CHAPTER - 4 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC FEATURES OF THE FAMILY …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/10362/11... · suffering from gender and sexual violence (Lahiri, 2007). Children

CHAPTER - 4

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC

FEATURES OF THE

FAMILY OF CHILD

LABOUR AS DOMESTIC

SERVANTS IN

BATHINDA DISTRICT

133

Chapter-4

The Socio-Economic Features of the Family

Of Child Labour as Domestic Servants in

Bathinda District

The problem of child labour is a global one and is not restricted to the poor

developing countries of the world (White, 1994; Jain, 1996). Though, it may

manifest itself in varying forms and intensities among countries from different

socio-economic milieu. Child workers are largely available in every part of the

world. Sold or exchanged as cheap merchandise many children suffer from

extremely dangerous and unacceptable forms of exploitation (Felleke, 2007).

In India, children have been traditionally participating in work within and outside

the family and this continue even today. Widespread poverty, destitution, and want

have forced her to live with this ignominy for a long time. These children are

deprived of not only education opportunities even of other recreational activities

such as playing, leisure etc. and one very common feature of child labour is its

concentration in unskilled and simple routines which offer little opportunity for

transfer to other more remunerative, safer, or more interesting occupations (Bequele

and Boyden, 1988). In India after independence, it was expected that various

executive as well as legislative steps undertaken by the government would be

effectively implemented to protect the interests of the child. But the problem of

child labour continues to be burning problem in our country despite several decades

of planned development (Devi, 1998).

134

Children work in all sectors of the economy, i.e. the agrarian, the manufacturing,

and the service sectors. Census enumerates only those workers who are engaged in

economically productive work and only such working children are counted as part

of labour force (Sekar, 2001). Actually, the problem of child labour thrives within

the informal economy. The activities in the private domain of the homes go

unreported. But, our homes have a huge demand for the child labour. Throughout

the world a large number of children are working as domestic servants. ILO has

defined “Child domestic labour as a situation where children are engaged in

domestic work in the home of a third party or employer”, (ILO, 2010b) but

UNICEF has gone beyond this definition to include the domestic work of the child

in his/her own home as well (UNICEF, 2008).

The main problem is that the data on children working as domestic helps is not

available even though this type of work among children is an important part of

domestic work, often necessitated by the need to generate additional income for the

household (Bhat, 2005). Therefore, as per ILO the situation of child domestic

workers is extensively exploitative and where such exploitation is extreme and

includes trafficking, slavery or practices similar to slavery, or work which by its

nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out is hazardous and likely to harm

the health, safety or morals of children, then this constitutes a worst form of child

domestic labour. Thus domestic work is not only an unrecognized form of

economic contribution; it remains unappreciated as a form of child labour. The

exact number of children in domestic work is not known mainly because of the

hidden nature of their work but as per the 61st Round of NSSO there are about 4

million domestic workers in India. Of them, 92 per cent are women, girls and

children, 20 per cent are under 14 years of age (Quoted from NCEUS, 2007).

Similar evidence on data is also given by ILO, 2004a.

135

Child Domestic Labour, like other forms of child labour, is a common household

strategy that is often used to reduce costs and/or to increase income (Camacho,

1999; Bhat, 2005). On the one hand, it may offer opportunities for children that may

not be available in their own households. On the other hand, it may put thousands of

children under harsh working conditions. Despite this, child domestic workers are

often cut off from their own family (those who work as full time workers), have

little opportunity to make friends without social exchange with peers (Maskey,

2001).

There is a growing phenomenon of rampant and systematic exploitation of children

in domestic work in urban areas. Children who work as domestics outside the

family home are amongst the most vulnerable and exploited. They began work at

early age, shoulder excessive responsibilities such as caring for babies, handling

fuel, stove, sharp tools among others, and work for long hours with no rest period,

with little or no remuneration, are at the mercy of the employer and frequently

suffering from gender and sexual violence (Lahiri, 2007). Children are cloistered

within the four walls of employer’s houses which give room for all kinds of

exploitation found in the unorganized sector besides making them invisible to the

external world. What perhaps distinguishes child domestic work from other forms

of child labour is that even as it is extremely exploitative, it is among the most

difficult to protect (ibid).

Child Domestic work is usually referred as girl’s occupation. Globally, 90 per cent

of child domestic workers are girls, with domestic work as the largest employment

sector for girls under 16 (UNICEF, 1999; ILO-IPEC, 2004a). Girls are often

preferred as domestic workers because of employer’s perception of girl workers as

hard working, malleable, controllable and cheaper to hire (Brown, 2007; Bhat 2005;

136

Rice, 2008). Employers and workers’ families may also judge domestic work as

more suitable form of employment for girls and instructive for their future roles as

wives and mothers (Jacquemin, 2006; Sommerfelt, 2001; Keppenberg, 2007).

Domestic work is thus also seen as more productive strategy than continuing a girl’s

education. The biggest problem faced by the domestic workers, particularly the

child domestic workers across the country is their non-recognition as workers. They

do not come under labour laws – they have no right to workers' compensation,

weekly holidays and minimum wages. Even though the Child Labour (Prohibition

and Regulation) Act, 1986 does not define domestic child labour as ‘hazardous’, the

nature of the work, as is amply clear, is extremely hazardous and in fact detrimental

to the life of the children, whose very fundamental right to life has been denied

(Bajpai, 2006). So it’s clear that the child domestic workers are effectively hidden

from public view and are therefore especially vulnerable to worst forms of

exploitation.

Hence present study is devoted to analyze the socio- economic features of the

family of child domestic labour in Bathinda District of Punjab. But before analyzing

the situation of child labour as domestic servants, it very important to analyze the

problem of child labour as a whole in Bathinda district. As according to Census

2001 the percentage share of child labour in Bathinda district is 6.72 per cent. Thus,

we can say that a significant proportion of working children prevails in the district.

Actually, Punjab state is better known as prosperous agriculture state, but in case of

Bathinda district, where the land is not so fertile, government of Punjab has been

concentrating on non-agriculture avenues. So, for development of this particular

district (which could not reap the benefits of Green Revolution due to sandy areas

and low fertile land) these attempts have resulted into establishment of units of

fertilizers, thermal plant etc. This has invited many skilled and unskilled labours in

137

the district from other areas of the state and the country as well. The share of urban

population in the district has increased from about 27 per cent in 1991 to 30 per cent

in 2001. So, like growing urban population there must be some other region-specific

determinants which forces children to work instead of sending them to school. To

examine these factors, here an attempt has been made to find the correlation

between the incidence of child labour and other region-specific characteristics. The

results are shown in table 4.1.

Table: 4.1 Correlation Coefficients of Incidence of Child Labour in Various

Districts of Punjab with other Region-Specific Characteristics

Variable Correlation Coefficient

Share in Total Population 0.994***

Share in Total Migrated Population 0.510*

Education Index -0.91***

Income Index -0.581**

Work Participation Rate -0.351

Share in Small Scale Industry 0.786***

Share in Large and Medium Scale Industry 0.315

Source: Calculated from Statistical Abstract of Punjab, 2005-06.

***significant at 1 per cent level of significance.

**significant at 5 per cent level of significance.

*significant at 10 per cent level of significance.

It can be observed from the table that apart from the share in total population, the

share in total migrants also has a significant positive impact on the incidence of

child labour in a particular area. Though one can find a negative relationship

between the incidence of child labour and the work participation rate in any district

but the coefficient is not statistically significant. However, one can find a significant

positive relationship between the share of a district in total small scale industries in

138

the state and the incidence of child labour, and this relationship becomes weaker in

the areas which have higher share in large and medium scale industries. Thus, small

scale industries which mainly fall in the informal sector may be inviting more of

children to work through direct or indirect employment. On the other hand, the

districts with higher literacy rate and higher income index have negative impact

upon the incidence of child labour and vice versa. Thus, raising decent employment

opportunities and effective education policy can make an important dent on the

problem of child labour in any region. But the problem is that despite all efforts like

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, one can still find a number of out of school children. As

mentioned earlier according to census 2001, 6.72 per cent of the total child labour in

Punjab can be found in Bathinda district and if we go by the household records of

latest round of NSSO (61st Round) on employment and unemployment survey in

India and also include the out of school children, we can find that about 18 per cent

of total children in the district is out of schools (both working and non-working). As

the theory suggests that there may be a number of factors that may be compelling

the families to send their children to work rather than to school. This may be due to

poverty, social status, illiteracy of the parents, ailing adult member in the family

(which leads to increased medical expenses and so withdrawal of child from school

apart from it, the child is not sent to school to attend the ailing member so that other

adults can go to work), lack of a regular job etc. After going through various causal

studies on child labour a multinominal logit model has been fit on household level

data of Bathinda district to find the probability of a child not going to school. The

model is given below:

0 1 2 3 sec 4 5

6 7

( 0,1) exp .

exp

i head med size

stat mpce i

p i b b edu b b l b s stat b fam

b job b

139

Where, Pi is the probability of a child going to work instead of school which takes

the value 1 if child does not go to school and zero, otherwise; b0 is the constant

term, b1.is the coefficient of the education status (measured as years of schooling)

of the head of the family to which child belongs; b2 is the coefficient of the

expenditure incurred on medicines by the family, b3 is the coefficient of the dummy

variable showing the absence of social security (=1, if the head of the family or

main earning member in the family does not get any social security benefit; 0,

otherwise), b4 is coefficient of the dummy for social status (=1, if the family

belongs to lower castes; 0, otherwise), b5 is coefficient of family size, b6 is

coefficient of dummy for job status (=1, if job is casual; 0, otherwise), b7 is the

coefficient of monthly per capita expenditure of the family and εi is the error term.

The results of the model are given in table 4.2.

Table: 4.2 Factors Determining Probability of a Child NOT Going to School in

Bathinda District of Punjab

Independents Coefficients Standard error

Constant 0.434* 0.244

Education Status of Head of Family -0.045*** 0.011

Medical Expenses -0.00002 0.00002

Absence of Social Security -0.041 0.145

Social Status 0.157* 0.088

Family Size -0.033** 0.014

Irregular Job Status 0.0494 0.087

Monthly Per Capita Expenditure 0.0002* 0.0001

R2

0.582

Source: Calculated from household level data of 61st Round NSSO.

***significant at 1 per cent level of significance.

**significant at 5 per cent level of significance.

*significant at 10 per cent level of significance.

140

The table shows that medical expenses incurred by the family, absence of social

security and irregular job status do not have any significant impact on the

probability of a child not going to school. But, higher monthly per capita

expenditure incurred by the family and lower social status increase this probability.

Interestingly, bigger sized families are less likely to send their children to work as

the adult members may be coming forward to supplement the family income.

Similarly the education status of the head of the family also has negative impact on

the probability of the child not going to school which indicates that the families

which are headed by more educated persons are more likely to send their children to

schools instead of the work place. This result also confirms the results at the state

level (table 4.1) where we have noticed a negative relationship between the

education level and incidence of child labour in a particular district. Thus, we have

observed that education is the key to remove this particular problem.

Now finally, going from general to particular, we will now try to observe these

factors in case of children working as domestic servants in Bathinda district. For the

analysis of the socio-economic conditions of the child workers in Bathinda district,

study is divided into three sections, and these sections are:

1) Analysis of socio – economic background of family of child domestic labour

2) Analysis of household characteristics of child domestic labour

3) Analysis of economic status of the household of child domestic labour.

The tables are presented by merging relevant variables in consonance with the

objectives of the study. Percentages and averages are widely used to analyze the

available data and accordingly interpretation is made.

141

Section 1 – Analysis of Socio–Economic Background of Family

of Child Domestic Labour

This section elaborately deals with the personal particulars of respondents and their

socio – economic background. It is presented with the aim of examining the

phenomenon of child labour at the family level and also describes the circumstances

that determine the prevalence of child labour. For the survey a random sample of

388 children working as domestic servants in the urban areas of Bathinda district

has been taken.

The child domestic workers’ personal profile such as sex, caste and family

background has been shown in table 4.3. It has been observed that unlike the

national trends, where the number of boys as child labour outnumbers that of the

girls, in our sample of domestic workers, the number of girls is far greater than that

of the boys showing that the families have a preference to a female worker than a

male worker. Table shows that out of total 388 child domestic servants, 74.74 per

cent (290) are females and remaining 25.26 per cent (98) are males. Among child

labour aged 6-14, a majority belong to the age group 9-11 years (40.21 per cent),

followed by the age group 6-8 years (39.95 per cent) and 12-14 years (19.85 per

cent). On the other hand, data shows that the most of the females are in the age

group of 6-8 years (44.14 per cent) while majority of males are in the age group of

9-11 years (43.88 per cent). Generally, caste plays a significant role in deciding the

social status of families in Indian society. The Indian population presents a very

complex structure, which is divided into various castes and sub-castes. The caste

based social order is a classical example of deprived opportunities and privileges.

142

Table 4.3: Personal Profile of the Respondents According to their Age

Groups

Particulars Age Groups

6 – 8 9 – 11 12 – 14 Total

Sex

Females 128

(82.58)

{44.14}

113

(72.44)

{38.97}

49

(63.64)

{16.19}

290

(74.74)

{100.0}

Males 27

(17.42)

{27.55}

43

(27.56)

{43.88}

28

(36.36)

{28.57}

98

(25.26)

{100.0}

Total 155

(100.0)

{39.95}

156

(100.0)

{40.21}

77

(100.0)

{19.85}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Caste

SC/ST 83

(53.55)

{47.16}

61

(39.10)

{34.66}

32

(41.56)

{18.18}

176

(45.36)

{100.0}

BC/OBC 30

(19.36)

{32.61}

40

(25.64)

{43.48}

22

(28.57)

{23.91}

92

(23.71)

{100.0}

Upper Hindu 20

(12.90)

{37.04}

24

(15.39)

{44.44}

10

(12.99)

{18.52}

54

(13.92)

{100.0}

Others 22

(14.19)

{33.33}

31

(19.87)

{46.97}

13

(16.88)

{19.70}

66

(17.01)

{100.0}

Total 155

(100.0)

{39.95}

156

(100.0)

{40.21}

77

(100.0)

{19.85}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Background

Rural 10

(6.45)

{19.23}

26

(16.67)

{50.00}

16

(20.78)

{30.77}

52

(13.40)

{100.0}

Urban 145

(93.55)

{43.16}

130

(83.33)

{38.69}

61

(79.22)

{18.16}

336

(86.60)

{100.0}

Total 155

(100.0)

{39.95}

156

(100.0)

{40.21}

77

(100.0)

{19.84}

388

(100.0)

{100.0} Source: Field Survey of Urban Areas of Bathinda District

Note: Figures given in bracket { } show the percentage out of total respective row total and percentage in

bracket ( ) show the percentage out of total respective column total.

‘Other Castes’ includes child labour belong to upper castes of Sikhs, Muslims, Christians Communities.

143

Therefore, a look at caste identified among sample respondents (Table 4.3) reveals

that about 70 per cent of child domestic workers belong to lower social classes such

as 45.36 per cent (176 respondents) are SCs and most of them are in the age group

of 6-8 years (47.16 per cent), 23.71 per cent of total child domestic workers are

OBCs and most of them are in the age group of 9-11 years (43.48 per cent). It can

also be observed that among each age group, most of the workers belong to SC

category. Even a good number of these child domestic workers (about 30 per cent)

belonging to the upper Hindu class and other non-backward categories. This shows

that although lower social classes are more likely to send their children to work than

school as compared to their upper counterparts but it seems that caste is not the sole

reason behind the incidence of child labour in domestic services. Other possible

reasons can be poverty, lack of adequate education facilities, illiteracy among

parents etc. Furthermore, most of the child domestic servants have an urban family

background (86.60 per cent) and the remaining 13.40 per cent have rural

background. Child labour from rural areas is explicitly concerned with child

migration. Children move to urban areas to look for job by leaving home as well as

their parents (CDPS, 2000).

Large families with a comparatively low income generally are not able to live a decent

life and cannot get basic amenities. If a family is limited and well planned, there will be

no question of sending children to work (Reddy, 2007). In a view of these facts, an

observation regarding the household size of the family of child domestic servants is

shown in table 4.4. It can be observed a majority (46.13 per cent) of child workers have

a family size of 7-10 members. About 38.66 per cent child workers have family size of

members and only 15.21 per cent have more than 10 members in their families.

Interestingly, in smaller family size of 1-3, no incidence of child labour has been

144

observed. Although, it is generally believed that children in joint family system are

given all protection to seek better education, recreation etc. (as it has already been

shown in table 4.2 that the family size and incidence of child labour has negative

relationship) but the disintegration of the joint family system has also push survival of

many low income families into trouble which leads to the need of the women and

children to participate in economic activities.

Table 4.4: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to their

Household Status

Particulars

Caste

SC/ST BC/OBC Upper

Hindu

Other Total

Household Size

1 – 3 -

- - - -

4 – 6 71

(40.34)

36

(39.13)

25

(46.30)

18

(27.27)

150

(38.66)

7 - 10 75

(42.61)

44

(47.83)

24

(44.44)

36

(54.55)

179

(46.13)

Above 10 30

(17.05)

12

(13.04)

5

(9.26)

12

(18.18)

59

(15.21)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Status of Family

Joint Family 40

(22.73)

20

(21.74)

15

(27.78)

21

(31.82)

96

(24.74)

Nuclear Family 136

(77.27)

72

(78.26)

39

(72.22)

45

(68.18)

292

(75.26)

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Source: Field Survey of Urban Areas of Bathinda District

Note: Figures given in bracket { } show the percentage out of total child laboureres and percentage in



145

It can be observed from our sample that 75.26 per cent respondents belong to

nuclear family and 24.74 per cent belong to joint family (Table 4.4). Further, the

number of earning members and head of the household also influence the incidence

of child labour. It can be observed from the table 4.5 that as the number of earning

members in a family increases, the incidence of child labour falls. The table shows

that a majority (53.87 per cent) of child domestic servnats has 1-3 earning members,

about 44 per cent child workers have 4-6 earning members in the family but only 2

per cent have above 6 per cent earning members in the household.

Table 4.5: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the Earning

Members in the Family and the Head of the Household

Particulars

Caste

SC/ST BC/OBC Upper Hindu Other Total

Number of Earning Members

1 – 3 87

(49.43)

50

(54.35)

32

(59.26)

40

(60.61)

209

(53.87)

4 – 6 84

(47.73)

39

(42.39)

22

(40.74)

25

(37.88)

170

(43.81)

Above 6 5

(2.84)

3

(3.26)

- 1

(1.51)

9

(2.32)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Head of the Household

Father 116

(65.91)

69

(75.00)

33

(61.11)

39

(59.09)

257

{(66.24)}

Mother 20

(11.36)

7

(7.61)

10

(18.52)

10

(15.15)

47

{(12.11)}

Others 40

(22.73)

16

(17.39)

11

(20.37)

17

(25.76)

84

(21.65)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)


Note: Figures given in bracket { } show the percentage out of total child laboureres and percentage in bracket

( ) show the percentage out of total respective column total.


146

This table also supports the results of the previous table the incidence of child

labour falls in the joint families as it is generally in the joint families, we can find

more earning members which reduce the need of the children participating in the

labour market. The table further shows that in case of child domestic servants

mainly fathers are the head of the family. The share of such families is 66.24 per

cent while in 21.65 per cent cases as, others such as grandfather, grandmother or

uncle act as the head of the family and only in 12.11 per cent cases the mothers are

the head of the family. Further, it would be quite interesting to analyze the

occupations of the parents of the child domestic workers. It has been given in table

4.6. It can be observed from the table that the parents of these child domestic

workers are working either as wage labour or employed in other menial and low

paid jobs such as selling scrap, gardener, puller, sweeper, ironing work etc. Even

many of them are idle or we can say that they do not contribute to family income. It

can be observed from the table that in case of about 27 per cent child domestic

servnats, the fathers are working as wage labour, in 15.46 per cent cases work as

vendor, and about 9 per cent cases they are running their own business or are self

employed. After observing the data on caste basis, an interesting thing can be

noticed that in case of child domestic workers belonging to schedule castes, the

fathers are mainly working as wage labour (48.29 per cent) while in case of OBCs

and other castes this percentage is 9.78 per cent and 10.61 per cent only. As far as

mothers’ occupation is concerned, a vast majority of them are working as domestic

servants (about 48 per cent). Though, majority of our sample child domestic

workers’ mothers are engaged in domestic services but a significant percentage of

these workers’ mothers stay at home as housewife or is not an earning member

(36.34 per cent), especially, the percentage is high for the mothers of child domestic

workers belonging to other castes (more than 50 per cent).

147

Table 4.6: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to their Parents

Occupation





Other occupations which are not specified above, it also includes those children whose father has expired or

is not either staying with the family or supporting the family.

On the other hand, few (about 9 per cent) work as wage labour but this can be seen

only in case of lower social classes. Thus, it is clear from the table that the children

whose mothers are working as domestic servants are more likely to push their

children in this occupation at an early age. Thus the poor families whose household

Occupations

Caste


Father’s Occupation

Wage Labour 85

(48.29)

9

(9.78)

2

(3.70)

7

(10.61)

103

(26.55)

Vendor 14

(7.96)

17

(18.48)

19

(35.19)

10

(15.15)

60

(15.46)

Working in Shop 4

(2.27)

5

(5.44)

6

(11.11)

6

(9.09)

21

(5.41)

Business 5

(2.84)

13

(14.13)

10

(18.52)

7

(10.61)

35

(9.02)

Agriculture 5

(2.84)

8

(8.69)

3

(5.56)

13

(19.70)

29

(7.47)

Others 63

(35.80)

40

(43.48)

14

(25.93)

23

(34.85)

140

(36.08)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Mother’s Occupation

Housewife 44

(25.00)

42

(45.65)

20

(37.04)

35

(53.03)

141

(36.34)

Wage Labour 34

(19.32)

1

(1.09)

- 1

(1.52)

36

(9.28)

Domestic Servant 86

(48.86)

42

(45.65)

32

(59.26)

26

(39.39)

186

(47.94)

Others 12

(6.82)

7

(7.61)

2

(3.70)

4

(6.06)

25

(6.44)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

148

income is less and uncertain, supply a majority of child labour in domestic services

in order to supplement their meager incomes and make both ends meet. As we have

observed earlier that education status of head of the family has negative relationship

with the incidence of child labour and illiteracy among parents can also be a major

cause of child labour. The lower educational status of parents is also reflected in the

lower educational levels of children or their early dropouts from the schools.

Table 4.7: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to their Parents’

Education Level

Education Level Caste


Education Level of Father

Illiterate 142

(80.68)

35

(38.04)

16

(29.63)

41

(62.12)

234

(60.31)

Up to Primary 18

(10.23)

41

(44.57)

28

(51.85)

13

(19.70)

100

(25.77)

Up to Middle 11

(6.25)

15

(16.30)

10

(18.52)

8

(12.12)

44

(11.34)

Up to Secondary -

- - - -

Total* 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Education Level of Mother

Illiterate 163

(92.61)

58

(63.04)

30

(55.56)

57

(86.36)

308

(79.38)

Up to Primary 10

(5.68)

30

(32.61)

20

(37.04)

6

(9.09)

66

(17.01)

Up to Middle 3

(1.71)

4

(4.35)

4

(7.40)

3

(4.55)

14

(3.61)

Up to Secondary -

- - - -

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)





* The total of above rows may not be 100 as many of the children are fatherless.

149

Therefore, here an attempt has been made to observe the education status of the

parents of the child labour. This is shown in table 4.7. It can be observed from the

table that in case of father’s education of child domestic servants, out of total

respondents, 60.31 per cent are illiterate but in case of mothers this proportion is

79.38 per cent. Similarly, 25.77 per cent cases, the fathers and only 17 per cent

cases, the mothers have attained education up to primary only. In 11.34 per cent

cases, the fathers and in 3.61 per cent cases, the mothers have attained education up

to middle standard. These results support the view that as the level of education of

the parents increases, the incidence of child labour falls. Moreover, about 3 per cent

children are those, whose fathers are not alive, this also can be one of the reasons

for their work. Table also shows that although the illiteracy of the fathers and

mothers of child workers who belong to schedule castes is higher than other castes

(80.68 per cent and 92.61 per cent respectively) but it can also be seen that the

percentage of illiterate mothers is much higher than that of the fathers in every caste

category. Burki and Fasih (1998) have also revealed in their study on child labour in

Punjab, Pakistan that mother’s education positively affects child’s schooling

decisions and mother’s employment however, negatively affects the probability of

child’s schooling and positively affect the decision to send them to work. Thus, it is

clear that the illiteracy is highly pronounced among mothers, which is ultimately

responsible for engagement of their children in work.

Similarly to analyze the family background of child domestic workers, status of

child domestic workers’ siblings of the same age group is also an important aspect.

This can be observed from table 4.8. Table shows that the percentage of the male

siblings (56.43 per cent) of child domestic servnats is more than the female siblings

(43.57 per cent). On the other hand, age group wise data shows that the percentage

150

of siblings is high for the age group of 6-8 years (48.60 per cent) than age groups of

9-11 years (30.91 per cent) and 12-14 years (20.49 per cent).

Table 4.8: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the Number

of Siblings by Age Group and Sex Particulars Age Groups

6 – 8 9 – 11 12 – 14 Total

Sex

Males 139

(53.26)

96

(57.83)

68

(61.82)

303

(56.43)

Females 122

(46.74)

70

(42.71)

42

(38.17)

234

(43.57)

Total 261

(100.0)

{48.60}

166

(100.0)

{30.91}

110

(100.0)

{20.49}

537

(100.0)

{100.0}


Note: Figures given in bracket { } show the percentage out of total children of each age group and percentage

in bracket ( ) show the percentage out of total respective column total.

Only those siblings are included who are in the age group of 6-14

This situation shows a gender differentiation in case of sex as mostly parents prefer

male children as compared to the female children. Further the status of these

siblings of child domestic servants is given in table 4.9 which shows that out of total

siblings of child domestic servants, a majority (46 per cent) of them are working

and contributing in family income and 32.03 per cent are studying. Similarly, 12.10

per cent stay at home to do domestic chores and take care of younger siblings

because their mothers are working, while 10 per cent are those who neither go to

school nor at work. Table also reveals that out of total working siblings, the

percentage is high for the 9-11 years age group and 12-14 years (39.68 per cent and

32.38 per cent, respectively) as compared to 6-8 years age group. On the contrary,

the percentage of studying sibling is high for 6-8 age group as compared to 9-11

and 12-14 years age group.

151

Table 4.9: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the Status of

Siblings by Age Group


6 – 8 9 – 11 12 – 14 Total

Status of Siblings

Working 69

(26.34)

{27.94}

98

(58.33)

{39.68}

80

(74.77)

{32.38}

247

(46.00)

{100.0}

Studying 133

(50.76)

{77.33}

36

(21.43)

{20.93}

3

(2.80)

{1.74}

172

(32.03)

{100.0}

Attending Domestic

Duties at Home

29

(11.07)

{44.62}

22

(13.09)

{33.85}

14

(13.08)

{21.54}

65

(12.10)

{100.0}

Idle 31

(11.83)

{58.49}

12

(7.14)

{22.64}

10

(9.35)

{18.87}

53

(9.87)

{100.0}

Total 262

(100.0)

{48.79}

168

(100.0)

{31.29}

107

(100.0)

{19.93}

537

(100.0)

{100.0}

Cost of Education (Annual) of those siblings who are Studying

100 – 200 56

(42.11)

{83.58}

11

(30.56)

{16.42}

- 67

(38.95)

{100.0}

200 – 300 15

(11.28)

{71.43}

4

(11.11)

{19.05}

2

(66.67)

{9.52}

21

(12.21)

{100.0}

Above 300 3

(2.26)

{75.00}

1

(2.78)

{25.00}

- 4

(2.33)

{100.0}

No idea 59

(44.36)

{73.75}

20

(55.55)

{25.00}

1

(33.33)

{1.25}

80

(46.51)

{100.0}

Total 133

(100.0)

{77.33}

36

(100.0)

{20.93}

3

(100.0)

{1.74}

172

(100.0)




It is also important to note that the siblings who stay at home, majority of them are

too young (6-8 years age group) reason, may be because they are physically unable

to go to school or at work. But as far idleness among siblings is concerned, most of

152

idle siblings in the age group of 6-8 years. shows that the a majority of siblings of

child domestic servants with the same age group are also working except too young

siblings of the age group of 6-8 years, may be because they have an opportunity to

go to school or stay at home or being an idle because their elder siblings are

financially supporting their parents. This table gives the clear indication that as the

age of these children belonging to the family of the child domestic worker

increases, their status shifts from being a student to a worker. Ironically, this status

changes much before they attain adulthood.

Table 4.9 also shows that most of the child domestic workers (46.57 per cent) have

no idea regarding the education expenses of their siblings. About 39 per cent

respondents said that their family spent Rs. 100 – Rs. 200 annually on their siblings’

education and only 12.21 per cent spent about Rs. 200 – Rs. 300 annually, but the

percentage for those who spent more than Rs. 300 annually, is very low (2.33 per

cent). Although education is free for 5-14 age group children in India but they have

to spend additional cost such as stationary, uniform, books etc.

Apart from caste, parents’ occupation and parents’ education, the problem of child

labour is more complex and may also be intertwined with the twin issues of poverty

and lack of access to quality education. So, through our survey we tried to explore

why a particular child has gone or is pushed to this particular job – whether it is

poverty that has sent him/her to work place instead of the school or the child

himself is not interested in the studies. Table 4.10 throws light on the basic cause

behind sending a child to work instead of letting him pursue his normal age specific

activity of attaining formal education. Table shows that about 60 per cent of

children are pushed into this occupation due to poverty or inadequate resources of

the family.

153

Table 4.10: Basic Cause of a Child Going to Work and Dropping Out of School Caste/Sex

Basic Cause

Poverty Inappropriate

School

Facilities

Failure

in

Exams

Not

Interested

in Studies

Other

Reason

Total

SC/ST

Males 9

(31.00)

- 8

(27.59)

7

(24.14)

5

(17.24)

29

(100.0)

{16.48}

Females 112

(76.19)

18

(12.25)

7

(4.76)

4

(2.72)

6

(4.08)

147

(100.0)

{83.52}

Total1

121

(68.75)

18

(10.23)

15

(8.52)

11

(6.25)

11

(6.25)

176

{(100.0)}

BC/OBC

Males 10

(37.04)

-

11

(40.74)

5

(18.52)

1

(3.70)

27

(100.0)

{29.35}

Females 41

(63.08)

8

(12.31)

8

(12.31)

1

(1.54)

7

(10.76)

65

(100.0)

{70.65}

Total2

51

(55.44)

8

(8.69)

19

(20.65)

6

(6.52)

8

(8.70)

92

{(100.0)}

Upper

Hindu

Males 6

(33.34)

- 4

(22.22)

4

(22.22)

4

(22.22)

18

(100.0)

{33.33}

Females 24

(66.67)

5

(13.89)

4

(11.11)

1

(2.78)

2

(5.55)

36

(100.0)

{66.67}

Total3

30

(55.56)

5

(9.26)

8

(14.82)

5

(9.26)

6

(11.11)

54

{(100.0)}

Others

Males 11

(44.00)

- 4

(16.00)

6

(24.00)

4

(16.00)

25

(100.0)

{37.88}

Females 21

(51.22)

9

(21.95)

3

(7.32)

- 8

(19.51)

41

(100.0)

{62.12}

Total4

32

(48.49)

9

(13.64)

7

(10.61)

6

(9.09)

12

(18.18)

66

{(100.0)}

Total (1+2+3+4) 234

(60.31)

40

(10.31)

49

(12.63)

28

(7.22)

37

(9.54)

388

(100.0) Source: Field Survey of Urban Areas of Bathinda District

Note: Figures given in bracket { } show the percentage out of total respective column total of each caste,

percentage in bracket ( ) show the percentage out of total respective row total.


154

About 10 per cent of children in this particular occupation have found difficulties

with the education system, which can be lack of effective teaching, schools are too

far from child’s home, lack of proper infrastructure in school etc. Though, this

argument hardly carries any strength as the number of primary schools in Punjab,

especially in urban areas is quite satisfactory. Thus, regarding the school proximity,

this argument seems to be an excuse, particularly if we see the fact that there are

only girl child labour of all castes who have responded that they have been pushed

into this occupation or have not attended the school due to inappropriate schools.

There seems to be no specific location problems regarding the schools but these are

more related to the gender specific problems as the government run primary schools

in Punjab are largely having co-education and the parents may not have been

interested in sending their girls to such a school even though the government of

Punjab is largely spending on Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan. Actually, the education of the

girls is more related to the social characteristics than to the adequacy of the

educational facilities. On the other hand, caste and sex wise analysis shows the

different picture as for males, poverty is not only the basic cause for joining labour

force and dropping school. We can see from the table that about 20 per cent of the

children responded that they were admitted to the schools by their parents but either

they could not perform well (12.63 per cent respondents about failure in exams and

interestingly the percentage of boys who failed in exams is greater than that of the

girls) or they are not interested in studies (7.22 per cent). Again, regarding the lack

of interest in studies table clearly reveals that the boys outnumber the girls.

Similarly other reason such as, death of the earning member, illness of father or

mother, idleness of father etc. also affect the education of children or compel them

to work to earn for the family, as about 10 per cent children responded that they

have to leave school due to death/illness/idleness of earning member. Thus, the

155

table clearly shows that poverty and failure of education delivery system (which

include the lack of appropriate education facilities, failure in exams and lack of

interest in studies) are the factors which are more likely to push the female children

to work. No doubt, poverty is the main cause but pushing the children out of school

and subsequently to some work (domestic services in this particular case) should

not be considered as mutually exclusive cases, even though the table above shows

them so. This is how those innocent children have responded during that survey but

as an adult one can understand the fact that other factors such as failure in exams

lack of interest in studies and death of a family member may also happen in

economically well-off families but they do not send their children to any work until

they attain adulthood. So, poverty is the main reason behind the fact that if the child

does not do well in studies then the possibilities of his joining work increase. We

have already observed a negative relationship between education and child labour.

Countries having low literacy and school attendance generally have acute child

labour problem (Lekshmanan, 2002).

Actually, child workers mostly come from the socially disadvantaged and under

privileged sections whose opportunity cost of schooling is quite high and perhaps for

the same reason, they show the least inclination for education. Table 4.11 shows the

distribution of child domestic servants based on the education status and caste. The

table shows that about 46 per cent of child domestic servants have never gone to school

and about 32 per cent of them have attained education below primary. Hardly 11.08 per

cent of total child domestic servants are reported to be going to informal schools.

Further, it also can be seen from the table that a majority of children who never gone to

school belonging to scheduled caste (52.78 per cent), followed by backward caste

(20.55 per cent), other non backward castes (15 per cent) and upper Hindu (11.67 per

cent).

156


Educational Status by Caste

Education Status Caste


Up to Primary 39

(22.16)

{31.45}

36

(39.13)

{29.03}

21

(38.89)

{16.94}

28

(42.42)

{22.58}

124

(31.96)

{100.0}

Up to Secondary 10

(5.68)

{24.39}

16

(17.39)

{39.02}

8

(14.82)

{19.51}

7

(10.61)

{17.07}

41

(10.57)

{100.0}

Never Gone to

School

95

(53.98)

{52.78}

37

(40.22)

{20.55}

21

(38.89)

{11.67}

27

(40.91)

{15.00}

180

(46.39)

{100.0}

Going to Informal

Schools

32

(18.18)

{74.42}

3

(3.26)

{6.98}

4

(7.40)

{9.30}

4

(6.06)

{9.30}

43

(11.08)

{100.0}

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}





Similarly, the percentage is also high for schedule caste children as compared to

other castes who go to informal schools (74.42 per cent). On the other hand, in case

of some education attainment (up to secondary level) children belonging to lower

castes outnumber the upper castes (63.41 per cent), while only 36.58 per cent

children belonging to upper castes could attain education up to secondary level.

Although, children are working to support their family, yet some of them are

learning through informal schools. Thus, these finding reveals that although

children belonging to scheduled and backward castes economically not well off in

comparison to the upper castes, but their situation is better off in case of education

attainment than the children belonging to upper castes.

157


Educational Status by Sex and Age Group


Note: Figures given in bracket { } show the percentage out of total respective male child labour and female

child labour and percentage in bracket ( ) show the percentage out of total respective column total.


6-8 9-11 12-14 Total (All)

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

Educational Status

Number of

Children

Discontinued

Studying

9

(33.33)

{12.68}

19

(14.84)

{20.21}

39

(90.70)

{54.93}

50

(44.25)

{53.19}

23

(82.14)

{32.39}

25

(51.02)

{26.60}

71

(72.45)

{100.0}

94

(32.41)

{100.0}

Number of

Children

Never

Gone to

School

15

(55.56)

{62.50}

86

(67.19)

{55.13}

4

(9.30)

{16.67}

46

(40.71)

{29.49}

5

(17.86)

{20.83}

24

(48.98)

{15.39}

24

(24.49)

{100.0}

156

(53.79)

{100.0}

Number of

Children

going to

Informal

School

3

(11.11)

{100.0}

23

(17.97)

{57.50}

-

17

(15.04)

{42.50}

-

-

3

(3.06)

{100.0}

40

(13.80)

{100.0}

Total

27

(100.0)

{27.55}

128

(100.0)

{44.14}

43

(100.0)

{43.88}

113

(100.0)

{38.97}

28

(100.0)

{28.57}

49

(100.0)

{16.90}

98

(100.0)

{100.0}

290

(100.0)

{100.0}

Level of Education of those who Discontinued Studying

Primary and

Below

(Up to 5th

Std.)

9

(100.0)

{20.00}

19

(100.0)

{24.05}

27

(69.23)

{60.00}

45

(90.00)

{56.96}

9

(39.13)

{20.00}

15

(60.00)

{18.99}

45

(63.38)

{100.0}

79

(84.04)

{100.0}

Secondary

(Up to 8th

Std.)

- - 12

(30.77)

{46.15}

5

(10.00)

{33.33}

14

(60.87)

{53.85}

10

(40.00)

{66.67}

26

(36.62)

{100.0}

15

(15.96)

{100.0}

Total

9

(100.0)

{12.68}

19

(100.0)

{20.21}

39

(100.0)

{54.93}

50

(100.0)

{53.19}

23

(100.0)

{32.39}

25

(100.0)

{26.60}

71

(100.0)

{100.0}

94

(100.0)

{100.0}

158

Further, table 4.12 shows the education status of child domestic servants by sex and

age group. An analysis reveals that females are more disadvantaged on case of

education than males, as the percentage of girls (53.79 per cent) who have never

gone to school is much higher than boys (24.49 per cent). Most of illiterate females

and males are in the age group 6-8 years (55.13 per cent and 62.50 per cent

respectively). About 14 per cent females have joined informal school for attaining

education, but in the same category, percentage is very low for male workers (3.06

per cent). It is also interesting to note that majority of the children who go to

informal school are in the age group of 6-8 (almost all males and 57.50 per cent

females), while in the age group of 9-11 years, only female child workers are going

to informal schools. On the other hand, in case of literate children, who

discontinued study and joined work, the percentage of male workers (72.45 per

cent) is higher as compared to the female workers (32.41 per cent). Data also shows

that a big share of school dropouts are in the age group of 9-11 years and 12-14

years as 54.93 per cent males and 53.19 per cent females are dropout from schools

in the age group of 9-11 years, similarly 32.39 per cent males and 26.60 per cent

females are dropouts in the age group of 12-14 years. Another important

observation that can be made from this table is that out of total children who have

discontinued studies, about 63.38 per cent males and 84.04 per cent females have

attained education only up to primary level. While only 36.62 per cent males 15.96

females could reach up to secondary level. Thus, as a child among these poor

households leaves the school, his/her tendency to join a work increases leading to a

downward sloping curve of education status and the incidence of child labour in

domestic services. Likewise, we can observe from table 4.13 that about 73 per cent

of the male workers and about 31 per cent of female workers have earlier gone to

school and are forced to drop out due to one or another reason. But a big proportion

159

of them (about 65 per cent male child workers and 98 per cent of female child

workers) wants to continue their education but they do not have the decisive

capacity, the final decision of their going to school or to work depends upon their

parents.

Table 4.13: Attitude of Parents and Child Domestic Servants towards

Education

Particulars Males

(%)

Females

(%)

Percentage of children ever gone to school 72.45 31.38

Percentage of children who want to continue their

education or to choose education as an alternative

64.62 98.36

Parents’ attitude towards education of the child working as domestic servant

Can’t afford education expenses due to poverty 10.25 16.37

Can’t afford education expenses due to illness 1.94 1.43

The child is not interested in studies 22.45 2.06

No idea\can’t even think about child sending to school 65.36 80.04


When their parents are asked about the possibility of sending their child to school,

about 10 per cent parents of male workers and about 16 per cent parents of female

workers have expressed their inability to meet the expenses of their child’s

education. About 23 per cent of parents of the male workers even shifted the onus

of not going to school to the child himself by stating that he is not interested in

studies. This percentage is very low in case of female workers. But a big majority of

them have no idea about changing their decision of sending their children to work

as for them it is unthinkable to be deprived of a source of income and to spend on

education. They are not even ready to do it for free education as these children

contribute a significant amount to total family income and one should remember

that the marginal sacrifice of this income is much higher for the poor (Todaro and

smith, 2003).

160

Section 2 – Household Characteristics of Child Domestic

Labour

This section aims to describe the household characteristics of child domestic

servants on the matter relating to children’s work. The main thrust of this section

lies in explaining as to how poor household condition of these children forced them

to leave school and join work. It deals with various aspects of living conditions of

these child domestic workers.


Ownership of the Residential Houses

Particulars Caste


Ownership Status of the Residential House

Own House 15

(8.52)

22

(23.91)

6

(11.11)

21

(31.82)

65

(16.75)

Rented 93

(52.84)

68

(73.91)

48

(88.89)

44

(66.67)

252

(64.95)

Unauthorized Residence

(hut/slums)

68

(38.64)

2

(2.17)

- 1

(1.51)

71

(18.30)

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Amount of Rent (per month) who are living on Rented House

500-1000 24

(25.81)

20

(29.41)

13

(27.66)

15

(34.09)

72

(28.57)

1000-1500 40

(43.01)

32

(47.06)

18

(38.30)

20

(45.46)

110

(43.65)

1500-2000 22

(23.66)

11

(16.18)

15

(31.92)

8

(18.18)

56

(22.22)

Above 2000 7

(7.52)

5

(7.35)

1

(2.12)

1

(2.27)

14

(5.56)

Total 93

(100.0)

{63.90}

68

(100.0)

{26.98}

47

(100.0)

{18.65}

44

(100.0)

{17.46}

252

(100.0)

{100.0}





161

The distribution of child domestic servants according to their house ownership

according to caste is shown in table 4.14. The ownership status of residential houses

of child domestic servnats shows that 252 (about 65 per cent), out of total 388 child

workers’ families are living in rented houses. Among the rest 65 (about 7 per cent)

have their own houses. On the other hand, 71 (about 18 per cent) families of child

domestic workers are living in unauthorized places (huts) without paying any rent.

The percentage is high for the families of child workers who belonging to other

castes in case of their own residential houses as compared to other castes (31.82 per

cent), and families of the children belonging to scheduled caste have lower

percentage in case of their own house (8.52 per cent), but higher percentage in case

of living in unauthorized places (38.64 per cent). Table further shows that a

majority of families of child domestic servants (43.65 per cent) who are living in

rented houses pays between Rs. 1000 to Rs. 1500 per month rent. Among the rest

28.57 per cent families pays rent between Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000 per month and 22.22

per cent pays rent between Rs. 1500 to Rs. 2000. But the percentage is very low for

those who pay rent more than Rs. 2000 per month (about 6 per cent). It appears that

the poor families of child domestic servants spend a significant proportion of their

income on house rent. The data confirm that the living conditions of the child

workers are very poor. Further, in Table 4.15, the type and condition of house of

child domestic servants by their caste has been shown, which reveals that more than

50 per cent families of respondents live in Semi-Pucca houses, about 26 per cent

lives in Pucca houses. But this is also an important to note that about 22 per cent

live in Kaccha houses. Out of total respondent, who live in Kaccha houses majority

of them belonging to scheduled castes as compared to the child workers belonging

to the other castes (86.05 per cent).

162

Table 4.15: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the Type,

Condition of House and Number of Rooms in the House by Caste

Particular

Caste


Type of House

Kaccha 74

(42.05)

8

(8.69)

1

(1.85)

3

(4.55)

86

(22.17)

Semi-Pucca 70

(39.77)

57

(61.96)

32

(59.26)

43

(65.15)

202

(52.06)

Pucca 32

(18.18)

27

(29.35)

21

(39.89)

20

(30.30)

100

(25.77)

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Condition of House

Good 9

(5.11)

9

(9.78)

10

(18.52)

5

(7.58)

33

(8.51)

Poor 132

(75.00)

48

(52.17)

22

(40.74)

35

(53.03)

237

(61.08)

Repairable 35

(19.89)

35

(38.04)

22

(40.74)

26

(39.39)

118

(30.41)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Number of Rooms

One 119

(67.61)

70

(76.08)

37

(68.52)

34

(51.52)

260

(67.01)

Two 57

(32.39)

22

(23.91)

17

(31.48)

32

(48.48)

128

(32.99)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}


Figures given in bracket { } show the percentage out of total child laboureres and percentage in bracket ( )

show the percentage out of total respective column total.


Within each caste, we can observe that a majority of SC/STs live in Kaccha houses,

while for BC/OBCs, upper Hindu and other castes, a majority lives in Semi-Pucca

houses. As compared to about 40 per cent of child domestic workers belonging to

163

the upper Hindu castes, only 18.18 per cent of those belonging to SC/STs live in

Pucca houses. Further, when respondents are asked about the condition of their

house majority of them 237 (about 61 per cent) reported it to be poor and 118

(about 30 per cent) reported that it needs repair. Only about 9 per cent respondents

accepted that their housing condition is good. But one more thing can be observed

from the table that the percentage of children whose housing condition is good is

higher for upper castes (18.52 per cent) and on the contrary in case of poor housing

condition percentage of child domestic workers from schedule castes is higher

(about 75 per cent). Furthermore, from the table it can be observed that (67.01 per

cent) families of child domestic workers live in one room accommodation and

remaining about 33 per cent live in two room accommodation. It is stated earlier in

the family background part, majority of child domestic servants (about 46 per cent)

have 7-10 family members in the household, so it is hard to imagine how the

families of the child domestic servants can manage to survive with in such limited

space, especially those living in one-roomed houses. This indicates that the working

children and their families are living in under poor housing conditions. Apart from

the housing condition related to the number of rooms and the housing structure, the

distribution of child domestic servants according to the other civic amenities in the

house can be observed in table 4.16. It shows that out of total 388 respondents, 307

(about 79 per cent) houses of the child domestic servants are electrified but still 81

respondents (about 21 per cent) families are dependent on other source of lighting

and in case of scheduled castes, a very big proportion that is about 41 per cent live

in non-electrified houses while this share is very low for the BC/OBCs (6.52 per

cent), upper Hindu (3.70 per cent) and others (1.52 per cent). The families who have

the facility of electricity about 82 per cent get the facility of electricity from their

house owner and remaining only 18 per cent have their own connections.

164

Table 4.16: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the

Civic Amenities in the House

Particulars

Caste


Source of Light in the House

Electrified 104

(59.09)

86

(93.48)

52

(96.30)

65

(98.49)

307

(79.12)

Non-Electrified 72

(40.91)

6

(6.52)

2

(3.70)

1

(1.52)

81

(20.88)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Type of Connection in Electrified Houses

Own 10

(9.62)

18

(20.93)

7

(13.46)

21

(32.31)

56

(18.24)

Provided by House Owner 94

(90.38)

68

(79.07)

45

(86.54)

44

(67.69)

251

(81.76)

Total 104

(100.0)

{33.88}

86

(100.0)

{28.01}

52

(100.0)

{16.94}

65

(100.0)

{21.17}

307

(100.0)

{100.0}

Drinking Water

Tap Inside 67

(38.07)

46

(50.00)

36

(66.67)

26

(39.39)

175

(45.10)

Public Tap 56

(31.82)

9

(9.78)

6

(11.11)

5

(7.58)

76

(19.59)

Hand Pump 53

(30.11)

37

(40.22)

12

(22.22)

35

(53.03)

137

(35.31)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Source of Fuel for Cooking

L.P.G. 23

(13.07)

20

(21.74)

15

(27.78)

10

(15.15)

68

(17.53)

Kerosene 53

(30.11)

40

(43.48)

25

(46.30)

27

(40.91)

145

(37.37)

Wood/Coal 100

(56.82)

32

(34.78)

14

(25.92)

29

(43.94)

175

(45.10)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)





165

Moreover, in case of own electricity connections the percentage is high for the

families belonging to other castes (32.31 per cent). Likewise 175 (about 45 per

cent) respondents families have their private source of water whereas 137 (about 35

per cent) using hand pumps for water. Even a significant proportion 76 (about 20

per cent) uses the public source of water. Similarly in case of own private source of

water, the 66.67 per cent of families belonging to upper caste have this facility as

compared to 38.07 per cent in case of scheduled castes. Thus, nearly two third

families belonging to scheduled castes have to depend upon the public tap or hand

pump. As far as the matter of fuel for cooking is concerned, a majority of families

(45.10 per cent) use wood/coal for cooking as they cannot afford LPG. Only 68

(about 18 per cent) use LPG for cooking. But percentage for those who use

kerosene as fuel is also significant (about 37 per cent). Like own private source of

water, in case of using LPG, the percentage is also high for the families belong to

upper castes (27.78 per cent). Thus, most of the families especially those who lives

in one room Kaccha accommodation uses the public civic amenities provided by the

Government. Thus it can be said that a majority of child domestic servants have

poor housing conditions with little basic amenities.

Section 3 –Economic Status of the Family of Child Domestic

Servants

It is generally stated that the level of income of the household is one of the key

determinant of the child labour. As according to Sanon (1998), lower the income of

the household, the greater the necessity of sending the child to work and vice versa.

The income level of the household is taken here to mean the total monthly income

of all the members of the family including the earnings of the child workers. In

certain cases family income is higher but due to lack of social awareness and

responsibility, they fail to utilize it in a proper way. Therefore, despite of higher

166

family income, the family will continue to be in the same socio – economic class.

On the other hand, the information regarding the household income, expenditure,

savings, debts etc. has been collected from the working children. Since children are

considered not very competent to give details about the exact income and

expenditure of the households, these were further confirmed by asking their parents

or their guardians whichever were available at the time of the survey. The Monthly

income of the household of child domestic servants has been divided into different

groups as presented in Table 4.17.

Table 4.17: The Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the

Monthly Income of the Household

Income Level

(Per Month)

Caste


Up to 3500 79

(44.89)

41

(44.57)

26

(48.15)

27

(40.91)

173

(44.59)

3501-4000 39

(22.16)

22

(23.91)

13

(24.07)

16

(24.24)

90

(23.20)

4001-4500 30

(17.05)

15

(16.30)

7

(12.96)

8

(12.12)

60

(15.46)

4501-5000 17

(9.65)

9

(9.78)

5

(9.26)

8

(12.12)

39

(10.05)

Above 5000 11

(6.25)

5

(5.44)

3

(5.56)

7

(10.61)

26

(6.70)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}





It is obvious from the table that a majority (about 45 per cent) of the households of

child domestic servants have monthly income of less than Rs. 3500, 23.20 per cent,

15.46 per cent and 10.05 per cent households have income between Rs. 3501 and

167

Rs. 4000, Rs. 4001 and Rs. 4500 and Rs. 4501 and Rs. 5000 respectively. Only

about 7 per cent household are able to earn more than Rs 5000 per month. A higher

monthly income is found in the joint families which have more earning members in

the household and for majority of the families since the monthly income is low, the

children are sent to workplaces as labour. The table clearly shows that higher the

income of the family, the lower the number of children employed. Thus economic

position of a family plays a crucial role in the proper welfare and development of its

members. A family with better income, sets apart adequate resources for proper

future development of its children. The children of poor families cannot think of

opportunities which are availed by rich families rather they are likely to face neglect

and abuse of different kinds (Lekshmanan, 2002). Hence, the argument that to

abolish child labour, the income of the families to be increased, holds good to a

great extent. Families being the basic unit, earning members contribute to the family

fund so that at least the basic need of all family members is satisfied. Therefore,

where the income is concerned, the child’s meager income is very supportive to the

family. The distribution of child domestic servants according to their income and

contribution in the family income is shown in table 4.18. The table shows that a

large proportion of child domestic workers (31.19 per cent) earn up to Rs. 800 per

month, 22.42 per cent earns between Rs. 801- Rs, 1200 per month and 13.40 per

cent earns between Rs. 1201 – Rs. 1600. But a very small percentage that is only

8.6 per cent earns more than Rs. 1600 per month. It can also be observed that about

24 per cent of the child domestic servants are unpaid workers. It can also be seen

that the share of these unpaid workers and those earning below Rs. 800 per month is

very high for the scheduled castes vis-à-vis other social groups. We can observe that

about 70 per cent of the SC/STs belong to these income groups only.

168

Table 4.18: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the Income

and their Share in Family Income

Particulars

Caste


Income Level of Working Children (per month)

Up to Rs 800 71

(40.34)

{58.68}

19

(20.65)

{15.70}

18

(33.33)

{14.88}

13

(19.70)

{10.74}

121

(31.19)

{100.0}

Rs 801 – Rs 1200 40

(22.73)

{45.98}

23

(25.00)

{26.44}

12

(22.22)

{13.79}

12

(18.18)

{13.79}

87

(22.42)

{100.0}

Rs 1201 – Rs 1600 10

(5.68)

{19.23}

13

(14.13)

{25.00}

6

(11.12)

{11.54}

23

(34.85)

{44.23}

52

(13.40)

{100.0}

Above Rs 1600 2

(1.14)

{5.88}

18

(19.57)

{52.94}

6

(11.12)

{17.65}

8

(12.12)

{23.53}

34

(8.76)

{100.0}

No Income 53

(30.11)

{56.38}

19

(20.65)

{20.21}

12

(22.22)

{12.77}

10

(15.15)

{10.64}

94

(24.23)

{100.0}

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Percentage Share in Family Income (per month)

No Contribution

53

(30.11)

{56.38}

19

(20.65)

{20.21}

12

(22.22)

{12.77}

10

(15.15)

{10.64}

94

(24.23)

{100.0}

Up to 25 Percent

94

(53.41)

{55.29}

30

(32.61)

{17.65}

26

(48.15)

{15.29}

20

(30.30)

{11.77}

170

(43.81)

{100.0}

25 – 50 Per cent

27

(15.34)

{23.48}

40

(43.48)

{34.78}

15

(27.78)

{13.04}

33

(50.00)

{28.70}

115

(29.64)

{100.0}

Above 50 Per cent

2

(1.14)

{22.22}

3

(3.26)

{33.33}

1

(1.85)

{11.11}

3

(4.55)

{33.33}

9

(2.32)

{100.0}

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}





169

If we examine the contribution these children have made to the family income, it can

be observed that 169 (43.56 per cent) children contribute up to 25 per cent per month in

their total family income, 115 (about 30 per cent) contribute between 25 per cent and

50 per cent, but few only 9 (about 2 per cent) out of total respondents contribute more

than 50 per cent towards the family income. Thus, we can say that these little hands

contribute a significant proportion in their family income to fulfill the basic needs.

Table 4.19: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the Monthly

Expenditures and Savings of Household

Particulars

Caste

SC/ST BC/OBC Upper

Hindu

Other Total

Expenditures of Household (per month)

Up to Rs. 3000 41

(23.30)

19

(20.65)

12

(22.22)

9

(13.64)

81

(20.88)

Rs. 3001 – Rs. 4000 74

(42.04)

44

(47.83)

27

(50.00)

34

(51.52)

179

(46.13)

Rs. 4001 – Rs. 5000 50

(28.41)

24

(26.09)

13

(24.08)

16

(24.24)

103

(26.55)

Above Rs. 5000 11

(6.25)

5

(5.43)

2

(3.70)

7

(10.61)

25

(6.44)

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Savings of Household (per month)

No Savings 141

(80.11)

66

(71.74)

45

(83.32)

56

(84.84)

308

(79.38)

Up to Rs. 150 20

(11.36)

14

(15.22)

3

(5.56)

3

(4.55)

40

(10.31)

Rs. 151 – Rs. 300 10

(5.68)

8

(8.70)

3

(5.56)

4

(6.06)

25

(6.44)

Above Rs. 300 5

(2.85)

4

(4.34)

3

(5.56)

3

(4.55)

15

(3.87)

Total

176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)





170

Further the expenditure status of the families of child domestic workers is shown in

table 4.19. Table shows that out of total sample respondents, about 21 per cent

spend less than Rs. 3000 per month while a majority of 46.13 per cent spends

between Rs. 3000 and Rs. 4000 per month, another 26.55 per cent families spend

between Rs. 4000 and Rs. 5000 per month and a very few families that is only 6.44

per cent spend more than Rs. 5000 per month as household expenditure. Further it

can also be observed from the table that a big majority of the households (79.38 per

cent) have no savings and for those who saved, could save only up to Rs. 300 per

month. Only about 4 per cent households are able to save more than Rs. 300 per

month.

It is observed during the field survey that due to a huge gap between income and

expenditure or due to insignificant amount of savings the families of these children

have to borrow to meet their daily expenses or sometimes during the exigencies

such as marriage, ailment etc. So the burden of debt can be another major reason for

sending the children to work. So it would be important here to observe the debt

status of the household of child domestic servants. This is shown in Table 4.20. The

table shows that more than 50 per cent of the total respondent’s families owe debt.

Interestingly, the incidence of indebtedness among the upper castes that is upper

Hindu and Others is found to be higher as compared to the lower social groups. The

size of debt on the upper Hindus and others is mainly above Rs. 10000. In case of

upper Hindus, 93 per cent of the families under debt owe more than Rs. 10000 and

this percentage is 91 per cent for others, while for SC/STs and BC/OBCs this

percentage is about 72 per cent and 73 per cent, respectively. Whatever may be the

amount, These findings affirm the presumption that a significant proportion of the

working children’s parents are indebted.

171

Table 4.20: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the

Indebtedness Status of the Family Particulars Caste


Debt Status

No Debt 84

(47.73)

51

(55.43)

18

(33.33)

20

(30.30)

173

(44.59)

Indebtedness 92

(52.27)

41

(44.57)

36

(66.67)

46

(69.70)

215

(55.41)

Total 176

(100.0)

{45.36}

92

(100.0)

{23.71}

54

(100.0)

{13.92}

66

(100.0)

{17.01}

388

(100.0)

{100.0}

Extent of Indebtedness

Rs. 5000 – 10000 26

(28.26)

11

(26.83)

7

(19.44)

9

(19.57)

53

(24.65)

Rs. 10000 – 20000 32

(34.78)

12

(29.27)

20

(55.56)

15

(32.61)

79

(36.74)

Rs. 20000 – 50000 29

(31.52)

12

(29.27)

8

(22.22)

17

(39.96)

66

(30.70)

Above Rs. 50000 5

(5.44)

6

(14.63)

1

(2.78)

5

(10.86)

17

(7.91)

Total 92

(100.0)

{42.80}

41

(100.0)

{19.06}

36

(100.0)

{16.74}

46

(100.0)

{21.40}

215

(100.0)





Since the amount of debt is generally beyond their means, they are compelled their

children to work. Due to low income, borrowing has become pertinent for the poor

families. They have to borrow money for various purposes viz., marriage, to start

new occupation, to meet their economic needs etc. The sources for borrowing

money can be conventional i.e. friends, relatives, money lenders etc. The purpose

and sources of debt in the families of the child domestic servants has been shown in

table 4.21. As stated in the table 3.18 that out of total families under debt 25.12 per

cent have taken debt to bear the expenses of marriage, while 15.81 per cent have

172

taken it for starting a new occupation and 14.42 per cent families have taken it for

medical treatment or death in the family.

Table 4.21: Distribution of Child Domestic Servants According to the Purpose

and Source of Debt

Particulars

Caste


Purpose of Debt

Marriage 22

(23.91)

16

(39.02)

5

(13.89)

11

(23.91)

54

(25.12)

Family Shock/Medical

Treatment

8

(8.70)

8

(19.52)

8

(22.23)

7

(17.07)

31

(14.42)

To Start New Occupation 10

(10.87)

7

(17.07)

7

(19.44)

10

(24.39)

34

(15.81)

Other 52

(56.52)

10

(24.39)

16

(44.44)

18

(39.13)

96

(44.65)

Total

92

(100.0)

{42.80}

41

(100.0)

{19.06}

36

(100.0)

{16.74}

46

(100.0)

{21.40}

215

(100.0)

{100.0}

Source of Debt

Private Money Lender 35

(38.05)

23

(56.10)

14

(38.89)

18

(39.13)

90

(41.86)

Relative/Friend 55

(59.78)

18

(43.90)

22

(61.11)

22

(47.83)

117

(54.42)

Institutional 2

(2.17)

- - 6

(13.04)

8

(3.72)

Total

92

(100.0)

{42.80}

41

(100.0)

{19.06}

36

(100.0)

{16.74}

46

(100.0)

{21.40}

215

(100.0)

{100.0}





But for about 45 per cent of the families have cited other reasons for the debt such

as, house repairing, to pay monthly installment of debt etc. Debt for repayment of

the installment of debt shows the debt trap in which these families are generally

caught and vicious cycle leads to the never ending problem of incidence of child

labour.

173

Regarding the source of debt it can be observed that for more than 50 per cent of the

families the source of debt is their close relatives and friends. About 42 per cent

have borrowed from private money lender whose interest rates are usually high.

Only 4 per cent of the respondents’ families borrowed money from an institutional

source such as a bank. Actually, due to lack of knowledge and absence of any

collateral these families have little share of institutional loans. It can be observed

from the table that although a significant proportion of families especially lower

castes, borrow money from the private money lender, but still for all families

whether they belong to upper castes or lower castes, their main source of borrowing

are relatives/friends.

Therefore we have observed that due to many important aspects of household such

as lower average monthly income, Illiterate head of Family, Large amount of debt,

and even parents’ occupation which become the major impediment in the growth

and development of the child and all these elements influence the child’s education

and decision of works. But apart from these reasons some other facets are also

responsible for the prevalence of child labour which compel the children to seek

employment. These facets are presented in table 4.22. The table shows that for most

of the child domestic workers, the head of the family is illiterate and this percentage

is higher for lower social groups (i.e. SC/STs and BC/OBCs) than the upper ones

(i.e. Upper Hindus and Others). Since, these lower social groups comprise about 70

per cent of the total sample workers, we can say that most of the children working

as domestic servants have illiterate head of the family. Actually, in most of the

families of working children, decision for child’s work is often taken by the head of

the family so due to illiteracy of the head of the family, the decision of child’s

education is also affected.

174

Table 4.22: Main Facets of Household of Child Domestic Servants in

Bathinda District


Note: ‘Other Castes’ includes child labour belong to upper castes of Sikhs, Muslims, Christians

Communities.

Further, table clearly points out that in case of most of these child workers, a family

member is already working as a domestic servant. We cannot follow a one link to

this fact because this is equally high for SC/STs and for the Upper Hindus. This

percentage is as low as 57.14 per cent in case of male workers belonging to

BC/OBCs and as high as about 88 per cent in case of male workers belonging to

upper Hindus’ category. Ailing member in the family can also be one of the main

reasons affecting the decision of sending children to work. The table shows that

Particulars

Caste

SC/ST BC/OBC Upper Hindu Other

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

% of

workers

with

literate head

of family

10.71

12.08

53.57

54.84

41..18

56.76

29.17

16.28

% of

workers

who already

have a

family

member

working as

domestic

servants

78.57

66.44

57.14

61.29

88.24

62.16

66.67

58.14

% of

workers

who have an

ailing

member in

the

Family

32.14

35.57

42.86

24.19

17.65

13.51

33.33

20.93

175

more than one third of male and female children belonging to SC category, male

children belonging to BC/OBCs category and other category have an ailing member

in their family. It has found that due to medical expenditure in these families are not

able to send their children to school and for extra earnings they choose them to send

to work.

To sum up we can say that the socio-economic analysis of the family of child domestic

servants indicate the certain facts. Findings of the study reveal that the girls are more

involved in the occupation of domestic work than boys as they are more submissive,

docile and cheaper not only as compared to adult servants but also as compared to their

male counterparts in the same age group. These child domestic workers have

disadvantaged background as they come from poor and illiterate families which have

low level of educational achievement. The children are pushed to work by various

socio-economic factors but it can be inferred that poverty can be the major reason for

working children. Moreover children’s educational attainment is also affected because

of their work. They have to drop out at an early age and to join work as their parents

can’t afford education expenses. Moreover due to poor economic status (high debt and

low level of family income), the living conditions of these children are pathetic. Thus,

these very characteristics of these child workers make them more vulnerable and so

there is a need to check it effectively. For this purpose, income support measures

should be provided by the state and central government to poor household as an

instrument for reducing child labour. Apart from these measures, easy and sure access

to school should also be made available. This would be the crucial step in addressing

the child labour problem. There is also need of an orientation of programme related to

formal and informal education and skill development programmes for these children.

Documents

CHAPTER - 4 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC FEATURES OF THE FAMILY …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/10362/11... · suffering from gender and sexual violence (Lahiri, 2007). Children