The main thrust of the article, “Have we asked the children?” (June 13, 2015), that children should have the choice of whether they want to work or not and what type of work they should do, is a double-edged sword. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child has validated a child’s right to be heard and consulted in all matters that affect him/her. But it also adds that this should be in his/her best interests, in accordance with his/her evolving capacities and under parental guidance; where the parent is not in a position to act in his/her best interest, the state is expected to step in.
Children when asked what they want to be when they grow up, often mention one of the following: teacher, doctor, pilot, policeman, engineer, politician, artist, nurse, and so on. All but a couple of the careers they mention do need a full stint at school and some even further! Some children may indeed choose mid-level, technical or semi-skilled occupations. But I have never heard any child choose occupations such as coolie, manual labourer, domestic maid, etc. A child’s ambitions may get changed or tempered later, but if there is no lofty goal even at the beginning, how will our children progress?
NGOs often involve children in decisions on their own immediate and long-term futures. But is it feasible for a government to rely on a referendum on this issue to base its policy and laws on? It has to fall back on the three criteria mentioned earlier. If parents are incapable of guiding their children in directions that are in their best interests, the latter should be the decisive criterion, and the state and NGOs need to impart parenting awareness and skills as well as work towards improved legal solutions and educational systems that can enable the child to access all opportunities to optimum personal development and career options.
R. Padmini,Bengaluru
