|
|
Issues |
|
|
|
Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
From a rights based perspective, the NCPCR considers that there can be no excuse for existence of child labour and violation of children’s rights. Child labour, under no circumstance, can be tolerated. There can be no distinction between child labour and child work, or hazardous labour and non-hazardous labour. The definition of ‘child labour’ must encompass children working for the families in their own homes, children in agriculture work, work rendered by girl children and all other forms of work that deprives them of their right to education in a full-time, formal school. In other words, the definition of ‘Child Labour’ must be inclusive and it should recognize all forms of child labour as prohibitive. Finally, child labour must include children up to 18 years of age. The NCPCR calls for a consonance between child labour law and the 86th amendment to the Constitution of India, which guarantees education as a fundamental right to all children in the 6-14 years age group.
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Constitution of India Article 24: No child below the age of 14 years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment Article 39-e: The State shall direct its policy towards securing that the health and strength of workers, men and women and the tender age of children are not abused and that they are not forced by economic necessity to enter vocations unsuited to their age and strength |
|
In principle, our country has
one of the most advanced juvenile justice systems in the world today, with a strong
child-centric focus and a clear separation between adult and child jurisdictions.
This includes treating juveniles in conflict with the law with respect and focusing
on their rehabilitation, rather than on punitive sanctions. It also includes the
development of family restoration-based care plan in a non-legalistic setting for
children in need of care and protection. However, there is a long way to go in the
implementation and realization of this system. In several states, the procedural institutions that have been mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act such as the Juvenile Justice Board, the Special Juvenile Aid Police Units and the Child Welfare Committees are not in place or fall short of performing in a manner that reflected the spirit behind the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ) to uphold their dignity and rights. Custodial institutions such as Observation Homes and Children’s Homes are unable to meet the basic standards of care and protection. Indeed, in several instances, the custodial and procedural institutions that have been established to protect children have themselves become violators of children’s rights. Children ended up worse than what they were before they entered the Juvenile Justice System, with abuse and lack of access to basic entitlements of education and health prevalent across custodial institutions. Backlogs of pending cases of children in conflict with law before the JJBs have been reported, in some States. Long-term institutionalisation with uncertainty and deprivation of education, health and other entitlements continue to be the bane of the system. Although there has been a total paradigm shift in the language of the JJ Act, which looked at restoring the self worth and dignity of the child through counseling and appropriate rehabilitation, this spirit is not reflected on the ground.
The prevalence of corporal punishment in schools has been recognised by the Government of India, which states that corporal punishment has been inflicted upon almost 65% of school-going children. There have been reports of violence on children in schools, hostels, special homes, observation homes, orphanages, ashram schools, etc. Indeed, institutions that are to take care of children, respect them and treat them with care and affection, have themselves been violators of child rights. Institutions that should set standards and become examples of child care have, instead of creating an atmosphere for learning without fear, let down the children. Children have suffered insults and humiliation and have become resigned to their fate. It has harmed their psyche, damaging their self–esteem. Some of them have begun to feel that violence is good for them! Several children have dropped out of schools due to their inability to cope with insults.
The Infant Mortality rate in India is 59 per 1,000 live
births; 46 per cent of children are malnourished; there are 60 million underweight
children under the age of 5; and 67 percent of pre-school deaths are associated
with malnutrition. The maternal mortality rate is 301 per 1,00,000, which is unacceptable
by any standards. Analysis of data reveals that several districts and blocks in
the country have alarming statistics on infant and maternal mortality: almost on
par, if not even worse, than countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
In a true democracy, every child must be regarded as indispensable
and the government must be held accountable for the deaths of children and mothers.
Continuous failure on this account has to be perceived as a threat to the nation’s
progress. It is in the process of responding to the most vulnerable - the pregnant
women, poor mothers and infants in their weakest moments - that democracy is tested.
A target was set that 70 percent of all children in the
0-6 years age group must be covered by the year 2000. Today, in 2007, only about
one third of such children are covered by the ICDS, which is the only programme
that reaches out to children in this age group. The programme covered 5.6 Crore
children in the 0 to 6 years age group as on March 2008, which is only about 35
percent of the total 16 Crore children in this age group. The Supreme Court has also issued orders that the ICDS should be universalised to cover all settlements in the country, reaching out to every child under 6 years of age, mother and adolescent girl with supplementary nutrition. Universalising ICDS in accordance with the Supreme Court directive would mean increasing the number of ICDS Centers almost two times, from the present 9 Lakh Anganwadi Centers to the required 17 Lakh. Amongst the rights of children under 6, the most visible violation is that of child nutrition.
Children are
the worst affected in times of displacement of families as a result of civil unrest,
natural disasters, development projects or changes in ecology and environment that
force families out of their lands and homes to settle in camps as ‘outsiders’. They
live a life of uncertainty and anxiety, as they live in a temporarily permanent
condition. Losing their livelihoods and food security, they live precariously in
constant hunger and with little or no security to fall back upon. It has been noticed
that the services such as health, nutrition, education, care and protection as well
as providing safe zones for children are skeletal or just not available. There is
a loss of dignity for all such children. For example, these are the conditions
facing tribal children living in the camps in Dantewada district of the State of
Chattisgarh and the internally-displaced persons (IDPs) who have found refuge in
the neighbouring state of Andhra Pradesh, who are displaced victims of civil unrest.
|
||||||||||||
|
National Commission
for Protection of Child Rights, 5th Floor, Chanderlok Building, 36, Janpath, New
Delhi - 110 001 |
