Hyderabad: The Cabinet decision allowing children to help their families after school hours — the amendment to the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act 1986 (CLPRA) — has evoked mixed responses.
Mr V. Anil Reddy, senior vice-president of FAPCCI said, “There are countless small scale entrepreneurs who need helping hands (sans payment) and in this the family comes into picture.
For example a store owner who cannot afford a helper can ask his child to handle the shop in his absence. However, this is not advisable in bigger businesses as evening hours are not sufficient and the kid needs to be ready for school the next day. It is practical because this will help the kid understand his/her father's job and in case of an unfortunate situation the child can manage.This would be applicable for food vendors (non-hazardous), nothing wrong in seeking family support, it is not a labour job. But education is a must.
The government is also bringing in new funds for rehabilitation and also specific occupations.” “…Many business families ask their children to help in the business at a young age to learn the basics so that after education the child is ready to take over…this has been on since ages; it is now that the government has streamlined it,” claim business owners. The amendment, however, has not gone down well with many.
K. Sudheer Reddy, Telangana Industrialist president, said, “This will snatch away their childhood and put an end to their intellectual growth…already 60 per cent under the poverty line force their children to work. Many children are unsafe within families (especially the ones with single parents) and the government is not able to tackle rampant child labour. There is no account of missing children and ones caught in labour raids have no proper rehabilitation. With this they are only trying to dilute the punishment…how can this be a cognizable offence?
“Children should not be allowed to work on holidays also. The amendment will destroy India’s future. And why should a child be tagged with elders ? Is the government trying to frame working hours for children in the name of the country’s social fabric?”
“The government punishes employers, but spares parents. The amendment protects the parents. It contradicts the RTE Act. This will drastically increase the drop-out rate defeating the very purpose of the amendment to the CLPRA. Parents will force the kid to work. So why the difference in punishment?” asked Mr R. Venkat Reddy, the convener of the M. Venkatarangaiya Foundation.
