THE SMALL HANDS OF SLAVERY

Copyright © September 1996 by Human Rights Watch.
All rights reserved.
rinted in the United States of America.
ISBN 1-56432-172-X
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 96-77536

The Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project and Human Rights Watch/Asia are indebted to numerous individuals and organizations for their valuable and generous assistance in the course of researching this report. We thank the following: Belgian journalists Rudi Rotthier and Marleen Daniels; Mike Dottridge of Anti-Slavery International; author and researcher Neera Burra; Joseph Gathia of the Centre of Concern for Child Labour; Hamida Habibullah of the Indian Council on Child Welfare; Shamshad Khan of the Centre for Rural Education and Development Action; J.P. Solomon of the Campaign Against Child Labour, Bangalore; Ratan Katyayni of Mukti Dhara Sansthan; U.R. Mohnot of Centre for Concern for Child Labour; Ossie Fernandes of the Human Rights Advocacy and Research Foundation; Felix Sugirtharaj of the Association for the Rural Poor; M. Siraj Sait, Advocate; Swami Agnivesh of the Bonded Labour Liberation Front; Colin Gonzalves, Advocate; Kiran Kamal Prasad of JEEVIKA; and Kailash Satyarthi of the South Asian Coalition Against Child Servitude.

We also thank the many people who prefer, for reasons of their own well-being and that of their organizations, that their names not be mentioned. This list would be significantly longer than the list above-an unfortunate indicator of the volatility surrounding the issue of child labor in India. Finally, we thank and honor the many brave children who spoke with us, recounting their personal experiences of hardship and bondage. They made this report possible.

This report was written by Lee Tucker, a consultant to Human Rights Watch, and is based on research conducted by Ms. Tucker and Arvind Ganesan, also a consultant to Human Rights Watch, from November 1995 through January 1996. Mr. Ganesan also provided additional research and contributed to the writing of Chapter V. Jeannine Guthrie, NGO Liaison for Human Rights Watch/Asia provided additional research assistance. The report was edited by Lois Whitman, director of the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project, Patricia Gossman, senior researcher for Human Rights Watch/Asia, Sidney Jones, executive director of Human Rights Watch/Asia, and Michael McClintock, deputy program director of Human Rights Watch. Production assistance was provided by Paul Lall and Olga Nousias, Human Rights Watch/Asia associates.

Shame upon such crimes!

Shame upon us if we do not raise our voices against them!

Samuel Gompers, U.S. labor activist, 1881
 

My sister is ten years old. Every morning at seven she goes to the bonded labor man, and every night at nine she comes home. He treats her badly; he hits her if he thinks she is working slowly or if she talks to the other children, he yells at her, he comes looking for her if she is sick and cannot go to work. I feel this is very difficult for her.

I don't care about school or playing. I don't care about any of that. All I want is to bring my sister home from the bonded labor man. For 600 rupees I can bring her home-that is our only chance to get her back.

We don't have 600 rupees . . . we will never have 600 rupees.

-Lakshmi,1 nine year-old beedi (cigarette) roller, Tamil Nadu. Six hundred rupees is the equivalent of approximately $17.2

With credible estimates ranging from 60 to 115 million, India has the largest number of working children in the world. Whether they are sweating in the heat of stone quarries, working in the fields sixteen hours a day, picking rags in city streets, or hidden away as domestic servants, these children endure miserable and difficult lives. They earn little and are abused much. They struggle to make enough to eat and perhaps to help feed their families as well. They do not go to school; more than half of them will never learn the barest skills of literacy. Many of them have been working since the age of four or five, and by the time they reach adulthood they may be irrevocably sick or deformed-they will certainly be exhausted, old men and women by the age of forty, likely to be dead by fifty.

Most or all of these children are working under some form of compulsion, whether from their parents, from the expectations attached to their caste, or from simple economic necessity. At least fifteen million of them, however, are workingas virtual slaves.3 These are the bonded child laborers of India. This report is about them.

"Bonded child labor" refers to the phenomenon of children working in conditions of servitude in order to pay off a debt.4 The debt that binds them to their employer is incurred not by the children themselves, but by their relatives or guardians-usually by a parent. In India, these debts tend to be relatively modest, ranging on average from 500 rupees to 7,500 rupees,5 depending on the industry and the age and skill of the child. The creditors-cum-employers offer these "loans" to destitute parents in an effort to secure the labor of a child, which is always cheap, but even cheaper under a situation of bondage. The parents, for their part, accept the loans. Bondage is a traditional worker-employer relationship in India, and the parents need the money-perhaps to pay for the costs of an illness, perhaps to provide a dowry to a marrying child, or perhaps-as is often the case-to help put food on the table.

The children who are sold to these bond masters work long hours over many years in an attempt to pay off these debts. Due to the astronomically high rates of interest charged and the abysmally low wages paid, they are usually unsuccessful. As they reach maturity, some of them may be released by the employer in favor of a newly-indebted and younger child. Many others will pass the debt on, intact or even higher, to a younger sibling, back to a parent, or on to their own children.

The past few years have seen increasing public awareness-in India itself, but particularly in the international arena-of the high incidence of child servitude in the carpet industry of South Asia. As a consequence, the international public has come to associate "child servitude" with the image of small children chained to carpet looms, slaving away over the thousands of tiny wool knots that will eventually become expensive carpets in the homes of the wealthy. International concern for the carpet weavers reached a peak in April 1995, when children's rights activist Iqbal Masih, a twelve-year-old ex-carpet weaver in Pakistan, was murdered.6

This attention and the outrage it has provoked are entirely warranted-the use of bonded child labor in the production of carpets for export is extensive, and conditions in that industry are horrendous.7 But it is vital that the public's concern for children in servitude not begin and end with carpets. More than 300,000 children are estimated to be working in the carpet industry,8 the majority of them in bondage. This is a large number, but it represents only about 2 percent of the bonded child laborers of India.

The great majority of the carpet weavers' bonded brothers and sisters are working in the agricultural sector, tending cattle and goats, picking tea leaves on vast plantations, and working fields of sugar cane and basic crops all across thecountry. Apart from agriculture, which accounts for 64 percent9 of all labor in India, bonded child laborers form a significant part of the work force in a multitude of domestic and export industries. These include, but are not limited to, the production of silk and silk saris, beedi (hand-rolled cigarettes), silver jewelry, synthetic gemstones, leather products (including footwear and sporting goods), handwoven wool carpets, and precious gemstones and diamonds. Services where bonded child labor is prevalent include prostitution, small restaurants, truck stops and tea shop services, and domestic servitude.

The practice of child debt servitude has been illegal in India since 1933, when the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act was enacted under British rule. Since independence, a plethora of additional protective legislation has been put in place. There are distinct laws governing child labor in factories, in commercial establishments, on plantations, and in apprenticeships. There are laws governing the use of migrant labor and contract labor. A relatively recent law-the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986-designates a child as "a person who has not completed their fourteenth year of age."10 It purports to regulate the hours and conditions of some child workers and to prohibit the use of child labor in certain enumerated hazardous industries. (There is no blanket prohibition on the use of child labor, nor any universal minimum age set for child workers.)11 Most important of all, for children in servitude, is the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 which strictly outlaws all forms of debt bondage and forced labor. These extensive legal safeguards mean little, however, without the political will to implement them. In India, this will is sorely lacking. All of the labor laws areroutinely flouted, and with virtually no risk of punishment to the offender. Whether due to corruption or indifference-and both are much in evidence-these laws are simply not enforced. In those rare cases where offenders are prosecuted, sentences are limited to negligible fines.

Why does India-the Indian government, the ruling elite, the business interests, the populace as a whole-tolerate this slavery in its midst? According to a vast and deeply entrenched set of myths, bonded labor and child labor in India are inevitable. They are caused by poverty. They represent the natural order of things, and it is not possible to change them by force; they must evolve slowly toward eradication.12

In truth, the Indian government has failed to protect its most vulnerable children. When others have stepped in to try to fill the vacuum and advocate on behalf of those children, India's leaders and much of its media have attributed nearly all "outside" attempts at action to an ulterior commercial motive. The developed world is not concerned with Indian children, this view holds, but rather with maintaining a competitive lead in the global marketplace. Holding to this defensive stance, some officials have threatened to end all foreign funding of child labor-related projects.

This nationalist rhetoric has been largely a diversionary tactic. What the government has hoped to hide is the news that, no matter how the data are analyzed, official efforts to end the exploitation of child laborers are woefully deficient. Former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, for example, made much of his initiative, announced in 1994, to bring two million children out of hazardous employment by the year 2000. Two million represents only 1.7 to 3.3 percent of the nation's child laborers; the fate of the other 58 to 113 million children was not addressed. In a welcome move, the United Front government, elected in May 1996, has promised to eradicate child labor in all occupations and industries, and has stated that the right to free compulsory elementary education should be made afundamental right and enforced through suitable statutory measures.13 It remains to be seen what measures the government will take to fulfill these promises.

By focusing primarily on child labor in export industries and the threat of sanctions on exports, the international community has sent the unfortunate message that only child labor in export industries must be addressed. In response, the Indian government has accused its international critics of protectionism and has adopted superficial remedies designed to assuage their concerns while continuing to ignore its legal obligation to identify, release and rehabilitate bonded laborers.

Multilateral lending institutions have failed in their obligations as well. By neglecting to ensure that the projects they fund do not involve the use of bonded child labor, they have exacerbated the problem of bonded child labor. These institutions, and their funders should take every measure to ensure that aid does not result in child slavery.

This report, based on two months of field investigations, reveals only a glimpse of the vast suffering caused by the bonded labor system. This glimpse alone, however, is proof enough that it is time for India's new government to accept responsibility for the slavery in its midst, to admit that it is not inevitable, and to end it. India is the world's largest democracy, a nuclear power, the world's second most populous country, and, although a poor nation, one of the six largest economies of the world. It is possible to end child servitude. The only thing lacking is will.

This report is the result of an investigation conducted by two Human Rights Watch researchers from November 1995 to January 1996. More than one hundred bonded child laborers were interviewed. Children were chosen for interviews on the basis of their willingness and ability to speak freely with researchers; no interviews were conducted in the presence of employers or in circumstances that presented the risk of retaliation. In addition to the children, Human Rights Watch spoke with more than fifty government officials, employers, social workers, community activists, attorneys, and religious leaders. Some of the government officials interviewed requested that their comments be kept off the record and many human rights activists requested anonymity. These requests, which highlight the sensitive nature of the issue of child bondage, have beenhonored. The investigation took place in the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh.

While India leads the world in the number of bonded child laborers, debt servitude is a significant problem in Pakistan and Nepal as well.14 Nor are contemporary forms of slavery confined to South Asia; previous Human Rights Watch reports have documented forced labor in Kuwait, Brazil, Thailand, and the Dominican Republic.15 Regarding India, a prior Human Rights Watch report documented slavery-like conditions in Bombay brothels.16

Recommendations to the Government of India

The government of India should demonstrate its commitment to the eradication of bonded child labor by implementing the following recommendations at the earliest possible date:

General Recommendations

* Design and implement a multi-pronged effort to end bonded child labor, composed of both persuasive and mandatory means. At a minimum, this effort should include stepped-up enforcement efforts, free, compulsory, and quality public education, and financial support for children to go to school.

* Implement measures designed to bring current practice into compliance with Article 45 of the constitution which mandates free and compulsory education for all children up to fourteen years of age.

* Pressure states and districts to constitute and oversee bonded labor vigilance committees, as required by the Bonded Labour (System) Abolition Act, 1976. Ensure that a sufficient number of investigators can be included in the committee to guarantee implementation of the act. Given the massive numbers of children involved, nongovernmental organization (NGO) representatives, lawyers, social workers, teachers, civil servants, and others with ties to bonded laborers and their families should be enlisted as investigators. Provide in-depth training to district officials charged with enforcing the act, as directed by the Supreme Court in Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1984.

* Establish an independent monitoring agency at the state and national level to oversee the enforcement of the Bonded Labour (System Abolition) Act, 1976. For full implementation of the Act, this body should be statutorily empowered to receive and address complaints of Act violations and complaints of official misconduct. It should also be able to file First Information Reports (FIRs), the first step in prosecution of a criminal charge, when bonded child laborers are identified.

* Establish a similar independent monitoring agency to oversee the enforcement of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

* Ensure the active involvement of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission in the process of identifying, releasing, and rehabilitating bonded child laborers.

* Establish and make public a master list or national register of children released from bondage, including how they were rehabilitated (provided with schooling, vocational training, or other alternative measures).

* Establish and make public a master list or national register of people prosecuted under the Bonded Labour (System Abolition) Act, 1976 and the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and include information on the nature of sentences given to guilty parties.

* Establish and make public up-to-date and accurate information regarding the incidence and distribution of bonded child laborers, and the industries in which such children work.

* Investigate the abuse and exploitation of children by agents and employers, and prosecute such agents and employers under the relevant domestic law such as Chapter VI of the Juvenile Justice Act, or Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code.

* Condition all entitlements, subsidies, special tax allowances, and other concessions currently extended to industries that employ bonded child labor on compliance with the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and other relevant laws.

* Condition all new subsidies and incentives on industry compliance with applicable domestic laws banning bonded labor.

* Launch a nationwide public awareness campaign regarding the legal prohibition of bonded child labor. This campaign should explain in simple terms what actions are legally prohibited and what recourses and resources are available to bonded child laborers and their families.

* Amend relevant legislation, including the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, to bring it into compliance with the requirements of the Indian Constitution.

* Add to the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act and the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act additional punishments for violators, including forfeiture of operating licenses, seizure of manufacturing equipment, and short and long-term closure of plants. Amend the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 to significantly increase fines and allow the fines to be paid as compensation to the freed bonded laborers. Amend Section 10 to require all employers to have and show on demand proof of age of all children working on their premises. Failure to have adequate proof should constitute a separate violation of the act. In the event of a dispute regarding a child's age, the burden of proof should be on the employer to prove that the child is above the age of fourteen years.

* Amend the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 so that household enterprises and government schools and training centers are no longer exempted for prohibitions on employing children; rules formulated by the central government will apply until replaced by rules formulated by the states themselves; and coverage under the act should be expanded to include agriculture and informal sectors.

* Amend the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act so that exemptions for household-based production are eliminated.

* Amend the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act so that fines to employers, agents, and creditors are increased, the funds collected are contributed to the compensation and rehabilitation of the children exploited; imprisonment as a sentencing alternative is added; and specify which governmental department is responsible for enforcement of this act.

* Amend the Factories Act to cover all factories or workshops employing child labor, not just those with twenty or more workers, or ten or more workers where power is used.

* Meet International Labour Organisation norms of one Ministry of Labour inspector for every 150 factories and establishments.

* Amend the Trade Union Act to allow children to form and participate in trade unions as an interim measure pending the elimination of bonded child labor. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which India has ratified guarantees the children the right of freedom of association.

* Promptly submit the Indian government's report on compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, as this has been overdue for more than one year.

* Continue cooperation with international organizations working to abolish bonded child labor, in particular the International Labour Organisation's International Programme to Eliminate Child Labour

Recommendations to United Nations Agencies

* The United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery should press the United Nations Human Rights Commission to examine the government of India's compliance with international laws and standards outlawing bonded labor, and to censure non-compliance. As a step toward ending bonded labor in India, Human Rights Watch recommends that the working group undertake a fact-finding mission to India and make recommendations designed to eliminate bonded labor.

* The ILO should send a technical mission to India to make recommendations with the understanding that India would develop an action plan for abolishing bonded child labor over a specific time period, either through the International Program to Eliminate Child Labor (IPEC) or other ILO programs.

* UNICEF should make the elimination of bonded child labor a stated priority of its efforts in India and elsewhere. It should formulate a consistent institutional policy regarding bonded child labor, and work with local, state, and national government officials toward the achievement of the stated goals.

* WHO should investigate and publicize the adverse health consequences for children of bonded child labor, and promote measures to eliminate the exposure of children to hazardous conditions and labor practices.

* WHO should formulate a policy on the elimination of bonded child labor, and collaborate with other UN agencies toward this end.

Recommendations to the World Bank and Other International

Lending Institutions

* Condition receipt of loans and other subsidies on verified compliance with all domestic legal prohibitions on the use of bonded and child labor.

* Suspend the flow of aid to the sericulture (silk) industry until the government of India has taken concrete steps to identify, eradicate, and rehabilitate children in bondage.

* Prior to approval of projects, investigate the effect of proposed policies and programs on the incidence of child servitude.

* Provide funding for a program with NGOs and the Indian government to effectively implement India's Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, and to assist in identifying, releasing, and rehabilitating bonded child laborers, with a priority on industries which have previously received aid. Establish an institutionalized mechanism for incorporating local NGO ideas and opinions into projects at all stages of the decision making process-before a loan is released, while the project is being implemented, and in the course of any post-project evaluation.

Recommendations to the International Community

* India's international donors should suspend funding for any projects, such as sericulture, that are known to employ bonded child labor unless the project includes specific programs for the elimination of bonded child labor, education and rehabilitation of the affected children, and for improving the social welfare of the children and their families.

* Donors should explore the possibility of funding a program with NGOs and the Indian government to effectively implement India's Bonded Labor (Abolition) Act and accompanying rehabilitation scheme.

* Trade benefits provided under the Generalized System of Preferences in both the United States and in Europe are prohibited to countries where forced labor is tolerated. Accordingly, Human Rights Watch/Asia calls upon the United States Trade Representative and the European Union to initiate an investigation into the use of bonded child labor in India and into the Indian Government's enforcement of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. India's trading partners should use the leverage ofGSP trade benefits to encourage the government to eradicate bonded child labor and to provide rehabilitation and education to the children involved.

Recommendations to Retailers, Suppliers, and Indian and

International Consumers

* When making purchases from industries known to employ large numbers of children in bonded labor, such as the silk, carpet, beedi, silver, leather and agricultural sectors, consumers in India and abroad should require their retailers to pledge to reject goods from suppliers which employ bonded child labor in the manufacture of these goods and to support a good faith program to phase children out of bondage, offering them financial assistance and access to formal education. Consumers should also require retailers to guarantee that they and their suppliers offer full access to independent monitors to all facilities and supplier facilities to check on the incidence of bonded child labor.

* Corporations should incorporate a monitoring process for bonded child labor into their quality control procedures and in setting standards for selecting suppliers and products.

* Indian consumers should appeal to their members of the legislative assembly (MLA), district magistrates, and district collectors to demand that vigilance committees be established and strengthened, and demand that the government of India identify, release, and rehabilitate all bonded laborers (including children) as required under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976, and accompanying rehabilitation scheme.

* International consumers should appeal to their own governments to press the Government of India to abide by its own law by administering in good faith the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976, and accompanying procedures for the identification, release, and rehabilitation of bonded laborers.

It is commonly asserted that poverty is the cause of bonded and other forms of child labor. In fact, poverty is only one of many factors at play in creating and sustaining the conditions that facilitate endemic bondage.

In India, other key elements behind bonded child labor include: an ancient tradition of slavery and debt bondage; the lack of alternative small-scale loans for the rural and urban poor and the lack of a concerted social welfare scheme to safeguard against hunger and illness; a noncompulsory and unequal educational system; the lack of employment opportunities and living wages for adults; corruption and indifference among government officials; and societal apathy. A final element is caste-based discrimination, which is closely intertwined particularly with agricultural debt bondage.

A new economic policy introduced in 1991 is transforming the Indian economy, supporting a burgeoning middle class and a thin layer of the ultra rich. The liberalization package includes lower import duties, access for foreign investors to India's growing industrial sector, privatization of previously state-run industries and services, and increased competition. India's total exports, valued at twenty-six billion U.S. dollars in 199417 (most of this in consumer goods), are expected to triple by the year 2000, pushing India into fourth place among the world's largest economies. (With over 900 million inhabitants, in 1996 India was the second largest country in terms of population.)

The benefit to the poor and working classes-who comprise a large majority of India's population-is less clear. Along with economic liberalization has come a structural adjustment program, and, according to many Indians, the repercussions of structural adjustment are battering the poor. The cost of living is rising in both urban and rural areas. Unemployment among adults remains high, with more than fifty-five million estimated to be jobless.18 In the informal sector, which employs 85 percent of Indian workers,19 including children, work conditionsare widely considered to be worsening, and the rate of bonded child labor is actually rising.20

This trend was noted in a 1995 report by the government-appointed Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade. According to the commission, child labor has been increasing in India at the rate of 4 percent a year, "while the working conditions of the children have remained unchanged, if not deteriorated."21 Workers and social activists interviewed by Human Rights Watch across India confirmed this trend.

Social scientists estimate the number of India's working children to be between sixty and 115 million.22 About 85 percent of these children work in the agricultural sector; the rest work in small-scale industries and the service sector,including a large but uncounted number of girls working as domestic servants. About eleven to eighteen million working children are street children,23 some of whom are self-employed as shoeshine boys or newspaper vendors, railway porters and ragpickers. Others are forced laborers, working as prostitutes, beggars, drug sellers and petty criminals.24

While both boys and girls work as child laborers, the girl child is often subject to even more dismal treatment than her brothers. Girls consistently earn less money than boys (as women earn significantly less than men in India), and are subject to gender-specific forms of abuse from their employers, including rape. In addition to lower pay and greater abuse, girls suffer from the higher demands placed on them within the Indian household. Girls have to work in the house-they tend to the other children, they clean, they go to market, they cook-even if they are also working long and grueling hours outside the home.25 Furthermore, girls are over represented in some of the most brutal industries to employ child labor. There are twice as many girls as boys laboring in India's quarries and factories, and the majority of children working in the construction industry are girls.26

OVERVIEW OF BONDED CHILD LABOR

Approximately fifteen million children work as bonded laborers in India. Most were put into bondage in exchange for comparatively small sums of money: two thousand rupees-equal to about thirty-five U.S. dollars-is the average amount "loaned" in exchange for a child's labor. To India's vast numbers of extremely poor, however, this money can be, literally, a life-saver. With scant alternative sources of credit available-few rural banks, cooperative credit schemes or government loans-the poor are forced to turn to the local moneylender, who extracts the only collateral available: the promise of their labor or the labor of their children.

Two players create the debt bondage arrangement: the creditor-employer, who offers money to an impoverished parent in an attempt to secure the extremely cheap and captive labor of his or her child, and the parent who accepts this money, agreeing to offer the child's labor as surety for the debt. The child is a commodity of exchange. She or he is powerless to affect the agreement or its terms and-whether willing or unwilling to serve the bond master-powerless to refuse.

The arrangements between parents and contracting agents are usually informal and unwritten. The number of years required to pay off such a loan is indeterminate. Many of the children interviewed by Human Rights Watch had already been working for several years, and even among those relatively new to their jobs, none said that they expected to be released prior to maturity. Some intended to walk away from their bondage when they married, leaving a younger sibling to take over the labor-payment or a parent to somehow extinguish the debt-perhaps by a new loan from a different creditor-employer.

In many industries marked by the use of debt bondage, the child's labor does not function to pay off the original loan at all. Instead, the child's labor serves as both interest on the loan-for the children are paid only a fraction of what their labor would bring them on the open market-and as a surety for the loan's repayment. The original amount loaned to the parent must be repaid in full in a single installment; only then will the child be released from servitude.

The making of beedi cigarettes is one such industry. The average advance in the beedi industry is 1,500 rupees.27 The average number of beedies a bonded child laborer rolls in a day is 1,500, for an average daily wage of nine rupees. Were the value of the child's labor to be counted as gradual payment of the moneyadvanced-and were it calculated honestly, at the official minimum wage established for beedi rolling (30.9 rupees per thousand beedies)-the agent-employer would recoup in labor value the original debt in about six weeks. But the beedi worker's debt is not set off against the value of the labor, and the labor's value is not compensated honestly. If it were, the child would be earning forty to fifty rupees a day instead of nine, and would be able to save enough to quickly fulfill the lump-sum payment requirement of the original advance. As it is, this requirement, together with the abysmally low "wages" paid, virtually ensure that the bonded child will not escape servitude. Most children work many years for their agents, for which the agents, and particularly the owners of the beedi companies, profit handsomely. It is, simply, a severe form of economic exploitation.

Industries that do allow for gradual repayment of the original debt do not provide an easier escape from bondage. First, employers may increase the principal of the loan by adding on to it miscellaneous costs and expenses-the cost of materials, the loss of "defective" goods, meals given to the children, or medical care, on the rare occasions that it is provided. Second, the low wages paid may spur the child's parent to seek an additional loan from the employer. Finally, and most significantly, the value of the child's labor as against the loan is decided by the employer. The bonded children and their parents have virtually no bargaining power with the bond master, with the result that interest rates of 1,200 percent a year, taken out in labor value, are not uncommon.

Regardless of which of these debt structures the child labors under, the end result is the same: it is very difficult to escape bondage. The underlying reason for this difficulty is the grossly unequal power relationships between the child workers and their parents on the one hand and the creditors-cum-employers on the others. The former are frequently low caste, illiterate, and extremely poor. The latter are usually higher caste, literate, comparatively wealthy, and powerful members of the community. Often, these creditors-employers are the only money lenders in town, and as such are extremely influential. They are also frequently connected, by caste and by the social and political hierarchy of the community, with local officials, including police officers, factory inspectors, and other local authorities who might normally be expected to safeguard the rights of children.

Although the exact circumstances of work vary from industry to industry, the hours tend to be long, the pay nominal, and the conditions abysmal. In some industries, children work twelve or more hours a day, seven days a week, receiving only two holidays a year. During their first few years of work they may receive no wages at all, or infrequent pocket change known as "incentives." They are required to work constantly and at a rapid pace; if they work slowly, talk to another child,or make a mistake in their work they will be severely scolded and possibly beaten by their employer, and pay may be deducted from their wages.

Work conditions are dangerous to the health of the child. In the beedi industry, the long hours spent hunched over the basket of tobacco causes growth deformities, and the constant proximity to tobacco dust causes and exacerbates lung diseases; there is a very high rate of tuberculosis in communities dedicated to the manufacture of beedi. In carpet weaving the occupational diseases are similar: the children sit in a cramped space all day long, inhaling wool fibers and dust. As a result, the carpet weavers are prone to emphysema and tuberculosis; they also suffer frequent cuts to their hands and fingers, which may be "cured" by cauterizing them with burning sulphur. Silk workers face similar long and short-term hazards.

The silver workers suffer frequent burns on their hands and arms, the leather workers exposed to toxic chemicals long banned in developed countries, and the gemstone polishers are subject to both cuts and toxic contamination. All of these workers, given their cramped and unsanitary work places, suffer a high risk of contracting tuberculosis and other diseases of poverty.

Three of the industries studied in this report-carpet weaving, beedi rolling, and cloth (silk) weaving-have been classified as "hazardous" under India's Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Employment of children under fourteen years of age is illegal in these industries. Despite this prohibition, children continue to form the backbone of all three industries, which together employ approximately 850,000 children.28 Not only has the government failed to enforce this protective legislation, but the government itself is guilty of violating it-the central government's Handloom and Handicrafts Export Corporation runs approximately two hundred "training centers" for child laborers in the carpet industry.29

FACTORS BEHIND BONDED CHILD LABOR:

POVERTY AND TRADITION

A significant use of forced labour has marked the entire spectrum of production in India at all historical periods.30

Slavery in India dates back at least 1,500 years.31 Various forms of debt bondage coexisted with formal slavery, and while the British abolished slavery legislatively through the Anti-Slavery Act of 1843, large numbers of former slaves traded their status for that of perpetually bonded servitude. This was in part due to the fact that the British did not abolish debt-bondage; instead they regulated it. The Workman's Breach of Contract Act, 1859 (13 of 1859) enforced the obligation to provide labor in lieu of an advance, and Section 200 of the Civil Procedure Code, also enacted in 1859, allowed landlords and moneylenders to seize the property of bonded laborers and provided for imprisonment of bonded laborers who did not honor their obligations when they received advances. The Workman's Breach of Contract Act was repealed in 1925, and Section 200 of the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1879 to remove punishments for bonded laborers.32

The difference between slavery and debt bondage is often rather small, particularly in the context of agriculture. In both systems workers may be considered to be attached to the land, with ownership of them transferred as part of land sales or exchanges. Both slavery and debt bondage grant significant powers of ownership to the master: the worker cannot seek employment elsewhere, the worker cannot refuse to work, the worker is subject to the master's demands twenty-four hours a day, and the master controls the worker's family. A worker who resists this is subject to severe mistreatment, including beatings and torture. Many grass-roots organizations, including children's advocates and low-caste and tribal groups, oppose the practice of bonded labor and other forms ofcontemporary slavery. Nonetheless, debt bondage is tolerated by large segments of society who accept it as the normal and proper state of affairs.

Those who stand to gain from the abolition of debt bondage, on the other hand, are precisely those who are least likely to be in a position to exert pressure or claim their rights. Bonded laborers are extremely vulnerable to negative repercussions should they attempt to organize or otherwise agitate for enforcement of the law. Even requests for minimal improvements can lead to a violent response from employers. Bonded laborers have been severely beaten after asking for a raise of a few cents a day, or asking the employer to fulfill a promise to give them a few sacks of grain each year, or for other relatively mild "challenges" to the status quo.33 Scores of children told Human Rights Watch that their master would beat them if they brought up the subject of wages.

More serious challenges to the master's authority may be met with a more violent or even deadly response. During a much-publicized series of events in 1985, in the state of Haryana, protesting quarry workers were beaten by their employers' hired thugs while uniformed police officers looked on. One of the workers was beaten to death and thirty-four others were seriously wounded. Police later took the injured workers from the hospital to the police station, where they were arrested and fingerprinted.34

According to a regional activist in the state of Rajasthan, mine owners continue to respond to labor disputes with unchecked brutality. "Murder and mayhem is nothing to these people. If they are challenged, they will kill theworkers and bury the bodies in the quarries."35 The same activist told Human Rights Watch that most government officials in the region have ties to the industry, making legal remedies out of the question.

Poverty is inextricably linked to bondage and the combination of poverty and the lack of access to credit is another essential factor behind bonded labor. Hundreds of millions of India's people are extremely poor and live hand-to-mouth. When additional financial needs arise-to compensate for seasonal declines in earnings or crops, to pay for medical expenses, or to pay for wedding or funeral ceremonies-there is no store of resources available, and the money must be borrowed.

There are very few borrowing options for a poor rural Indian. Even if a bank or cooperative society is accessible-and for most they are not-the poor laborer cannot qualify for a loan, having no security or collateral to offer. With no institutionalized credit sources to turn to, the laborer is forced to take loans from other sources, namely, the local moneylender or local employers or landlords. Often, the village moneylender and the village employer are the same person.

Moneylenders charge 20 percent monthly interest or more. Bond masters charge a much higher rate, but it is less visible since it is taken out in labor value. Many laborers fall into debt bondage as a direct result of borrowing from moneylenders: they borrow the money, are unable to pay it back because of the accelerated interest rate, then find themselves forced to submit to debt bondage-of themselves or of a child-to obtain enough money to repay the original loan.

"NIMBLE FINGERS," AND OTHER MYTHS OF CHILD LABOR

A number of myths underlie and perpetuate child labor, justifying it on the grounds that the system "benefits" everyone involved: the country, the community, the family, the craft and the child. Children must be trained at the right age or they will never learn a skill; children must be trained in a profession appropriate to their background and class; children are particularly suited for certain kinds of work because of their "nimble" fingers; and child labor is a natural and desirable function of the family unit. These myths have widespread support.

The "nimble fingers" theory is applied to some of the harshest industries employing children, including the carpet, silk, beedi and silver industries. It asserts that children make the best products in these occupations thanks to their nimble fingers which are, according to the myth, better able to tie the tiny knots of wool, unravel thread from boiling silk cocoons, and solder tiny silver flowers to a chain. In this view, child labor is not an evil, but a production necessity. Thisrationalization is a lie. In fact, children make the cheaper goods; only master weavers make the best quality carpets and saris.

The myth that children must be trained at the "right" age-at six or seven years of age, or younger-contends that children who go to school, postponing their craft training until adolescence, either will be unable to adequately learn a skill or will be at an irreparable disadvantage in comparison with those who did begin working as young children. A study on child labor in Varanasi summarized the calculation behind this logic:

Any number of justifications are available at the community level in support of children taking up a job at an early age. It is said that in order to learn the craft properly one has to start working away from the family. Further, in order to become an accomplished artisan one has to start working at an early age. Those who start working at the "late" age of 12 years might pick up the craft within a few months but they would never be able to pick up speed in their work. As against this, those starting at the "right" age of six or seven years become very good workers after an apprenticeship of 5 to 6 years. Whatever be the truth behind the general belief, it ensures continuous availability of child labour at low wages.36

APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW

The practice of bonded child labor violates the following international human rights conventions; India is a party to all of them, and as such is legally bound to comply with their terms.

Convention on the Suppression of Slave Trade and Slavery, 1926

This convention requires signatories to "prevent and suppress the slave trade" and "to bring about, progressively and as soon as possible, the complete abolition of slavery in all its forms." It also obligates parties to "take all necessary measures to prevent compulsory or forced labor from developing into conditions analogous to slavery."37

Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956

The supplementary convention on slavery offers further clarification of prohibited practices and refers specifically to debt bondage and child servitude as institutions similar to slavery. It requires States Parties to "take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition of... debt bondage... [and] any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour."38 The convention defines debt bondage as follows:

Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of thoseservices as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined.39

Forced Labour Convention, 1930

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Forced Labour Convention requires signatories to "suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms in the shortest period possible."40 In 1957, the ILO explicitly incorporated debt bondage and serfdom within its definition of forced labor.41

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966

Article 8 of the ICCPR prohibits slavery and the slave trade in all their forms, servitude, and forced or compulsory labor. Article 24 entitles all children to "the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State."42

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966

Article 7 of the ICESCR provides that States Parties shall "recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work." Article 10 requires Parties to protect "children and young persons... from economic and social exploitation."43

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

The following three provisions mandate protections that are particularly relevant for the bonded child laborer:

Article 32: "States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or... be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development."44 States are directed to implement these protections through appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures. In particular, they are to:

(a) provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admissions to employment;

(b) provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment; and

(c) provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of this article.45

Article 35: "States Parties shall take all appropriate. . . measures to prevent the abduction, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form."46 A significant portion of the bonded child laborers of India are trafficked from one state to another, and some are sold outright.47

Article 36: "States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child's welfare."48

APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW

A plethora of national laws, some dating back to the 1930s, offer protection from exploitation to India's working children. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976 is, for the purposes of this report, the most significant and far-reaching of these laws-it outlaws all debt bondage, including that of children, and it requires government intervention and rehabilitation of the bonded worker. It is further set apart from the other laws by the fact that it has none of the exemptions from compliance that virtually nullify many of India's other labor laws. Unfortunately, lack of loopholes is no guarantee of enforcement. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, and the other pieces of protective legislation that apply in varying circumstances to the situation of the bonded child laborer, are betrayed by an extremely low rate of enforcement. This lack of enforcement is discussed in the chapter on the role of the Indian government.

Every industry discussed in this report, and every individual case referred to, violates the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act and the constitutional provisions that underlie such an act. These violations represent the most severe and egregious of the many legal failings contributing to the persistence of bonded child labor in India. All of the cases and all of the industries mentioned in this report also violate the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act: they all violate its regulatory provisions, and the largest and most significant industries-beedi, carpets, and silk-also violate its prohibitory provisions. In addition to violating these two centerpieces of protective legislation, most industries also violate one or more of the following laws: the Factories Act; the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act; the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act; and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act. All cases documented in this report also violate the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, which is similar in its protections to the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.

In addition, under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) rape, extortion, causing grievous hurt, assault, kidnapping, abduction, wrongful confinement, buying or disposing of people as slaves, and unlawful compulsory labor are criminal offences, punishable with up to ten years imprisonment and fines. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, cruelty to juveniles and withholding the earnings of a juvenile are criminal offences, punishable with up to three years imprisonment and fines.

Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and liberty. The Indian Supreme Court has interpreted the right of liberty to include, among other things, the right of free movement, the right to eat, sleep and work when one pleases, the right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to integrity and dignity of the person, the right to the benefits of protective labor legislation, and the right to speedy justice.49 The practice of bonded labor violates all of these constitutionally-mandated rights.

Article 23 of the constitution prohibits the practice of debt bondage and other forms of slavery both modern and ancient:

Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with the law.

Begar is an ancient caste-based obligation, a "form of forced labour under which a person is compelled to work without receiving any remuneration."50 "Other similar forms of forced labour" was interpreted expansively by the Supreme Court in 1982, when it ruled in the seminal Asiad Workers' Case that both unpaid and paid labour were prohibited by Article 23, so long as the element of force or compulsion was present in the worker's ongoing services to the employer. Examples of force include overt physical compulsion and compulsion under threat of legal sanction (as for example in the case of an allegedly unpaid debt), as well as more subtle forms of compulsion, including "compulsion arising from hunger and poverty, want and destitution."51

Given the dire economic straits of most Indians, this definition could bring hundreds of millions of people within its scope. The Supreme Court went on, however, to provide a helpful rule for determining exactly what situationsconstitute forced labor. "[W]here a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the word `forced labour'..."52 All labor rewarded with less than the minimum wage, then, constitutes forced labor and violates the Constitution of India.

In another landmark case, this one brought on behalf of a group of bonded quarry workers in the early 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that "[i]t is the plainest requirement of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution that bonded labourers must be identified and released and on release, they must be suitably rehabilitated.... [A]ny failure of action on the part of the State Government[s] in implementing the provisions of [the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act] would be the clearest violation of Article 21 [and] Article 23 of the Constitution."53

Article 24 prohibits the employment of children in factories, mines, and other hazardous occupations.54 Together, Articles 23 and 24 are placed under the heading "Right against Exploitation," one of India's constitutionally-proclaimed fundamental rights.

Article 39 requires the state to "direct its policy toward securing":

(e) that the health and strength of workers... and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength.

(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment."

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act purports to abolish all debt agreements and obligations arising out of India's longstanding bonded labor system. It is the legislative fulfillment of the Indian Constitution's mandate against begar and forced labor.55 It frees all bonded laborers, cancels any outstanding debts against them, prohibits the creation of new bondage agreements, and orders the economic rehabilitation of freed bonded laborers by the state.56 It also criminalizes all post-act attempts to compel a person to engage in bonded labor, with maximum penalties of three years in prison and a 2,000 rupee fine.57 The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act offers the following definition of the practices being abolished.

Sec. 2(g) "bonded labour system" means the system of forced, or partly forced labour under which a debtor enters...or is presumed to have entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that,-

(i) in consideration of an advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants (whether or not such advance is evidenced by any document) and in consideration of the interest, if any, due on such advance, or

(ii) in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or

(iii) in pursuance of an obligation devolving on him by succession, or

(iv) for any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants, or

(v) by reason of his birth in any particular caste or community, he would-

(1) render, by himself or through any member of his family... labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages, or

(2) forfeit the freedom of employment or other means of livelihood for a specified period or for an unspecified period, or

(3) forfeit the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, or

(4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market value any of his property or product of his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any person dependent on him...

This definition is meant to, and does, cover all of the many permutations of the bonded labor system in modern India. There are differences from one part of the country to the next and from one industry or landlord to another in terms of wages paid, the amount advanced, whether the advance is considered a type of loan or a type of wage, the hours worked per day and days worked per year, and whether the worker has some freedom from the bond master or is kept under constant control. Some bonded laborers receive no wages at all, apart from meager food stipends and a yearly change of clothing; some receive extremely low wages, constituting as little as 10 percent of the mandated minimum wage; some receive a standard wage in theory, but in fact lose 70 or 80 percent of it, sight unseen, back to the employer as "interest" on the advance. Some laborers are working to pay off a 500 rupee loan, others a 15,000 rupee loan. Some inherited their debt from their parents; others have contracted for a ten-month period of servitude. Some work sixteen hours a day, 365 days a year, every year of their lives. Others work ten hours a day, six days a week. Despite these differences, all are bonded laborers within the definition of the act.

It is what they have in common that determines their bonded status: they are working for nominal wages in consideration of an advance, and they are not free to discontinue their work. These three elements-an advance, low wages, and compulsion-are at the core of all bonded labor. The act defines "nominal wages" as those that are less than minimum wages or, where no minimum wage has beenset, less than wages normally paid for the same or similar work in the same locality.58

District magistrates-called district collectors, or deputy commissioners, in some states-are responsible for enforcement of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.59 The district magistrate, an appointed civil servant, is the top authority at the district level and as such oversees government administration, including the administration of justice. His duties are varied and many, and include overseeing the work of fifty to sixty distinct departments.60 In addition to these duties, he is required by the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act to identify all cases of bonded labor occurring in his district, free the laborers, and initiate prosecution under the act. He is also charged with making sure available credit sources are in place, so that freed laborers will not be forced into bondage again.61 Finally, the district magistrate is to constitute and participate in the functioning ofa district-level "vigilance committee." The statutory functions of this committee are:

(a) to advise the District Magistrate . . . as to the efforts made, and action taken, to ensure that the provisions of this act... are properly implemented;

(b) to provide for the economic and social rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers;

(c) to coordinate the functions of rural banks and cooperative societies with a view to canalizing adequate credit to the freed bonded labourers;

(d) to keep an eye on the number of offences of which cognizance has been taken under [the] act;

(e) to make a survey as to whether there is any offence of which cognizance ought to be taken under the act;

(f) to defend any suit instituted against a freed bonded labourer or a member of his family... for the recovery of the whole or part of any bonded debt...62

Very few such vigilance committees have been formed, and Human Rights Watch knows of no district in which such a committee is currently operative.

References to rehabilitation of freed bonded laborers occur twice in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act-once in reference to the district magistrate's duty to "secure and protect the economic interests" of the bonded laborer (Sec. 11), and once in stipulating the vigilance committees' duty to provide for the "economic and social rehabilitation" of the bonded laborer (Sec. 14). The act itself, however, does not specify of what this rehabilitation should consist and left implementation of rehabilitation up to the state governments, and largely dependent on the initiative of District Magistrates.

In 1978, the Ministry of Labour launched a scheme that specified a "rehabilitation allowance" in order to assist state governments with rehabilitation.63 Under this scheme, the central government contributes half of the rehabilitation assistance allowance due to every freed bonded laborer, and the state where the bonded laborer resides pays the other half. The allowance, determined by a Ministry of Labour Planning Commission, was originally set at 4,000 rupees. Ithas been raised once, to 6,250 rupees, in 1986.64 In 1982, cognizant of the reasons that lead to bondage and possibility of relapse if those released are not rehabilitated, the government expanded this program by adding guidelines for rehabilitation under Ministry of Labor Direct Order No. S.11011/20/82-BL, which stated that:

(i) Psychological rehabilitation must go side by side with physical and economic rehabilitation;

(ii) The physical and economic rehabilitation has fifteen major components namely allotment of house-sites and agricultural land, land development, provision of low cost dwelling units, agriculture, provision of credit, horticulture, animal husbandry, training for acquiring new skills and develop in existing skills, promoting traditional arts and crafts, provision of wages employment and enforcement of minimum wages, collection and processing of minor forest products, health, medical care and sanitation, supply of essential commodities, education of children of bonded labourers and protection of civil rights;

(iii) There is scope for bringing about an integration among the various Central and Centrally Sponsored Schemes and the ongoing schemes of State Government for more qualitative rehabilitation. The essence of such duplication, i.e., pooling resources from different sources for the same purpose. It should be ensured that while funds are not drawn from different sources for the same purpose, [funds] drawn from different sectors [schemes] for different components of the rehabilitation scheme are integrated skillfully; and

(iv) While drawing up any scheme/programme of rehabilitation of freed bonded labour, the latter must necessarily be given the choice between the various alternatives for their rehabilitation and such programme should be finally selected for execution as would need the total requirements of the families of freed bonded laborers to enable them to cross the poverty line on theone hand and to prevent them from sliding back into debt bondage on the other.65

In its 1994-95 Annual Report, the Ministry of Labour stated that funds for rehabilitation assistance would be increased from Rs. 6,250 to Rs.10,000 for each bonded laborer, and that "respective State Governments will undertake further surveys to identify bonded labourers as may still be in existence and report to the Government of India. The State Governments have also agreed to undertake selective follow-up studies to assess whether rehabilitated bonded labourers have relapsed into bondage and to set up Vigilance Committees, wherever they are not in existence."66

However, the extent to which bonded laborers have been identified, released, and rehabilitated by government officials has been negligible; this is discussed in the chapter on the role of the government.

Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933

This act predates Independence but remains in force. It is rarely used and rarely mentioned in discussions of bonded labor and child labor, probably because the more recent laws carry penalties that, while lenient themselves, are nonetheless stiffer than those of the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act.

The act calls for penalties to be levied against any parent, middleman, or employer involved in making or executing a pledge of a child's labor. Such a pledge is defined as an "agreement, written or oral, express or implied, whereby the parent or guardian of a child, in return for any payment or benefit received or to be received by him, undertakes to cause or allow the services of the child to be utilized in any employment."67 Lawful labor agreements are limited to those made in consideration of reasonable wages and terminable at seven days' or less notice. The fines for violating this law are fifty rupees against the parent and two hundred rupees against either the middleman or employer.68

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986

The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act was enacted in 1986 and defines a child as "a person who has not completed their fourteenth year of age."69 It does not prohibit child labor per se, nor does it set a minimum age for the employment of children. Instead, it regulates the hours and conditions of work for child laborers, while prohibiting the employment of children in twenty-five hazardous industries.70 Three of the enumerated hazardous industries rely heavily on bonded labor and were included in the Human Rights Watch investigation. These three industries are the beedi (hand-rolled indigenous cigarettes) industry, carpet-weaving, and cloth printing, dyeing and weaving. The other industries discussed in this report are subject to the regulatory aspects of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. However, implementation of the regulatory provisions of the act require each state to formulate an act-specific set of rules and regulations; the majority of states have not done so as of 1996, ten years after passage of the act.

For first convictions under the hazardous industries prohibition, the act prescribes imprisonment of three to twelve months or a fine of 10,000 to 20,000 rupees. Second offenses are to be punished with a mandatory six months to two years in prison. There are no standing requirements for the filing of a complaint under the Child Labor Act. Any person, including but not limited to any police officer or government inspector, is authorized to file a complaint before any court of competent jurisdiction.

The act also authorizes central and state governments to appoint inspectors charged with securing compliance with the act. Rather than do this, most states have added responsibility for enforcement of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act on to the already-existing ranks of the labor inspectors. This is an undesirable arrangement for two reasons. First, requiring the labor inspectors to also investigate violations of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act saddles them with an unrealistic work burden. Even before the 1986 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act was added to their responsibilities, a 1979 report by a government-appointed Committee on Child Labour found the inspectors overwhelmed by their duties:

The jurisdiction of individual inspectors was too extensive for them to keep a regular watch on activities within their purview. In several States one inspector was required to cover a group of several districts. He was also burdened with very wide ranging other responsibilities pertaining to labour legislation. [As a result of] this situation...there were practically no prosecutions... of any violation of existing laws pertaining to child labour.71

In practice, some labor inspectors enforce the Factories Act while others enforce the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, a not very efficient division of labor.72 Furthermore, a 1995 government-mandated report on child labor found that "many inspectors were unclear about the import of laws."73

In addition to being overextended, factory and labor inspectors in India are notoriously corrupt and susceptible to bribery.74 Against this background, thereis little reason to expect them to vigorously find and root out instances of illegal child labor.

Even if inspection were reliable, glaring loopholes in the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act allow manufacturers to escape application of the law quite easily. First, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act applies to all workshops which make use of child labor in prohibited processes, except those workshops "wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family..."75 The vast majority of child labor takes place in agriculture and cottage industries in the informal sector. Often, the employer does have one of his own children or a niece or nephew working alongside the rest of the children, and this is enough to take his shop out of the purview of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. Even if he does not have a family member working on the premises, he is likely to say that he does, according to labor inspectors, social welfare activists and others familiar with the informal sector.

This exception gives tacit government approval to the use of child labor, when the child is a relative of the family, under conditions that would otherwise be illegal. This exception includes the use of a child labor in hazardous occupations or industries. Nor is this the only exception to the application of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. The act is also inapplicable to government-sponsored schools or training programs. Again, this means that work and conditions ordinarily deemed harmful to children are considered non-harmful so long as they take place under the auspices of an official government program. The best examples of this exception are the approximately two hundred government-run carpet weaving training centers.76 Carpet weaving is a hazardous and therefore prohibited industry under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. Under the exception for government schools, however, thousands of children are enrolled in this industry, not only with government approval, but with government facilitation and encouragement.

These exceptions are clear violations Article 24 of the Indian Constitution, which states that "no child below 14 shall be employed in any factory or mine or engaged in any hazardous employment."

Another major loophole in the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act concerns the proof of age of the child worker. One would expect the employer to carry the burden of proof that the working child is of legal age. This is not the case. Instead, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act effectively putsthe onus of proof on the state, stipulating that, in the event of a dispute between the employer and the government inspector as to the age of the working child, "the question shall... be referred by the Inspector for decision to the prescribed medical authority."77 What this means in practice is that on those rare occasions when labor inspectors do pay a visit to production sites, they must pay a doctor to accompany them and evaluate the age of the children. Even then the truth of the matter of age is not necessarily settled, as manufacturers are known to bribe the medical authorities-not to mention the inspectors themselves-in order to obtain favorable results.78

These loopholes create daunting enforcement difficulties in the beedi, carpet, and silk industries-the three industries that are both heavily bonded and where child labor of any sort is outlawed by the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. The same difficulties would be noted in the other prohibited industries of the act.

Every industry studied by Human Rights Watch thoroughly violates the protective regulations of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. These violated provisions include the right to an hour of rest after three hours of work; a maximum work day of six hours; a prohibition of child work before 8:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m.; a prohibition on overtime; a mandatory day of rest every week; and the requirement that various health and safety precautions be observed.

Factories Act, 1948

The Factories Act strictly forbids the employment of children less than fourteen years old in factories.79 It also includes a sizable loophole, in that the act only applies to factories employing ten or more people with the use of electric or other forms of generated power, or twenty or more people without the use ofpower.80 Many small scale industries intentionally fragment the manufacturing process into separate units in order to circumvent application of the Factories Act.81 Others only employ small numbers of people on the books, bringing in dozens of others as unofficial "extras."82

Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966

See chapter on beedi cigarettes.

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989

This act defines any kind of forced labor, including bonded labor, as an "atrocity" if the victim is a member of a scheduled caste or tribe. Committing an "atrocity" is punishable with up to five years imprisonment and fine.83

Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979

This law regulates the employment of inter-state workers migrant workers. It requires that establishments employing such workers be registered, that contractors be licensed and keep records of all migrant workers recruited, that migrant workers be paid at the same rate as non-migrant workers, and that inspections be carried out to ensure compliance with these provisions.84

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

This act regulates the use of contract labor and provides for its abolition in certain industries, at the discretion of the appropriate government (state or central ). Among its provisions are a requirement that no wage period exceed one month.85

Minimum Wages Act, 1948

The Minimum Wages Act sets the minimum wage for certain enumerated occupations and requires that overtime be paid to all workers who work beyond a "normal working day." In the case of children under fourteen, a "normal working day" is four and a half hours.

Plantation Labour Act, 1951

This act regulates the work and wage conditions of plantation workers, including children over the age of fourteen.

Apprentices Act, 1961

The Apprentices Act regulates the rights and work hours of apprentices, and sets the minimum age for apprenticeships at fourteen years.

Shops and Establishments Act, 1961

This law, which applies to shops, hotels, restaurants, and places of amusement, regulates the hours of work and prohibits the employment of children below a certain age, to be determined by the states. In eleven states, the minimum age for a child worker is fourteen years; in thirteen states, the minimum age is twelve years.86

BEEDI

Sumathi, a twelve-year-old girl, is the oldest sibling of five; three of the five are girls, and the three sisters all roll beedi. The youngest, eight years old, works at home as a tip closer. The second, nine years old, was bonded to an agent three years ago for an advance of 1,000 rupees; she works full time as a tip closer, earning only three rupees a week.

Sumathi herself was bonded when she was seven in exchange for a 1,000 rupee advance. She rolls 1,500 beedies a day, for which she earns five rupees. She told Human Rights Watch:

My father and mother force me to go to work with the agent. The agent often beats me. If I tell my father, he allows me to stay home the following day, but then they are pushing me to go again. My father and mother say I have to go. I don't want to go. I am afraid of my agent. But my parents force me to go, if I don't go they scold me and beat me.

Every week the agent gives my wages to my parents. If it is less money than usual, they beat me.

In my family there are seven members, so it is difficult to even get enough food to eat. That's why my father goes to the agent-to ask for more money. But the agent won't give it, because he says I don't work hard enough. But every day I am being sent back to the agent.87

"Beedi" is a domestically-produced and consumed Indian cigarette. Though cheaper than manufactured filter-tip cigarettes, it is a relatively expensive product-a pack of twenty-four beedies costs between ten and twenty rupees-and one that is heavily consumed, with more than 500 billion beedi cigarettes producedand smoked each year.88 With annual sales worth forty billion rupees, beedi is one of India's most significant domestic products.89

More than 325,000 children labor in the beedi industry, most in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.90 Other states with beedi production are Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Uttar Pradesh (in the district of Allahabad).91 Human Rights Watch investigated bonded child labor in the beedi industry of Tamil Nadu only.

Beedi rolling is stationary work; the children sit cross-legged on the ground or floor all day, with a large and smoothly-woven shallow basket in their laps. The basket holds a pile of tobacco and a stack of rectangular rolling papers cut from the large leaves of the tendu plant. The child takes a paper, sprinkles tobacco into it, rolls it up tightly, and ties it with string. The tips are closed either by the roller herself or by a younger child, typically four to seven years old; young children often begin their beedi careers by working as tip closers.

The pace is rapid, with practiced children rolling and tying each beedi cigarette in a matter of seconds. Most of the older children-those over ten-roll 1,500 to 2,000 beedies each day. In order to encourage speed, employers keep close vigil over the child workers, scolding them or hitting them if they slow down. Some children have been forced to work with a matchbox tucked between their chin and their neck; in order to hold the box in place, they must keep their head down and focused on the work. If the matchbox falls, the employer knows the child has looked away and will punish her or him.

Children working under bondage in the beedi industry work between ten and fourteen hours a day, with short breaks for lunch and dinner. They work six and a half days a week year-round, but are only paid for six-the half day on Sunday is a designated "catching up" day. When children fail to report to work,either because of sickness or out of rebellion at the harsh conditions, their employer typically will go to their house and return them to the workplace under force.

The structure of work and bondage

Entire families are dedicated to the production of beedi. Usually it is the children who work as bonded laborers, with adults managing to buy their own freedom by the time they reach maturity or marry. For these poor families, bondage is a cyclical phase, a defining characteristic of childhood and youth. Generations repeat the steps: as children they are bonded; as young adults they buy or win their release; as mature adults (thirty or thirty-five years is middle-aged in India) they face growing economic pressures-illnesses, weddings and funerals, crop failures, housing needs, alcohol addiction. At the same time that financial need increases, they find their earning power decreasing, as the years of childhood labor take their toll on physical strength and capability. The moneylender-employer offers an advance for the rights to the parent's child, the advance is accepted, and the cycle begins anew.

In other cases, the entire family works in bondage. A regional paper carried the following story:

When she was six years old, she was pledged for two measures of ragi92 by her parents to a beedi-rolling agent in their village... Day after day, from dawn to dusk, she rolled beedies for twelve long years. There was no play, no school.

Today, at thirty, she is still in bondage, rolling beedies. She did have a brief period of respite though. Before marriage, her parents redeemed her. Gouramma was eighteen years old then. But her new found freedom was lost as her alcoholic husband pledged her for Rs 3,000, even before he actually tied the knot. (He had first pledged himself for Rs 4,000.)

Today the couple has four children, three of them already bonded labourers [aged ten, seven, and five]. If the parents had their way, they would have pledged two year-old Vijayalakshmi, too, but she has no value in the bonded labour market at present. The parents need not worry: in a year's time the three year-old's nimble fingers will be ready for the work.

The "staggering" sum fetched by the pledging of the entire family is Rs 14,000. "What a life I have led! And what a life I have given my children!" says Gouramma.93

The structure of the debt arrangement in the beedi industry is different from that of most other bonded industries, where at least a fraction of the value of the child's labor serves to whittle away at the principal amount owed, at least in theory. (As we will see in discussing the other industries, additional charges and punishments often mean that the debt goes up instead of down.) In beedi, however, the "advances" given to secure the child workers are not paid off by the child's labor, no matter how long she or he works for the bondmaster. In fact, they are not really advances at all, but loans, against which the child's labor functions as both surety and interest.

Whether they are 500 rupees or 4,000 rupees, these loans must be paid back in one lump-sum payment. The child will not be released otherwise, no matter how many thousands of rupees her labor brings to the agent over the years. The lump-sum payback requirement is an extremely harsh condition for the poor, and difficult to meet. Often, the only way a parent can come up with that kind of money is through a loan with another agent or by bonding another child. Bonded beedi rollers are paid between 20 and 30 percent of the wages they would be entitled to on the open market. The remaining 70 to 80 percent of the value of their wages is kept by the agents, nominally as interest. This system results in effective annual interest rates ranging from 300 to 500 percent. The meager daily wages of the children are further reduced by "penalties," often bogus, for sloppy work or other alleged infractions of workplace rules.

A look at the production and earnings of bonded beedi rollers demonstrates just how lucrative this arrangement is for the bond master.

Twelve-year-old Raju was pledged at the age of eight in exchange for a 1,500 rupee loan. He told Human Rights Watch that he rolled 1,000 beedies a day, for which he earned six rupees. The government-established minimum wage forrolling beedi in Tamil Nadu is 30.90 rupees per thousand beedies.94 After paying Raju his six rupees, then, the agent would have cleared a some twenty-five rupees of profit every day if compensated at the minimum wage rate, enough to compensate him for the original loan in a mere two months. Instead, Raju worked for the agent for four years, netting his employer up to 40,000 rupees in the process.

Kalidasbhai, thirteen years old, told Human Rights Watch that she earned ten rupees a day for rolling 2,000 beedies, possibly netting his agent more than fifty rupees daily. This is enough money to clear the original debt of 2,000 rupees in a month and a half. Instead, Kalidasbhai is in his seventh year of working for the bond master.

Twelve-year-old Katankari earns five rupees a day for rolling 1,500 beedies-her agent keeps the other forty rupees to which she is entitled. Were the value of her labor applied against her parents' original loan of 1,000 rupees, she would be free in three and a half weeks. She told Human Rights Watch that she was in her fifth year of bondage.

These are typical cases. Other children suffer even more severe exploitation. Ten year-old Kumar earned only two rupees a day for rolling 1,500 beedies. The loan taken against him was for 500 rupees. At his rate of production, his original debt obligation should have been canceled in less than two weeks. He worked for his agent for four years before his father, concerned by the agent's abuse of the boy, managed to free him. Several other children interviewed also earned only two or three rupees a day.

Children selling their labor freely earn four, five, or six times as much as their bonded counterparts. Sixteen-year-old Appanraj rolls 1,500 cigarettes a day and earns fifty rupees.95 Fourteen-year-old Mamta earns forty rupees a day; beforeher liberation by a nongovernmental organization, she earned five to ten rupees a day for the same amount of work. Prabhu, fifteen, was also freed three years ago and saw his earnings quadruple overnight, from nine a day to forty a day. Now that he is compensated for his work, he is able to both pay back the loan that freed him and support his family.

Even these best-off beedi-rolling children lead difficult lives. Prabhu began working in the beedi industry at the age of four in exchange for a 1,500 rupee loan. Initially, he earned one rupee a day. Now he is "free" and works at home; nonetheless, he is marked by exhaustion and defeat.

I have been working since I was a small child. There is no freedom for me. I want to study-that is my desire, but my parents can not permit it. If I am not working, my family will not live. They are depending on my wages.

Employer abuse

Panjaran, a ten-year-old boy pledged at the age of six for a 500 rupee advance, told Human Rights Watch:

The agent would beat me with a stick if I was not there on time, he beat me if I could not roll 1,500 beedies a day, and he beat meif I was tired. I had to roll eight beedies a minute. If I failed he would beat me. If I looked around, he beat me. He made me put a matchbox under my chin; if it fell, he would beat me.

Punishment is common for a variety of infractions: arriving late, working slowly, making a mistake in the work, talking to other workers-even missing work because of illness can lead to punishment. With very few exceptions, the children we interviewed all complained of being beaten and severely scolded. The beatings consisted of being hit, usually by the agent's open hand, on the arms or head. A few children reported being beaten by sticks on their arms. The children clearly resent and fear their agents as a result of this verbal and physical mistreatment, and the emotional damage of long-term abuse was much in evidence. Other researchers have found more extreme examples of abuse at the hands of employers. Until the early 1990s, the matchbox-under-the-chin form of compulsion and control was quite common, and even measures such as chaining children in place were not unusual.96 As recently as 1993, a social worker found a fourteen-year-old beedi roller who was kept shackled in leg irons. The boy, who had been bonded for 2,000 rupees, had once attempted to escape, and his employer had kept him in shackles ever since.97 Although these forms of abuse have decreased significantly in villages where social activists have been working to increase public awareness, there is no evidence to suggest the practices have changed significantly in more remote villages, where outside intervention has not taken place.

Sangeetha, an eleven-year-old girl, has been in bondage to a beedi agent for one year, in exchange for an advance of 500 rupees. She works fourteen hours a day, six and a half days a week, and earns four rupees a day. On November 14, 1995, Sangeetha went to a Children's Day98 function in a neighboring town, where participating activists spoke of freeing bonded child laborers. Her agent learned of Sangeetha's participation and beat her when she returned. Now she is terrified of him.

Health hazards

Kumar: "Rolling beedi is so hard. We sit all day. My back hurts. I want to be able to play."

Beedi is one of the twenty-five industries classified by the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act as hazardous. Beedi rollers suffer chronic back pain from sitting hunched over their work all day. The long hours of maintaining this unnatural position sometimes interfere with normal growth patterns, causing stunted growth or physical deformities among those who spend their childhoods rolling beedi. As adults, these children will be restricted in the types of work they are physically able to do; they will not be able to perform hard manual labor and may in fact be restricted to beedi rolling for their entire productive lives.99 Large muscle groups are neglected and atrophy during years of sitting six and a half days a week, for twelve or more hours a day. In the words of one local beedi activist, the children grow up "small, puny, and malnourished."100

In addition to back ailments, many of the children interviewed by Human Rights Watch complained of pain in their hands and wrists, which suffer from the constant repetitive motion of rolling and tying the cigarettes. "My hands would hurt so bad sometimes I thought I couldn't work," said Chintamani, a twelve-year-old boy who had been rolling beedies for three years. But, as Chintamani's mother pointed out, he had to work despite the pain. "If the child misses work because he is in pain or sick with fever or disease, the agent will beat him and take him back," she told Human Rights Watch.

The damage to the body is cumulative and progressive. "As the worker gets older her/his fingers become numb and, unlike a young worker, an older worker has to make three or four attempts to roll a beedi. The nature of beedi work is such that a worker cannot take his/her eyes off it even for a moment if he/she is to make the required number of beedies for a day. This takes its toll on people's eyesight as they grow older."101

The most serious health hazard of the beedi industry is lung disease. Beedi rollers spend their lives constantly inhaling tobacco dust, and study after study has shown them to suffer a high rate of tuberculosis, asthma, and other lungdisorders.102 Of the twenty-six child beedi rollers interviewed by Human Rights Watch, six (23 percent) had parents who were either dead or dying as a result of tuberculosis.103 If the cycle continues unchanged, in twenty-five years these children will themselves be dying, while their own sons and daughters breathe tobacco dust and grow feeble.

Applicable domestic law

The trend over the last three decades has been one of increasing decentralization of beedi production. The main reason for this has been the evasion of legal obligations, since nearly all legislative safeguards and restrictions apply only to formal work sites-factories, "industrial premises," and the like. Beedi rolling that occurs in a home environment-whether it be the home of the worker or not-is not covered by the two primary labor welfare laws affecting beedi rollers: the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986, and the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act of 1966.

The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment)

Act of 1966

The Beedi and Cigar Workers Act (Beedi Act) was enacted by the central government in response to a beedi workers' movement mounted in the early 1960s in Tamil Nadu. The Beedi Act prohibits the employment of children under fourteen in any beedi or cigar factory. It also sets maximum hours of work (nine hours a day and forty-eight hours a week), prescribes half-hour rest intervals after five hours of work, and limits the work week to six days. In the case of child workers, the Beedi Act puts the onus of proof of age on the employer-an example the writers of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act inexplicably and unfortunately chose not to follow.

For the child laborer, however, and for most adult beedi rollers as well, these protections are for naught. The Beedi Act safeguards the rights only of those working in "industrial premises," defined as "any place or premises (not being aprivate dwelling-house)," (emphasis added) where the beedi process is carried on, with or without the use of power.104

Not surprisingly, after passage of this protective measure, the beedi manufacturing units began to disperse. Large rolling centers were disbanded and the contract system grew.105 Under this system, the owner distributes tobacco and tendu leaves to middlemen, who in turn contract local agents. These agents either employ beedi rollers directly, in the agent's home, or farm the work out to daily wage laborers. Those who work out of their own homes usually do so with the help of family members (the youngest child may close the tips, another may cut the leaves, and so on). These extremely decentralized processes free the owner and his agents from worrying about compliance with the law.

The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act

As with the Beedi Act, glaring loopholes in the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act allow manufacturers to escape application of the law quite easily. After passage of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, the beedi industry intentionally fragmented itself even further in order to avoid coming within the terms of the act. By 1996, approximately 90 percent of beedi rolling took place in private homes, either the house of a contracted worker or the house of the contracting agent. In the former case, a child working with one or both parents would not be protected by the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. In the latter case, a child worker would theoretically be protected by the act. However, contracting agents frequently lie, claiming that the children are relatives in order to avoid application of the law.

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act

The Children (Pledging of Labour) Act

Both acts are violated by the practice of debt servitude in the beedi industry.

Enforcement: the North Arcot District Collector's scheme

The North Arcot district of Tamil Nadu is home to some of the worst and most extensive bondage of child beedi rollers in the country.106 Of the 150,000 beedi workers in that district, an estimated 30,000 to 45,000 are bonded child laborers.107 Entire clusters of villages are given over to the production of beedi, and to walk through these villages is to see evidence of the industry everywhere. Children sit rolling cigarettes under trees and in doorways, to catch the light. Large baskets stuffed full of bundles of beedies sit near agents' doors. Stacks of uncut tendu leaves and piles of tobacco in the morning become a box full of thousands of cigarettes by the night. It appears that every second person on the street, from the very young to the very old, has the tips of his or her fingers stained a deep orange brown. Beedi is a way of life in these towns of North Arcot, and so is bondage.

In the spring of 1995, the district collector for North Arcot initiated a scheme for combating this high rate of child bondage. Denominated CLASS, for Child Labour Abolition Support Scheme, the program pulls together resources from already-existing government programs, such as the Integrated Rural Development Programme, the Drought Prone Areas Programme, and the Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas program, and directs them toward a focused attack on bonded child labor in the beedi industry. It is the first and only program of its kind currently in operation in India.

District Collector M. P. Vijaykumar began the CLASS campaign by organizing a child labor census. Ten thousand village literacy volunteers were mobilized, and on April 14, 1995, they conducted a one-day survey of 313,940 households in North Arcot. The overall results of the census have not yet been released, but the collector did make public the data for one representative beedi village, Kasikuttai, which was chosen to be a model for the scheme'simplementation. The survey found that 159 of Kasikuttai's 174 families were engaged in the beedi industry; sixty-six of these families had children under the age of fourteen working in the production of beedi; and, of these 102 child beedi workers, forty-one were in bondage.108

The collector estimated that in 1995, 1,000 of the 5,000 hamlets in North Arcot district had a significant bonded child labor problem.109 His immediate goal was to establish CLASS programs in one hundred of these villages, working on behalf of an estimated 7,000 bonded child laborers.110 When Human Rights Watch met with District Collector Vijaykumar in late November 1995, he claimed to be operating CLASS initiatives in forty-three villages. In these project areas of North Arcot, 1,455 children reportedly had been released from bondage by the end of October 1995.111

Whether those children ostensibly released from bondage under the collector's scheme actually go free, or are able to remain free, is another matter. Human Rights Watch visited several of the beedi villages where CLASS was operative and spoke with children "liberated" under the program, as well as with local activists, schoolteachers, and government administrators. We discovered that approximately 30 percent of all the children "freed" by the collector were in fact still working in servitude to their bond masters. Some of these children worked full-time for the agents, as before, while others worked before and after school, beginning their days at 6:00 a.m. at the agent's house and ending there at 9:00 p.m. With only one exception, the length of additional servitude was indeterminate and at the agent's discretion.

When the CLASS program began in the first few villages, the collector approached agents employing bonded child labor and offered to compensate them at 50 percent of the original loan amount in exchange for the release of the bonded children. (The money was to be paid not by the government, but out of a local women's savings and loan scheme facilitated and supported by the government, with some government financial contributions.) The amount of 50 percent wasproposed not as a compromise between full repayment (honoring the status quo) versus zero repayment and prosecution of the offending agents (strict application of the law), but as an amount that purported to reflect what the agents would be entitled to had they offset the original loans against a reasonable value of the children's labor. Collector Vijaykumar threatened to prosecute those bond masters who did not accept this offer.112

In the villages visited by Human Rights Watch, the agents had accepted the offer, but not all of them had honored it.

The continuing compulsion of children whom the collector had purportedly freed was common knowledge, including among the CLASS administrators and teachers. When we told District Collector Vijaykumar about the ongoing bondage in his model villages, he admitted knowing that children were still working mornings and nights to pay the other half of the original loans, but seemed undisturbed by this state of affairs. He revealed no intention of prosecuting these recalcitrant agents, or even of going to the nearby village to talk to them. In fact, despite this knowledge of ongoing servitude, both he and CLASS staff continued to refer to these villages as "bonded labor-free. "The high failure rate of the collector's scheme can be attributed to the traditional acceptance of debt bondage by all sectors of society. It can be attributed as well to the collector's own participation in the system, a participation revealed by his reluctance to prosecute, his refusal to free the children outright despite having the legal mandate to do so, and his conciliatory approach to the bond masters, including treating the bond debts as valid and legitimate.

The following description of the CLASS program reveals its conservative and timid nature. That this is the boldest program in the country is a discouraging testament to the government's low prioritization of recovering children from bonded labor.

The CLASS program has four prongs, of which rehabilitation of the child worker is only one. The other three are: improving the incomes and savings of at-risk families, fostering social and attitudinal changes in these families, and placing the liberated children into educational or vocational training programs. The overall thrust of the program is not to bring an immediate halt to the illegal bondage and exploitation of child workers by their agents, for example through enforcement of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. Instead, the emphasis is on a long-term transformation of the poorest beedi-rolling families: encouraging them to save, providing support to their attempts to free their daughters and sons, and making greater educational opportunities available to their children. The scheme is attempting to break the cycle of poverty that results in endemic bondage.

In all this, the initiative is important and laudable. At the same time, it is alarmingly acquiescent to the agents and owners of the beedi industry and to the status quo.

The CLASS project proposes to rehabilitate children from bondage by:

Staggered repayment of the borrowings from middlemen with the aid of loans from the Group Support Fund made up of the mothers' savings and the matching grant from the project.

Institutional support in dealings with the middlemen and in eliciting their cooperation.

Attitudinal changes within the families about the need and the ability to dispense with bonded child labour in favour of primary education and vocational training.113

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act is unequivocal. It declares illegal any agreement purporting to exchange labor for a loan, and where such debts do exist, it extinguishes them. It subjects employers or others who attempt to make or enforce debt bondage agreements to a fine of up to 2,000 rupees, or three years in prison, or both. Furthermore, and most significant for this discussion, "[b]y making the offences cognizable under the act, the State has undertaken the direct responsibility for the implementation of the act, and . . . doesnot leave it to the initiative of the affected individuals."114 In fact, the act can only by applied by government officials in the form of criminal proceedings-the act specifically precludes civil court jurisdiction. In other words, the state has adopted full responsibility for eradicating bonded labor. This obligation is not being met in the vast majority of districts, where absolutely no attempts have been made to thwart the bondmasters. Nor is it being met in North Arcot district, the model district of the state of Tamil Nadu and of the country overall.

At the same time, the CLASS program has created a positive precedent for at least some government action. District Collector Vijaykumar and the numerous civil servants working with him to create and sustain the CLASS program together constitute an irrefutable example that it is possible for government to combat bonded child labor. What is more, the collector has insisted that other government administrators cannot excuse their inaction as a function of lack of resources. "Resources are not the issue," he told Human Rights Watch. "The existing schemes provide enough money and personnel. The issue is commitment."115

Mani, a thirteen-year-old boy, has been in bondage since the age of six, when his parents accepted a 2,000 rupee loan in order to build a house. He spent seven years working ten hours a day, six and a half days a week.

Mani was one of the children in his village to be released in late 1995 under the North Arcot District Collector's scheme. After his ostensible release, the agent he worked for came to his house and told him that he still owed 1,000 rupees and that he must work mornings and nights to pay it off. Consequently, Mani now works for three hours before school and for three hours after, rolling 1,000 beedies a day, for which he is paid five rupees. He also works Sundays half days, without pay. He told Human Rights Watch:

I have to work until the debt is settled; I don't know when that will be. My father is disabled. The agent takes advantage of me because he sees that there is no support. My income is the only income we have, that is why I have to work. My family scolds me for going to school.

Munirathna, a twelve-year-old girl, was sold into bondage when her father died in 1993. Like Mani, she was one of the children freed by the collectorin late 1995; he arranged for payment of half of the 1,000 rupee advance given for Munirathna. Also like Mani, Munirathna's agent refused to release her, claiming that she still owed him the other 500 rupees. She continues to work for the bond master ten hours a day, six and a half days a week. She is paid twenty rupees a week.

There are six children in Munirathna's family: two boys and four girls. One boy studies and one is an electrical worker. Munirathna is the oldest of the girls, all of whom roll beedi. Five of Munirathna's friends also continue working in servitude despite the intervention of the collector.

I am very sad that my father died; so is my mother. Whenever I go to work for the agent he scolds me. I am very sad with my life.

Ramesh, a thirteen-year-old boy, was put into bondage in 1993 for a 2,500 rupee advance; his parents took the money so they could build a house. Ramesh was working six and a half days a week, from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., rolling 1,500 beedies a day. If he rolled less than 1,500 cigarettes, the agent would beat him.

Although "freed" by the collector, Ramesh continues to work for the agent before and after school. Instead of working fourteen hours a day he now works from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., rolling 500 beedies a day and earning five rupees. Ramesh told Human Rights Watch:

I don't like to roll beedies-my hands get stiff and hurt, and I would rather be studying. But the collector only settled half of the debt, so I have to work to pay the rest.

In 1991, the Supreme Court of India ordered that child labor in tobacco manufacturing units, which threaten childrens' health, should be prohibited. In addition, the court ordered state governments to formulate a plan to either end child labor immediately or phase children out of the beedi industry, within three years. By mid-1996, no such plans had been implemented.116

SILVER

The city of Salem, Tamil Nadu has been a major producer of domestically-consumed silver jewelry117 since 1980. Of the 100,000 child laborers working in Salem district,118 an estimated 10,000 are working in silver smithies.119 These workers are concentrated in towns given over largely to the silver industry, augmenting the dwindling possibilities of subsistence agriculture. In the town Human Rights Watch visited, there were five hundred residents, two hundred of whom were children under the age of fifteen. One hundred and thirty-five of these children were laboring in the production of silver.120 It is reported to be an entirely bonded industry.121

Boys and girls enter the industry in equal numbers, usually between the ages of six and eight but occasionally as young as five years old. Most remain bonded and continue working in the silver industry throughout childhood and adolescence. During this time, they may move from employer to employer, receiving a bigger advance from their new employer so that they might both pay off their previous employer and enjoy a small-and temporary-boost in their cash flow. This new and higher debt must then be worked off, or passed on to a younger sibling when the worker leaves the employer. All girl workers expect to leave their jobs at the time of marriage. Young men may try to eke out a living throughagriculture, or stay in silver and work their way up the wage scale. The maximum pay for a non-bonded man with twenty-five years of experience is forty rupees a day.

In addition to maintaining a cheap and compliant workforce, another impetus for bondage is the silversmiths' desire to maintain a skilled, productive worker. In many cases, an advance is not immediately offered to the parents of the child. Instead, parents contact agents or agents offer to "train" children on the pretense of teaching children a marketable skill. Parents, believing this will be beneficial for their children, agree. The child is then made to work as an apprentice for approximately six months to a year. The length of the training period is largely based on the child's ability to learn. During this time, the child is paid about two rupees per day. The advance is not offered to the parents until after the initial training period. This training period allows owners to spot children that may be especially productive or who have a natural aptitude for the work. In this respect, the bonded labor system in the sil