The realities of India&’s socio-economic situation are often cited as the reason for some of our more retrograde laws. The one on child labour is a case in point. Ban it or regulate it, the debate over child labour seems unending.

The Union Cabinet approved a proposal to ban the employment of children under the age of 14 years in a commercial outfit. Keeping in mind the “social fabric and socio-economic conditions” of the country, a ministry press note said the Cabinet makes an exception for work done by the child in his or her family or family enterprise after school or on vacation, provided the work is not hazardous. This is basically an approval from the ministry of labour and employment to make changes to the Child Labour Amendment Bill, 2012, which in turn was meant to improve the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986.

But it made two exceptions. First, “where the child helps his family or family enterprises, which is other than any hazardous occupation… after his school hours or during vacations”; and second, “where the child works as an artist in an audio-visual entertainment industry, including advertisement, films, TV serials or any such other entertainment or sports activities except the circus”. These exceptions are subject to conditions and safety measures, as may be prescribed, and provided that such work does not affect the child&’s school education. This in reality means the child will have to go to school and also work in his or her family business afterwards.

Consequently, the child will get no time for play and will have to engage in labour-intensive work, even though this may not be termed hazardous. The pressure will fall more on the girl child who is in the first place expected to help in household and farming chores after school. Many industries are home-based, making it difficult for the law to ascertain how hazardous this may be to the child&’s well-being. Family enterprises could mean anything from carpetweaving, beedi-making to work in metals. All these are highly unsuitable and dangerous to a child&’s health. The fact that entertainment and sports have been excluded could mean that children could be employed in making sports goods, which are labour-intensive. The government also proposed stricter punishment to employers violating the Act. Parents and guardians will not be penalised for the first offence but, for a second offence, they would be fined up to Rs 20,000.

This is a change from the earlier position where parents or guardians were liable to get the same punishment as employers for permitting a child to work in contravention of the Act. To create a deterrent, the offence of employing any child or adolescent by an employer has been made cognizable. It is passing strange that despite all amendments to the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act over the years, child labour has not gone away. We have the largest number of child labour laws in the world and the largest number of child workers. The manner in which the law is framed now leaves it open to misuse. If the law had been unambiguous and stated that no child below 14 should work in any industry, whether hazardous or nonhazardous, it might have helped ease the problem. The statistics from the labour ministry for 2013-2014 show that there have been only 1,168 convictions for people employing children in hazardous industries and just a paltry Rs 83 lakh collected in fines. This money was meant for the rehabilitation and welfare of child labourers but shamefully, only Rs 5 lakh was disbursed. When it talks of prevailing “socio-economic conditions”, the government appears to finally recognise that the child labour conversation has two sides to it: the demand and the supply side.

While it recognises that the roots of child work are embedded in poverty, it still does not respond to it except with a blanket ban. The law – from 1986 to now – speaks nothing of preventive measures, provisioning other choices for the child or re-imagining accessible and appropriate education. Without addressing reasons for why children work in difficult circumstances, the ban just implies a continuation of the simplistic and often deeply traumatising experience of "raid and rescue of working children and then institutionalization in rescue homes. The law also continues to penalise parents for “allowing children to work without regard to their impoverishment or other circumstances. Multiple studies have shown that this one-point solution to the issue of harmful work has no efficacy.

Instead, it leads to greater violations of the basic rights and dignity of children, and even ends up criminalising them. The latest change makes some arbitrarily exceptions to spaces where children might work: in family or family-based enterprises, and the entertainment industry. It explains this by stating that “children also learn the basics of occupations”.

All work is not harmful and, indeed, work can also be educative for children, teaching life skills, values and instilling confidence. The exceptions the government makes however are deeply problematic. It has been well recognised that work at home is not necessarily devoid of exploitation or subjugation. In fact, family enterprises undertake a lot of outsourced potentially hazardous work. Exempting the entertainment industry, which has shown huge potential for exploitation through commodification and commercialisation of children, is worrisome. Lack of clarity on how the sector is to be regulated for age-appropriate material or work environment, leaves one unsure of why this exception has been made at all.

The 2012 Bill recognises 14-to-18-year olds as adolescents, and regulates their work space. This is required, but not enough. Just as the amendment aligns with the Right to Education Act for under-14s, adolescent needs must also be taken into account. Even if allowed to work in nonhazardous situations today, systems must ensure that this work leads to an augmentation of skills and is supported by other educational structures such as evening schools and colleges. The Apprenticeship Act of 1960, in particular, if revamped and made child-rights friendly, could be considered as a suitably supportive framework. There is no doubt that children should not be undertaking work that is harmful to their physical and mental well-being. But to make this goal a social reality, the government must appreciate the nuances involved.

Children work because of poverty, adult unemployment, huge urbanrural divides or defunct schools. We need to abandon ad-hoc alternations to the child labour law and boldly bring forth a law that is based on the child rights framework. It should consider not only the demand side of the conversation, but also work towards creating mechanisms that respond to the needs of children in the real world. Decentralised solutions are more likely to work. If each Panchayat or Municipality addressed the needs and causes of the manageable number of children under its purview, the system could tailor-make responses for each child or village. The 2011 census says four million Indian children work. But many more are invisible. Without the enabling options to change their reality, a child labour ban will make more children become further invisible — and, therefore, more vulnerable to exploitation. The fact of children working in all kinds of occupations remains one of India&’s worst-kept secrets. Tinkering with a law will not eliminate what appears to be an intractable social problem. Be it the pint-sized chaiwallahs at railway stations, shoe polishers on pavements, waiters, domestic workers, agricultural labourers—working children are a common sight.

The appalling reality is that many children bear the burden of earning a livelihood and supporting their family. It is the only way they can survive and,perhaps, attain the rudiments of an education. Child labour is by no means a desired situation. No child should voluntarily or forcefully be pushed into employment.In principle,a way has to be found so that all children can have a childhood—to learn how to read and write, to play, to sing, to dance. If that is the vision, steps must be taken to fulfill it. The problem in India, however, is complex. When it comes to children—child labour, protection, welfare, and rights—it would be silly to paint it in black or white. The stakeholders and situations at play are subjective and numerous. State machinery and institutions, parents and dependent siblings, family circumstances and structure, societal and class norms each has a say and role in the life of a child. Against this backdrop, a blanket ban on child labour aimed at ensuring that the child&’s right to childhood is protected will only drive the problem under cover.