The intention behind the government's decision to ban employment of children bel

ow 14 years of age as domestic servants, and as helpers in the unorganised part

of the hospitality industry, under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986, is doubtless noble.

But can that translate on the ground? Laws can be enforced only when they accord
with real social processes. Sadly, large swathes of the country are in the grip
of primitive socio-economic formations where child labour is a normal phenomeno
n.
Childhood in such a social order is a period of apprenticeship in workshops and
fields. Work and education in such societies are not clearly differentiated. A l
aw that seeks to ban child labour would, as far as such communities go, have lit
tle chance of success.
Laws would become enforceable only when political parties intervene at the grass
roots to transform traditional socio-economic formations. Separation of educatio
n and childhood development on the one hand, and work and adulthood on the other
is a feature of the modern industrial economy. That is desirable, not only beca
use it suits modern production, but also because it spells a higher level of soc
ial development.
The government, together with the political class, should do much more than simp
ly ban child labour. Its failure to monitor, and rehabilitate children working i
n sectors where the ban is already in force does not inspire much confidence.
The inadequate government schooling system, gives poverty-struck members of trad
itional social formations every reason to continue to send their children to wor
k, instead of putting them in schools.
The Indian political-legislative process would become truly acceptable to all on
ly when it manages to effect a convergence between local needs, and universallydesired, and legally-ordained rights.
The recent ban does make the child's right not to work justiciable. That could f
acilitate a new politics for social development. There's just one problem: such
politics continues to be invisible.