"Child Labour ….? In Sivakasi fireworks factories ……? It is a blatant lie.

Article by Mr. Raam Kumar Nadar (Webmaster)

Welcome to Sivakasi …. See for yourself." This is an advertisement on the Sunday Express, 3 March 2004, by All India Federation of Fireworks Associations. The advertisement continues, "We are workers’ children and not working children. Every child is our customer and no child is our worker. Fireworks are made for children and not by children. If you still have doubts, you are invited to Sivakasi, the Mini Japan of India. See for yourself, interview the District Collector, Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, and you can find that not even a single child is employed in any fireworks factory in Sivakasi. Sivakasi means Education and Hard Work. Sivakasi means Fireworks, Matches and Printing. Sivakasi means Social Services and Public Welfare Services".

But who is telling the truth the NGO or the Government. The media savvy people are getting information in 3 resources.
1. Dowry leads to Child Labour - The Times of India, November 21, 1993
2. UNICEF Report - Dated January 1984. and
3. HUNDREDS of newspaper articles

They have been written on child labour in the match industry of Sivakasi and neighbouring areas as like.

Some say it is the exploitation of the poor by capitalists. Others say it is
the exploitation of children by their parents. Most accounts leave out a more
important reason - the exploitation of females by males.



The Tamil Nadu government and UNICEF recently prepared a report on the match
industry in the region. This reveals that 90 per cent of the total workforce
and 80 per cent of child labour is female. In other words, the general Sivakasi
pattern is for men to send their wives and little girls to handle dangerous
chemicals while seeking a different future'for themselves and their sons.



Discrimination does not end here. Of the limited number of boys working in the
industry, 70 per cent attend school, and work only part-time. But no less than
80 per cent of little girls work full-time. In other words, even when schooling
is available, most girls are kept working and illiterate, while boys get
educated.



This is unusual in Tamil Nadu. The state has a fine record in educating girls,
which is regarded by experts as the key reason for the very low fertility rate
of women in the state.



One answer is that the typical match industry family has special characteristics.
It is common for entire families to work together in the match industry, often at
home as a cottage industry. The average family in the industry has 6 members,
far more than the state average of 4.7 members. Moreover, females account for
almost two-thirds of family members in the match industry, against less than
half for the state as a whole. In other words, a family with many girls is
most likely to enter the match industry, and most likely to make its girls work
full-time instead of educating them.



This problem cannot be solved by enforcing a ban on child labour in the 400 or
so factories. Around 40 per cent of all matches are made in 6,000 cottage units,
which often means families working in homes. No laws can effectively prevent
parents from making little girls work at home.



Factories pay piece rates for making matches and filling them in boxes, at
the rate of 75 paise per frame. The owners care little whether the work
is done by males or females, children or animals. They simply want matches
at a given rate. True, there are cases where families have taken cash
advances from owners and virtually bonded their children to owners to
repay the loans. But in general the industry functions on piece rates,
and so has little reason to favour children over adults. Indeed, child
labour has largely disappeared in fireworks factories in Sivakasi,
thanks to good enforcement.


GENDER EXPLOITATION: Ending child labour in the match industry could
create a local labour shortage, which might tend to drive up the piece rates.
But match factories are easily relocated at little cost, and would simply
migrate to poorer districts which would gratefully grab jobs at the rates
currently paid by Sivakasi (which, incidentally, boasts today that it has
no unemployment or beggars thanks to the match industry).



No, the explanation for child labour lies mainly in gender exploitation, not
class or parental exploitation. The birth of a girl is viewed as a financial
disaster in India. Her parents will have to give her a dowry when she marries.
They have to spend money feeding and clothing her when young, but when she
grows up and marries the fruit of her labour (whether at home or in the
workplace) accrues to her husband's family. By contrast a boy brings in a
dowry, works for the family when he grows up, and looks after his parents
in their old age. So a girl is a financial liability, and a boy an asset.



Child labour gives parents the chance to reduce their financial liability.
A couple with just one girl may find the liability bearable. But a family with
three girls tends to send them to work, so that they earn their keep and yield
a surplus to finance their dowry. Not many steady jobs are available for little
girls, and so the match industry looks like a god sent to families with many
girls. The report reveals that fully half the worker families will fall below
the poverty line if they are forced to withdraw their children from work.
This explains the social harmony between owners and workers in a situation,
which should really evoke social outrage.



Until we change male attitudes, until we get rid of the curse of dowry, we
will not be able to end child labour. We have to change society before we can
free little girls. Even if inspectors keep girls out of factories, parents will
put them to work in some other avenue, like gathering firewood or tending goats,
and the result will be continued gender exploitation but at a lower family income.



Better schools and agricultural development that raises incomes could reduce
the exploitation of children by parents. But even if this induces parents to
put all their boys in school, many will put little girls to work as long as
these are viewed as debit entries in a financial leger.

BUT Sivakasi IS Different. HOW?