able to pick a side when the Government of Maharashtra reversed its decision on rescuing all children below the age of 18 irrespective of where they were working, in what conditions and what the state of their families were in.

It took me close to a decade to recover my faith in non profits and the sectoral understanding of how systems work and what their target groups need including their possible ability of rising above their grant and philosophical mandate and really see human beings as living,breathing people with agency. I learnt the risk of mindless advocacy and cost that our "target groups" who are living breathing human beings and not just numbers pay for our ill thought out rescue complex. I learnt the importance of integration and partnerships for good instead of grant and target driven approaches that create no winners.

Infact, today, I work at a non profit I am proud to be associated with and have found renewed vigor to join hands and minds with my colleagues to work towards an integrated model of health and wellness that aims at breaking the poverty and illness cycle.

I will be forever grateful to those who asked me to do this study, my professors and fellow student social workers who extended their support and the children and each and every respondent who opened my eyes to the reality of our sector and our existence in general.