Every Right for Every Child India

INDIA
EVERY RIGHT FOR EVERY CHILD
2003 CITIZENS’ ALTERNATE REVIEW AND
REPORT ON INDIA’S PROGRESS TOWARDS CRC
REALISATION
in response to
First Periodic Report : 2001 Govt of India
Submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
Published and Submitted by
India Alliance for Child Rights
August 2003

Acknowledgements and Credits
Print production funded by
Save the Children – UK
Editorial Support:
Enakshi Ganguly Thukral, Razia Ismail Abbasi
Neelam Singh and R. Padmini

i
Process of Consultation for the Alternate Report
I The India Alliance for Child Rights (IACR) has welcomed and appreciated the opportunity it
has been given to prepare an alternate report to India’s official First Periodic Report. The
CRC review and reporting process coordinated by IACR has consciously reached out to a
wide range of NGOs, organisations, movements, networks, special interest groups,
academics and researchers, and concerned citizens, well beyond its current formal
membership. This is why it is called the Citizens’ Review and Report. The process has taken
time, but has yielded an encouraging level of interest, participation and sharing.
II More than 100 Organisations and Networks have taken active part in the Alliance’s
CRC review process for preparing this report and/or have contributed inputs
(includes IACR charter members):
Centre for Health, Training and Nutrition Awareness (CHETNA, Gujarat,Rajasthan), FORCES
(Network), Baha’i Office for The Advancement of Women (BOAW), HAQ Centre for Child Rights,
National Foundation for India (NFI), All India Women’s Education Fund Association (AIWEFA),
New Delhi, Women’s Coalition for Peace and Development (WeCan), Joint Women’s Programme
(JWP) All India Women’s Conference (AIWC 500 Local Chapters), Young Women Christian
Association of India (YWCA, 70 affiliated associations ), Habitat International Coalition Housing &
Land Rights Network (HIC-HLRN), Centre for Concern for Child Labour (CCFCL), SAMADHAN,
Jharkhand, Childline India Foundation (CIF), Mumbai, Child Rights Trust (CRT, Bangalore), Indian
Council for Child Welfare (ICCW), Mobile Crèches Organisation, World Vision India, Campaign
Against Child Trafficking (CACT, 400 NGO network members), Joint Women’s Collective Trust,
Council for Social Development (CSD), New Delhi, Centre for Women’s Development Studies
(CWDS), New Delhi, Women’s Consortium for Development, Abba Yesu Pavithra Centre for
Holistic Healing, Bangalore, National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development
(NIPCCD), Bangalore, Auxilium Navajeevan, Bangalore, NGO Alliance for the Rights of the Girl
Child, DEEDS, Bangalore, Bangalore Children’s Hospital and Research Centre (Branch), Bangalore,
Samaj Vikas Kendra, Bangalore, Magadi Makkala Dhyani, Bangalore, South India Cell for Human
Rights Education and Monitoring (Sichrem), Bangalore, India Habitat Forum,(INHAF, Bangalore),
Association for Promoting Social Action, Bangalore, Karnataka State Council for Child Welfare,
Bangalore, Oasis India, Bangalore, The Concerned for Working Children, Bangalore, Young Men’s
Christian Association, Bangalore, Child Relief and You, (CRY, Bangalore), Malabar Coastal Institute
for Training Research and Action, Calicut, Nala Oli Office, Tamil Nadu, Swami Vivekananda Youth
Movement, Bangalore, M. V. Foundation, Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh), Navajeeven Bala Bhavan,
Vijaywada, Don Bosco Anbu Illam Social Service Society, Chennai, Youth Vision, Chennai, The
Spastics Society of Tamilnadu, Balamandir Research Foundation, Bangalore, Sadhana Educational
Research Centre, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), NALANDAMA, Chennai, Forum of Indian NGOs
for Cooperation with the UN (FINCUN), MAHITA, Hyderabad, Gandhigram Institute of Rural
Health and FWT-Gandhigram (Tamil Nadu), Iinformation for Action, Kottayam (Kerala), Bosco
Yuvadaya, Bangalore, Child Rights Trust, Bangalore, India Alliance for Child Rights, Alliance for
Protection of Child Rights (CREDA), Campaign Against Child Labour(5000 affiliate NGOs), CLAP,
Orissa, CASP - New Delhi, CASP - Mumbai, MOSAIC Charter Trust, Rural Literacy and Health
Programme, Mysore, Barli Development Institute of Rural Women (Madhya Pradesh), South Asia
Campaign Against Child Servitude, Vikramshila Education Resource Society (W.Bengal), Youth for
Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA, Mumbai), Child Welfare Society, Punjab, Indian Academy of
Pediatrics, Hyderabad, Save The Children UK, BAVITHA, Hyderabad, Integrated Human
Development Foundation, New Delhi, Shanti Ashram, Coimbatore, Bangalore Children’s Hospital,
Bangalore, Peripetal Research Foundation, Chennai, Swami Vivekananda Youth Movement, Mysore,
South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring, Bangalore, Navajeevan Bala Bhavan,

ii
Vijayawada, CARD CWC, Bangalore, Social Jurist, New Delhi, National Action Forum for Social
Justice, Gurgaon, School of Social Science, Jawaharlal Nehru University Centre for Social Medicine
and Community Health, New Delhi, Indian Association of Women’s Studies, New Delhi, Breast
Feeding Promotion Network of India, New Delhi, Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad, Nagpur,
National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India, Aum Bal Suraksha Andolan Trust, Uttar Pradesh,
EPSW- Orissa, Society for Education to Reality, AAMRAE, ARC, Pune, British Council, Co-
ordination Committee for Vulnerable Children, Child Rights Cell (Department of Women and Child
Development), Committed Communities Development Trust, CRY-Child Relief and You, Forum
Against Child Sexual Exploitation, Indian Association for Promotion of Adoption and Child
Welfare, India Centre for Human Rights and Law, Indian Sponsorship Committee, National Society
for Equal Opportunity for the Handicapped in India, Prerana, Pratham, Terre des Hommes (India).
III Organisations and networks that have been involved in the Consultative Process, or
have contributed information (16 organisations and networks)
Mythri Sarva Seva Samithi, New Delhi, Human Rights Law Network, Butterflies, New Delhi, Ankur,
New Delhi, Action India, All India Trade Union Congress, New Delhi, Garden Reach Slum
Development, Kolkata, Voluntary Health Association of India, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (People’s
Health Campaign), Deepalaya, Social Jurist, New Delhi, Sakshi, New Delhi, National NGO Coalition
on Children and Armed Conflict India, Gramya Resource Centre for Women (Andhra Pradesh).
National Alliance for the Fundamental Right to Education (NAFRE, 2400 NGO affiliates).
IV Individuals who have been involved in the Alliance’s CRC review process for
preparing this report and/ or have contributed inputs (includes IACR individual
charter members):
Vina Mazumdar, Andal Damodaran, Dev Chopra, Sr Gladys D’Souza, Harish Jain, Mohan Rao, C.P
Sujaya, Kusum Kapoor, Asha Chandra, Sujata Madhok,. Subhash Chandra, R. Padmini, Neelam
Singh, Enakshi Ganguly Thukral, Maharukh Adenwala, Johnson Fernandes, Joseph Gathia, Razia
Ismail Abbasi, Asha Bajpai, Ravindra Bawa and Rukmini Rao.
V In addition to the consultative process, this assessment also draws on existing NGO reports
and studies.. Three status reports on the situation of children in India published in the last
year (2002/2003) in review of the past decade have been used as resource material.
Information has also been contributed from sectoral or special issue reports.
VI The India Alliance for Child Rights has been active in creating a common ground for
advocacy to position child rights within the larger framework of development with justice.
The alliance came into being in 2001 and now has a country-wide membership of networks,
NGOs and individuals. Upholding CRC principles, the Alliance seeks interaction with other
elements of civil society, parliamentarians and Government to build conscious state
investment in child rights realisation in India.
VII Consultations and review and assessment activities carried out by IACR and by partners in
northern, western and southern India, have brought together large national organistions
and networks as well as sub-national and issue networks and small local and specialised
groups and coalitions. Of networks and alliances, apart from IACR itself, the Child Rights
Trust, the Mumbai Working Group on the CRC, YUVA, FORCES, Campaign against Child
Trafficking (CACT), Campaign against Child Labour (CACL), Centre for Concern on Child
Labour, and HIC-Housing and Land Rights Network have been actively involved in the
process of consultation, review and assessment. Others that have contributed information
and comment include the National Alliance for the Fundamental Right to Education

iii
(NAFRE), the Concerned for Working Children (Karnataka), Gramya Resource Centre for
Women. The process has included interviews with subject specialists, and interactions with
children.
VIII. The review effort has invited a range of opinions, and has not insisted on consensus.
Addenda/notes provide further information and explain some of the concerns included in
this alternate report. The Mumbai Working Group on the CRC has contributed its draft
report to this collective assessment. IACR also acknowledges with appreciation the insights
offered by the Concerned for Working Children from the working children’s own review
and reporting process, and information contributed from the January 2002 report of the
First National Workshop on Children in Armed Conflict.

iv
Table of Contents
I Process of Consultation for the Alternate Report ...................................i
1. Introduction............................................................................................... 1
2. Comments on Concluding Observations .................................................3
2.1 CRC Cttee #1: ...........................................................................................................................................3
2.2 CRC Cttee #2: ...........................................................................................................................................4
2.3 CRC Cttee # 3, 5:......................................................................................................................................4
2.4. CRC Cttee # 4: ..........................................................................................................................................4
2.5 CRC Cttee # 5: ..........................................................................................................................................5
2.6 CRC Cttee # 6: ..........................................................................................................................................6
2.7 CRC Cttee: C: #7, # 8:.............................................................................................................................6
2.8 CRC Cttee # 9: ..........................................................................................................................................8
2.9 CRC Cttee: D: # 10, 11:.........................................................................................................................10
2.10 CRC Cttee #11: .......................................................................................................................................10
2.11 CRC Cttee # 12:......................................................................................................................................11
2.12 CRC Cttee #13: .......................................................................................................................................11
2.13 CRC Cttee # 14, 15:................................................................................................................................11
2.14 CRC Cttee #16, 17:.................................................................................................................................12
2.15 CRC Cttee #18, 19:.................................................................................................................................13
2.16 CRC Cttee # 20:......................................................................................................................................13
2.17 CRC Cttee #21: .......................................................................................................................................14
2.18 CRC Cttee #22: .......................................................................................................................................14
2.19 CRC Cttee # 23:......................................................................................................................................14
2.20 CRC Cttee #24, #25:..............................................................................................................................14
2.21 CRC Cttee # 26, 27:................................................................................................................................15
2.22 CRC Cttee #28, 29:................................................................................................................................16
2.23 CRC Cttee #30, 31:.................................................................................................................................16
2.24 CRC Cttee # 32, 33:................................................................................................................................16
2.25 CRC Cttee. #34,35:.................................................................................................................................17
2.26 CRC Cttee # 36,37:.................................................................................................................................18
2.27 CRC Cttee # 38,39..................................................................................................................................18
2.28 CRC Cttee # 40,41:................................................................................................................................18
2.29 CRC Cttee # 42,43:.................................................................................................................................19
2.30 CRC Cttee # 44,45:.................................................................................................................................19
2.31 CRC Cttee # 46, 47:................................................................................................................................19
2.32 CRC Cttee # 48,49:.................................................................................................................................20
2.33 CRC Cttee # 50,51:.................................................................................................................................20
2.34 CRC Cttee # 52, 53:................................................................................................................................20
2.35 CRC Cttee # 54,55:................................................................................................................................21
2.36 CRC Cttee #56,57...................................................................................................................................21
2.37 CRC Cttee # 58,......................................................................................................................................22
2.38 CRC Cttee #59 ........................................................................................................................................22
2.39 CRC Cttee # 60 :.....................................................................................................................................22
2.40 CRC Cttee # 61:......................................................................................................................................22
2.41 CRC Cttee # 62:......................................................................................................................................22
2.42 CRC Cttee # 63, 64:................................................................................................................................23
2.43 CRC Cttee # 65:......................................................................................................................................23
2.44 CRC Cttee #66, 67:.................................................................................................................................23
2.45 CRC Cttee #68: .......................................................................................................................................24
2.46 CRC Cttee #69: .......................................................................................................................................24
2.47 CRC Cttee # 70:......................................................................................................................................24
2.48 CRC Cttee #71: .......................................................................................................................................24
2.49 CRC Cttee 72: 73.....................................................................................................................................24
2.50 CRC Cttee #74: .......................................................................................................................................25

v
2.51 CRC Cttee #75: .......................................................................................................................................25
2.52 CRC Cttee. 76: .........................................................................................................................................25
2.53 CRC Cttee 77: ..........................................................................................................................................25
2.54 CRC Cttee # 78:......................................................................................................................................25
2.55 CRC Cttee # 79:......................................................................................................................................26
2.56 CRC Cttee. # 80:....................................................................................................................................26
2.57 CRC Cttee # 81:......................................................................................................................................26
2.58 CRC Ctee # 82: ......................................................................................................................................26
2.59 CRC Cttee # 83:......................................................................................................................................26
3. General Measures of implementation (arts. 4,42 and 44 (Para 6))...................27
3.1 Children in Constitutional Provisions .................................................................................................30
3.2 Legislation related to Children..............................................................................................................30
4. Definition of the Child (art. 1) ...................................................................34
5. General Principles ...................................................................................35
5.1 The Right to Life, Survival and Development...................................................................................35
5.2 Respect for the Views of the Child......................................................................................................36
5.3 Best Interests of the Child (Ref. Personal Laws, adoption, domestic abuse)...............................37
5.4 Non-discrimination.................................................................................................................................39
6. Civil Rights and Freedoms (art 7,8,13-17 and 37 (a)).......................................40
6.1 Name and Nationality.............................................................................................................................40
6.2 Preservation of identity ..........................................................................................................................41
6.3 Freedom of expression...........................................................................................................................41
6.4 Freedom of conscience, thought and religion....................................................................................41
6.5 Freedom of association and peaceful assembly .................................................................................41
6.6 Protection of privacy ..............................................................................................................................42
6.7 Access to appropriate information.......................................................................................................42
6.8 The right not to be subjected to torture or other degrading treatment and.................................42
punishment..............................................................................................................................................42
7. Family Environment and Alternate Care (arts. 5, 18 para 1-2, 9-11,25,27
para 4 and 39) ...............................................................................................43
7. 1 Temporary Alternate Family Care and Other Non-Institutional Services (article 20)................43
7.2 Adoption (article 21)...............................................................................................................................44
7.3 Violence/abuse/neglect/maltreatment (article 19)...........................................................................47
8. Basic Health and Welfare (arts. 6,18 para 3, 23,24,26,27 para 1-3)........................49
8.1 Health and Health Services....................................................................................................................49
8.2 Children with Disabilities.......................................................................................................................51
8.3 Social Security and Childcare Services and Facilities ........................................................................52
8.4 Standard of Living...................................................................................................................................52
9. Education, Leisure and Cultural Activities (arts. 28,29,31)..........................53
10. Special Protection Measures (arts. 22,38,39,40, 37(b)-(d), 32-36)......................56
10.1 Children in Situations of Emergency...................................................................................................56
10.2 Children Involved with the system of administration of juvenile justice......................................59
10.3 Children in Situations of Exploitation, including Physical and Psychological Recovery and
Social Integration.....................................................................................................................................61
10.4 Children belonging to a Minority or an Indigenous Group (art.30) ..............................................64
11. Looking Ahead: Issues of Continuing and Emerging Concern ...........65
11.1 General Measures of Implementation.................................................................................................65
11. 2 Definition of the Child...........................................................................................................................67
11.3 General Principles ...................................................................................................................................67
11.4 Civil Rights and Freedoms.....................................................................................................................68
11.5 Family Environment and Alternative Care.........................................................................................68
11.6 Basic Health and Welfare.......................................................................................................................68
11.7 Education..................................................................................................................................................69
11.8 Special Protection Measures..................................................................................................................70

vi
11.10 Areas of Concern.....................................................................................................................................72
11.11 Recommendations on Education.........................................................................................................73
11.12 Training/Dissemination (article 42) and Respect for the views of the child (article 12)............73
11.13 Name and Nationality (article 7)...........................................................................................................73
11.14 Temporary Alternate Family Care and Other Non-Institutional Services (article 20)................73
11.15 Adoption (article 21)...............................................................................................................................74
11.16 Violence/abuse/neglect/maltreatment (article 19)...........................................................................74
11.17 Children with Disabilities (article 23)...................................................................................................74
11.18 Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (article 27) .......................................................................74
11.19 Economic Exploitation (article 32)......................................................................................................75
Annexures
1. Who is a Child? Excerpt from Govt. of India Annual Report of the Dept. of Women and
Child Development 2002-2003.
2. Elementary Failure. Article published in India Today, current affairs periodical (August
2003)
3. Policy Commitments – Statements of Intent: Excerpts form Govt. of India Annual
Report of the Department of Women and Child Development for 2002-2003.
4. Shillong Declaration on Children in Armed Conflict.
5. Draft Alternative Report of the Mumbai NGO Working Group on the CRC
Addenda*
1. Draft National Policy and Charter for Children, 2001, Govt. of India, Dept. of
Women and Child Development
2. The Draft National Commission for Children Bill, 2001. Govt. of India, Dept. of
Women and Child Development
(* Separately provided. Available on http://wcd.nic.in )

1
1. Introduction
1.1 India is home to nearly 400 million children aged up to 18 years, which the Government
claims is the world’s largest child population. The proportion of children in the 0-5 age
group is certainly the world’s largest. Overall, children constitute 42.6 per cent of India’s
total population. As a nation professing concern about ensuring their survival, development
and well-being throughout their childhood, it is essential for us to realise that in any policy or
planning for national progress, being child-focused is not kindness but commonsense.
1.2 India’s formally declared commitment to its children can be traced back to the time when it
gave itself a Constitution that pledges equality, dignity and protection to all citizens,
including children.
1.3 India adopted a National Policy for Children in 1974, declaring children to be the nation’s
most precious asset. Dating from the Third Five-Year Plan (1961-66), children have found
some mention in national development plans, but insufficient attention or investment. In
response to the 1979 International Year of the Child, India drew up a national plan with
some long-term objectives for child survival and development, but this plan had no long-
term impact on actual commitments. An official National Plan of Action (NPA) was
adopted in 1992, in the wake of the 1990 World Summit for Children, with goals for the
decade. It was poorly designed, and even more poorly pursued.
1.4 Concurrently, India acceded in 1992 to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
thereby accepting the responsibilities of implementation as an obligation. The Constitutional
commitments and the CRC form the bedrock of any planning that is undertaken for
children. These and India’s other international commitments together form the framework
for action. It is important for India to affirm such commitments not only in word but
in deed – and to demonstrate consistency between what it says and what it does. (See
Paragraphs 1.17 and 1.18 below).
1.5 In 2002, India reported on its performance on both the World Summit goals and the
implementation of the Convention. Both reports record some positive changes in the
situation of the country’s children – and significant problems and performance gaps.
1.6 Poor allocation of needed resources, poor expenditure of available allocations, and some
faults in targeting most-needed actions – all these have undermined good intentions. A more
negative influence has been the pervasive fallout from the shift in national investment away
from State supports for social development. The 1990s decade was meant for children’s
rights, but it also launched the "era of globalisation" in India and ushered in a neo-liberal
economic agenda.
1.7 The pluses and minuses are there to see. In 1992, India got moving on 27 goals for the
decade. It was to halve maternal mortality rates as well as severe and moderate malnutrition
of under-fives, and reduce infant and under-five mortality by a third. It did not reach
anywhere near these targets. Goals for drinking water, sanitation, protective health and
nutrition cover for girls and mothers were all missed. Anaemia reduction among women was
narrowly reached, but the decade data flags anaemia among children under-3, which seems
to have been an ignored alarm. Progress on immunisation stayed well below the 90% level
set, and is currently reported at 42 % fully immunised by the age of 2 years. Official reports

2
of first-year immunisation cover vary absurdly between a range of 85 to 99 per cent and 50
to 71 per cent. Birth registration fell from 47 per cent and an apparent 1995 peak of 55 per
cent, to either 40 or 35 per cent, depending on which Govt of India report one consults.
Low birth weight, a major cause of neonatal infant mortality, continued to stagnate.
1.8 In child development, 71 % is claimed for primary and elementary school attendance, and 69
% for primary school completion by an over-age cohort, against the goal of universal (80 %)
access to basic education. Guineaworm eradication was the sole goal achieved in the 1990s’
decade.
1.9 While the international shift of approach to children's issues from a needs-based approach to
a rights approach is echoed in formal statements in India, it is still to be translated into actual
programming approaches, which continue to be largely welfarist. At the political and ethical
level, the situation calls for recognition of national obligation to the rights of all children, and
a more than labelling shift from ‘social welfare’ to ‘development,’ in efforts to secure socio-
economic justice.
1.10 The impact of structural adjustment has sharply reduced the capacities of families to fend
for themselves. The Tenth Plan is the first expression of how India proposes to address the
reality that without pro-poor planning and pro-poor guarantees, the rights of children cannot
be secured. The Plan document acknowledges this when it says that state subsidies need to
continue. Such supports must particularly address the early childhood risks of stunted
growth, poor resistance to disease, failed learning, trauma or death. If a child’s growth is
interrupted by poverty, this often becomes a lifelong handicap. India has not chosen with
the best interests of either the poor or their children in mind.
1.11 Planning and creating an environment for child development and children’s rights must also
include awareness of the destabilising effect of civil and political unrest and natural
calamities. These imperil and violate the rights of children. The State’s responsibility to
ensure protections without discrimination is clear.
1.12 It is in a climate of uncertain commitment that the new National Plan of Action for Children
is being formulated. It therefore needs to project a way out of these present constraints. The
emerging NPA with its internationally agreed deadline of 2015 must project a vision and
pledge a range of actions that stretches over three Five-Year Plan periods. It has to begin by
carrying forward and achieve the unfulfilled tasks of the Eighth and Ninth Plans. One reason
for missing goals is that the hardest-to-reach children have not been reached. Even if a
percentage gap in coverage appears small, extra effort will be needed to actually benefit the
most marginalised children and communities. There seems to be no strategy for doing this.
Any perception that India’s task in the coming 12 years is simply to “mop-up” is a fallacy.
1.13 The SPR speaks of the 1992 National Plan of Action, without analyzing either flaws or
defaults. A new national plan is now being drafted; it could have benefited from
acknowledgement of lessons learnt, since most goals have remained unmet. Any plan must
recognize the diversity of interventions that children deserve based on age, location, cultural
setting and socio-economic grouping. Conscious attention must be paid to children in
adverse and disadvantaged situations. Special provisions have to be made for addressing
children in emergency situations, whether man-made or natural. India needs a
comprehensive disaster management perspective and policy, with planning that addresses
both short-term and longer-term concerns, and distinguishes between the every-day needs of
all children and those in emergency situations.

3
1.14 The May 2002 UNGASS decisions which have triggered the NPA process underline the
need to integrate implementation of the Convention (CRC) with the pursuit of the new
2003-2015 goals. This must be reflected in any National Plan of Action for Children. It is
not even mentioned in the current GOI drafts.
1.15 India acceded to CRC in December 1992. Its first country report should have been
submitted in early 1995, but was submitted in February 1997. The first periodic report
should cover the 5-year time-frame following the due submission date of the country report
(viz., 1995-2000). In fact, the SPR covers an unspecified period, harking back to the initial
country report period, and even earlier. It is dated 2001, but was submitted at the end of
2002. The inclusion of an information update is an addition to the text, and cites 2002
official data and documentation.
1.16 The Government has referred to the Ninth Five-Year plan (the 9th national development
plan) in the future tense, although the Ninth Plan implementation time-frame -- 2002 to
2007 – is the core period of the time the first periodic report should cover. The Citizens’
Review and Report focuses on action India has taken after the initial country report, and
contains comments updated first half of 2003.
1.17 In reiterating national commitment now, the SPR declares the Government’s firm
intention to set up a National Commission for Children which would ensure that
CRC commitments are honoured. More recent information on this move raises many
questions on the extent to which implementation obligations have been internalised.
(See comment on Concluding Observations #18,19)
1.18 Similar dilutions, including the removal of references to CRC and to rights, have
reportedly reduced the potential worth of a revised national charter text which is
understood to have replaced the national policy draft made public in 2001. The
reported removal of the term ‘rights’ from the text is curious.
1.19 This Citizens’ Alternate Report sets out (i) comments on the State party’s responses to the
Committee’s Concluding Observations, (ii) assessment and comments on the main body of
the SPR, and (iii) emerging concerns and recommendations. Annexures to the report provide
additional information.
2. Comments on Concluding Observations ♦♦♦♦
Comments on Govt of India responses to 2000 Concluding Observations
REFERENCE: CRC/C/15/Add.115 of 23 February 2000.
2.1 CRC Cttee #1:
2.1.1 Is it an option to address only some of the points raised and action sought in the Committee’s
observations and recommendations? The State party has not commented on the Committee’s
observations # 1 – 10, and in particular on observations # 7 – 10. The State party has made no
comment on most of the Committee’s observations, but has given answers to most of the
recommendations.
♦
(i) The citizens’ comments are identified by the headings “CRC Cttee # _” reflecting the serial numbering of the Concluding
Observations used in CRC/C/15/Add.115 of 23 Feb.2000. (ii) All paragraphs within this section of the Citizens’ Alternate Report are
serially numbered as part of the overall report text. (iii) SPR / the Report = India First Periodic Report 2001

4
A. Introduction
2.2 CRC Cttee #2:
2.2.1 The 2001 Report (SPR) is larger and more detailed than the 1997 Country Report. However, it
repeats the previous report’s error in narrating rather than analysing, and in failing to reflect
any sense of unfulfilled responsibility for things not done. Problems are recorded as problems,
rather than as problems to be solved. While the 1997 Country Report could have been excused
to some extent for pitching action into the future, the SPR should not still be stating intention
rather than action taken to the degree that it does. Some of the information reported as
achievement dates from periods long before the reporting period. Comparisons with 1950s’
figures as illustration of achievement conceal more relevant recent evidence of stagnation,
miniscule improvement or decline, and could be queried.
2.2.2. The Report has many inconsistencies, provides no clear portrayal of the child’s situation, either
overall or in relation to area or group variations. There is no analysis of why rights are not
realised by so many children. In its uncritical listing of programmes and schemes, the SPR
omits to explain shortfalls or lack of effectiveness, and thus defaults on transparency and
accountability. The coverage of programmes is seldom given; if there is a paucity of statistical
or coverage information, the SPR does not highlight this as a problem or constraint. Legal
issues are not adequately discussed; the SPR does not explain the policy issues that call for
legislation. There is insufficient recognition of the complexity of issues affecting children.
B. Positive aspects
2.3 CRC Cttee # 3, 5:
2.3.1 Provisions and institutions do exist, but the SPR does not adequately report how much they
have actually been focused or invoked to benefit children. A landmark Supreme Court ruling
in 1993 adjudged that the child’s entitlement to free and compulsory education up to the age of
14 years is a fundamental right, implicit in the right to life. Subsequent GOI legislation, (the
93rd Amendment Bill, resulting in the 86th Amendment to the Constitution) in this regard has
elevated this entitlement from a directive principle of state policy to a fundamental right, but
curtailed its scope to leave out the child aged below 6 years, according it only to the 6-14 age
group. For the younger child, the right to learning opportunity is only a matter for State
“endeavour.” Vigorous advocacy by NGOs and activists for the right to early learning
opportunity could not avert this.
2.3.2 While several important national commissions do exist and operate, the National Human
Rights Commission is the only one notable for its recognition of and advocacy for children’s
rights. The National Commission for Women has a member assigned to work on the girl child,
but has done little to give this issue any visibility.
2.3.3 The Committee should further pursue this observation, seek more information on child-
impact, and consider recommending relevant action.
2.4. CRC Cttee # 4:
2.4.1 NGOs and community-based organisations are active in child development work, but their
relationship with the State is primarily that of implementers. Many receive government funding
and grants-in-aid to carry out government schemes, and extend their reach. However, there is
little partnership in planning, assessment, or policy review and formulation.
2.4.2 It is encouraging that GOI did advertise its periodic report process in media announcements and
did include some consultations with NGOs and children in its process, and it is also welcome
that it has published NGO recommendations in the SPR. However, the State party’s own entries
in the SPR claim achievements which the NGO recommendations either question or contradict,
and the SPR does not mention either its agreement or corrective action.

5
2.5 CRC Cttee # 5:
2.5.1 This portfolio, installed in ministries and departments, has existed at national and state levels
since long before the reporting period. Re-naming it is not a sign of reinvigoration. Budgets
remain low and inadequate; use of funds allocated and performance accountability also remain
low. Curriculum content and quality, as well as teacher competence, remain serious concerns.
2.5.2 The target of universal, free and compulsory education for all children up to 14, was set in 1950,
to be achieved by 1960/61 – the only time-target in India’s Constitution. A generation has
already been lost. The new Constitution Amendment elevates governmental commitment to the
6-14 group to an obligation, and leaves it as an ‘endeavour’ for the younger age group. This is
not a move towards universalisation. Nor does the State’s inclination to let schooling move into
private sector hands demonstrate increased political will to prioritise its own investments.
2.5.3 The new national policy for children and new National Plan of Action on UNGASS goals should
make this commitment unambiguously. While the SPR announces the fundamental right to
education for the 6-14 age group, the draft national policy assures “all children” the right to free
and compulsory education, with special supports for the deprived – and does not specify an age
range for this entitlement. Which provision will prevail?
2.5.4 The SPR flags some advance information on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme (‘EFA
campaign’) to provide formal and non-formal education to children. The programme speaks of
bringing all children into the education mainstream, but does not guarantee either equal
schooling rights, or any assurance of learning opportunity to the child below 6 years.
2.5.5 The State party does not explain how this will provide all children equal learning opportunity,
especially the poorest and most disadvantaged, for whom lower-budget non-formal schemes are
listed in the programme, and are the provisions most likely to be offered. A fundamental right
cannot be so unevenly secured.
2.5.6 The Government of India accepted EFA goals in 1990, in 1992 pledged its first National Plan of
Action for Children to include ‘universalisation of elementary education (8 years of schooling),’
and in 1993 declared its resolve to raise education funding to 6 % of GDP – which it has still not
done. Nearly half of the country’s children are still not in school. Economising measures have
resulted in teaching posts remaining vacant. Teacher re-training is not given priority; teacher
absenteeism bedevils the school system in many states. School quality standards are so poorly
met that some educationists report that only about a fifth of students in State-run schools pass
their examinations. The new EFA campaign worsens the teacher-pupil ratio. It also approves of
‘para-teachers’ without full teaching qualifications being enlisted to substitute for qualified
teachers. This kind of staffing is most likely in least-served areas, a ‘better than nothing’
approach which again short-changes the most disadvantaged children.
2.5.7 India has never explained why it has failed to invest in this key national development sector,
holding back millions of its children from realising their potential and undermining overall
national potential to enhance productivity and achievement.
2.5.8 Colleges and even universities have proliferated at a faster pace than primary schools. Skewed
investment ignores the need to build from a foundation level of learning. It would seem that
State investment should go primarily for the first building blocks of schooling. If the 14-18 age
group is also to get a share of CRC attention, high school (secondary school) education should
also get preference over college and university budgets.
2.5.9 The blurring of literacy and education as if they constitute the same objective or result, has not
served Indian children well. The National Literacy Mission of the 1980s (aimed at adults and
youth), revealed the yearning of the poor to see their children educated in regular schools.
2.5.10 The SPR information update section cites a new and related Constitutional provision [Article
51(A)(k): Fundamental duties of citizens] which makes the parent or guardian responsible for

6
‘providing opportunities for education’ to the child/ward. Given the high and persisting public
demand for children’s education, and the ongoing struggle of poor families to get their children
into school – as high initial enrolment rates show -- the onus is surely more on the State.
Reasons for the persistence of high dropout rates, including under-equipped schools, persistence
of schools without any teachers, and under-spending of funds despite low budgets, should have
been analysed and addressed.
2.5.11 Notwithstanding the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Bill, the Committee’s observation that this
is ‘an expressed commitment’ remains valid. The Committee could usefully revisit this issue.
2.6 CRC Cttee # 6:
2.6.1 [(a) Health, (b) Labour] : Ref: (a) Health: India has missed virtually every child health goal set for
the 1990s. Its Country Report to UNGASS 2002 lists all these unfinished tasks without
explaining the failures. Was it investment, management or will ? A telling index is the persisting
stagnation of high levels of neonatal morbidity and mortality, and continuing high incidence of
low birth-weight. Some data indicate that maternal mortality, already very high, rose during the
1990s’ decade (from 437/100,000 to 540/100,000 -- which would make it the world’s highest
rate). The Central health budget allocation remains very low. Health care planning and provision
are not holistic. Antenatal and newborn care are obviously not addressing persisting risks;
manpower training is not focusing well enough on these risks.
2.6.2 Ref: (b)Labour: It is a matter of concern that India’s central investment in the social sector
overall is increasingly externally funded. This should be a priority sector for the State’s use of its
own resources, as an index of its commitment to children. While India has an ongoing
relationship with ILO and UNICEF on issues of child labour, the presence of children in the
roughest and least-protected segments of the work force continues to be visible and widespread.
How firmly is the State moving towards its stated aim of ‘eliminating child labour? An allied
issue of concern is the failure to think of effective ways of interrupting, curbing and stopping
economic trafficking of children. The CRC’s own weakness in qualifying its protective provision
to address only ‘worst forms of child labour’ does not help. India should by now have shown
tangible signs of progressively eliminating child labour in fact, moving beyond de jure
commitments of national intent. The draft National Policy for Children (draft of June 2001) does
declare the intention to “move towards a total ban on all forms of child labour,” but other draft
policy provisions only call for protections against hazardous work and provision of appropriate
working conditions where the labour is ‘non-hazardous.’ The draft National Plan of Action
states the resolve of removing children from listed hazardous occupations “from 2005 [sic].” It is
our belief that labour per se is hazardous to the enjoyment of childhood.* [* There are other
NGO opinions, such as those of Concerned for Working Children (CWC), which call for better
standards, safeguards and protections while acknowledging ‘workers rights’ for children. This
alternate report recognises these viewpoints, while also recording that the India Alliance for
Child Rights (IACR) does not agree with them].
2.6.3 Is the term ‘elimination’ consciously used? Why is it not ‘abolition’?
2.6.4 The law to prohibit child labour in selected hazardous occupations has the flaw of listing certain
geographical locations for each industry (e.g. ‘lock-making in Aligarh’), which implies that a shift
of location could escape the law. This is an apparent carryover from earlier the text of a policy
document and has not been corrected. It should have been.
C. Factors and difficulties impending the implementation of the Convention
2.7 CRC Cttee: C: #7, # 8:
2.7.1 We note there is no GOI comment on these observations. Per capita investment in the child was
adversely affected by low budget allocations, proportionate to other sectors. There is need for a
declaration, and concrete expression, of political will. The SPR response to Concluding

7
Observation No. 21 says budget levels allocated for children are ‘sometimes less than desirable,’
and admits that ‘there is a need for advocating [sic] a greater resource allocation for children.’
Advocating to whom?
2.7.2 Ref # 7: The longer it is neglected, the larger the challenge. Inadequate effort has been made to
target enough resources to these sectors, and to ensure results. Implementation effort has not
been (and is not) up to standard. The population rate is declining, but safeguards for the poorest
infants are inadequate. Low birth-weight, newborn morbidity and mortality levels are high, and
have stagnated for years. It is not acceptable for India to defend poor performance by citing the
magnitude of its numbers. When disaggregated to local numbers and scale, the challenges are of
manageable size. Conscious high investment of both fiscal and human resources in survival and
early development and protection would have yielded significant dividends in the condition of
children. The same large population also implies a large potential human resource of trainable
people to be change agents. Even with funding constraints, better targeting would have yielded
better results.
2.7.3 Ref # 8: Poorer countries have done better. Preferential allocation of even scant resources is a
matter of ideological choice, social conscience and political will. The importance given to the
social sector has diminished during the 1990s, in large part due to conscious adoption of SAP
and liberalisation policies. This has aggravated the poverty of the already poor, reduced their
options, and cut into their ability to assure their children minimum supports and protections.
State subsidy cutbacks have reduced the few external supports the poor had so far. Migrant and
economically displaced groups do not qualify for whatever subsidies remain (if they have no
fixed addresses, which they do not, they cannot register), and so the poorest often remain
outside the radius of benefits.
2.7.4 Quantum increase of budget resources cloaks the percentage fall in child-related investment.
Moreover, how can India justify allocating only 1.6 % of every Indian investment rupee (Central
budget) to direct services for the child? Is this enough? The Central education budget was to be
at least 6 % of GDP (1993 pledge); it is still just 3.1 %. The Central health allocation stands at
less than 2 %. State (provincial) funding is supposed to cover most of these sectors; many state
governments plead lack of funds. National investment in children has to be pro-active, and
committed. India’s budgeting perspective, and its underlying investment approach is not child or
‘young’ focused. With 42.6 % of the population aged below 18, the SPR comment (pg 37,
General Measures of Implementation) that “it is an undisputed and acceptable [sic] fact that the
Government will always keep the best interests of the child at the forefront when formulating
policies and taking decisions” should have been expressed in a fairer share of resources and
attention. Failure to ensure this should have been explained, not just reported.
2.7.5 An increasing share of funds for child-related programming is from external sources. The
percentage share rose as follows, from 1995-96 to 1998-99, especially for health, with a decrease
in external dependence only in child development.
Year Health Child Devt. Education
1995-96 40.6% 12.4% 19.6%
1998-99 79.0% 9.9% 22.5% Source: GOI Demands for Grants, annual sectoral budgets. Reported in ‘India’s
Children & the Union Budget’ HAQ Centre for Child Rights, 2001.
2.7.6 The country could ethically prioritise the use of its own funds in favour of children. The child-
related goals set for the Tenth Plan are adopted subject to the growth rate reaching 8% --
whereas they should be unconditional, non-negotiable commitments.
2.7.7 We note that the State party has not commented on this observation.

8
2.7.8 Lack of performance accountability is a serious concern. While GOI budget allocations were
below needed levels, the percentage level of expenditure was very poor, as low as 10% to 15 %,
and funds went unspent. This, coupled with the lack of result accountability as well as
expenditure accountability, is a significant reason for inadequate/low results. Why does the
Government not hold its services, managers, and functionaries responsible for not performing,
and not using whatever resources they get? Budget use assessments for social sector services
show between as much as 90 per cent of allocations unspent at the end of an accounting year.
Central mechanisms for tracking actual use of allocations seem to be weak, or ineffective. Misuse
also allegedly erodes the 10 % spent. The Government’s own National Planning Commission
has said all this in its run-up to the Tenth Five-Year Plan*. [*Tenth Plan Approach Paper].
2.8 CRC Cttee # 9:
2.8.1 This cannot be an excuse for government inaction or ineffectiveness. These are Constitutional
protections (1950 onwards). Policy must be practiced.
2.8.2 There are perhaps two faults in perception: one, that only social action can modify or correct
social flaws; two, that the disadvantaged communities oppose change, when many of the
traditions of discrimination are of the favoured towards the less-favoured, and their removal
might upset vested interests, of economic and political dominance as much as socio-cultural
hierarchy. The Constitution of India has mandated affirmative State action as well as a secular
and pluralistic national culture for over 53 years. Enabling measures supported by public
education offer such communities an informed choice. The State party could have reported on
its initiatives to communicate.
a Focussed investment in the disadvantaged groups would (and could have) overcome
material service gaps.
b Exemplary punishment of discrimination would set a standard for acceptability, and
send a public message on what the State will tolerate.
c Opportunities for ‘mainstreaming’ should not undermine respect for diversity and the
right to identity.
d Child labour and economic trafficking are tied to the shaky adult employment scene,
with high adult under-employment. Employers exploit the market by choosing the
cheapest and most helpless workers. A more affirmative State role could have been
helpful.
2.8.3 If the State sets positive norms, it has to uphold and enforce them. It does not sufficiently hold
its own representatives and personnel to account for practicing discrimination, or ignoring it..
The State must visibly be on the side of the deprived and dispossessed, and work affirmatively to
remove their deprivations. For example, where local social attitudes bar Scheduled Caste/dalit
children from entering State-run schools, why does the Government not intervene?
2.8.4 Present trends are not respectful of India’s diversity. The State must hold India’s secular and
plural character secure, and must not itself violate CRC Article 2. Examples where pro-active
State action could set an egalitarian and inclusive standard, and sustain it by moving to correct
discrimination or denial include the following:
a Unequal education opportunity and services to children of low-income and otherwise
disadvantaged communities. Failure to intervene and correct situations where ‘dalit’ or
other marginalised families are socially pressured not to enrol their children.
b Moves to revise school education course content to reflect a less than plural image of
national character and culture. (This is an ongoing subject of debate among
educationists, NGOs and activists).

9
c Unequal access to credit, grants and schemes, and therefore unequal benefit to children
of the marginalised.
d Laxity and inequity in registering complaints. This violates existing laws and regulations.
e Any official action that singles out a group or community for negative attention. There
is concern over one state’s efforts to count members of one minority community,
despite court petitions opposing such action. This is against the law, and also violates
Census regulations (State of Gujarat).
f Lack of access to objective information, including knowledge of the possibility of State
attention or protection, which further constrains access or redressal.
2.8.5 Scheduled Caste/Backward Caste communities: Policy and programme for affirmative
action aimed at helping SC communities are not adequately child-focused; in the wake of CRC
accession, they should have been made more so. Provisions and schemes for school scholarships
and bursaries exist, but only address one kind of gap. For their part, child-related policy and
programmes must also pro-actively recognise and serve these disadvantaged children. SC/BC
children suffer worse levels of mortality, morbidity, and marginalisation from basic services than
the general population.
2.8.6 ST/Tribal groups: There is another side to measures for tribal development: in both design
and delivery, they do not fully respect CRC Articles 2, 29, 30. State schemes and programmes
must not pressure tribal or other minority communities to join any so-called ‘mainstream’ of the
numerically dominant or “majority culture.” Measures for their development and progress
should be respectful of their identity and personality. Large-scale reductions in tribal
communities’ control of their forest, water and other natural resources have cut into their
economic security and also eroded and damaged their livelihoods and life-styles; some have been
displaced from traditional locations. All this has adversely affected tribal children. Information
on the initiatives, if any, of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes to
safeguard these particular CRC provisions could be sought.
2.8.7 These are situations where the State ought to take a stand in defence of the oppressed, and exert
its authority. If Society condones or practices exclusion and denial, the State must intervene.
Profit-driven changes to land and forest control and use should be reassessed, and where
necessary, reversed; such impact assessment initiatives could well have been at least started in the
SPR reporting period.
2.8.8 Social constraints notwithstanding, the Government has the authority and power to ensure that
it upholds at least declared norms of equity. State policy is affirmative to scheduled castes and
tribes, and more recently to backward castes. A policy of reservations exists and formally
operates. But the reality is that casteism and exclusion persist. Instances of ‘dalits’ being barred
from places of worship, or forced to accept demeaning terms of service at work and at shops
and eating places cannot fail to affect their children. Lack of genuine integration measures (or
effective ‘desegregation’ of the kind the US school system once undertook) has led several dalit
NGO movements to call for casteism to be internationally recognised as a form of racism
because of the inequities it continues to impose. The Government firmly opposes this effort,
considering the caste question non-ethnic and a problem for internal resolution. Constructive
measures to remove disparity and visibly punish exclusion would be more productive. The rising
consciousness and aspirations of these disadvantaged groups is making some of them more
assertive, and this is resulting in episodes of confrontation, and violent exclusion or ‘reprisal.’
Media reports highlight attacks on women, and occasionally children.
2.8.9 Policies and programmes for the poor – among whom the caste / socially disadvantaged
predominate -- have tended to offer second class programmes (eg non-formal education
schemes instead of pro-active targeted extension of formal schooling) as a first option to
marginalised communities. The newly floated Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan {EFA campaign} risks

10
repeating this approach. An argument that some non-formal measures cost less and thus can
stretch limited funds further needs to be examined from the standpoint of equal rights. In the
Indian situation, “children first” must spell out as “disadvantaged children first of all.”
D. Principal subject of concern and Committee recommendations
D1. General measures of implementation
2.9 CRC Cttee: D: # 10, 11:
2.9.1 The status remains unclear. Why was more such review not undertaken during the reporting
period? The failure to bring the definition of the child into conformity with the CRC, and
to establish one defining age for childhood to govern the application of all laws to
children, is the single most serious default. The variety of ages in different laws is a critical
issue for children. The SPR statement on the age until which a child is a child in Indian law
seems to misinterpret the CRC provision for definition of ‘child.’ Persisting with different ages in
different laws does not seem compatible with CRC.
2.9.2 The Committee could examine the State Party’s interpretation of Article 1, and clarify what is
meant by ‘under the law applicable to the child’ and ‘attainment of majority,’ and how this is to
be applied in conformity with the CRC provisions on non-discrimination and best interests of
the child.
2.9.3 The number of policies adopted and laws enacted during the reporting period is a small
proportion of those listed in the Report – two of six listed on Pg. xvii, four out of 12 policies
and plans, and one out of 12 laws listed on Pg 5 of the SPR. The 2000 revision of the 1986
Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act was a positive action, but NGOs feel it requires further amendment,
which could have been built into it if there had been wider consultation when it was being
drafted. (In June 2003, the Government moved a new amendment to this Act in Parliament; the
proposed changes still fall short of what this law needs in order to be an effective instrument in
defence of children. NGOs again report lack of consultation in this most recent action).
2.9.4 The National Commission for Children has still not been set up.* Meanwhile, the SPR (Page. g
xxviii, para 12) says the Government has ‘taken all measures to implement Court rulings and
orders.’ A notable example of the Government’s modifying a clear Supreme Court ruling is in
the case of legislating to make education a fundamental right for the 6-14 age group, when the
Court ruling accorded the right to all children up to the age of 14 years. (*A draft National
Commission for Children Bill was made public in June 2001. [See comments to Committee
Observations # 18,19, and Section 11 of this report] No revisions have been made public ).
2.9.5 The State party has not so far adopted a single comprehensive code that addresses the
provisions of CRC. If the draft National Policy for Children (June 2001 text) is envisaged as
being such a code, it is inadequate as it does not address the full range of rights. Subsequent
changes to the 2001 text reportedly set out national commitments without acknowledging them
as rights. Such dilution of the rights perspective does not meet CRC implementation
requirements and evokes concern about the extent to which the State Party takes ownership of
CRC obligations.
2.10 CRC Cttee #11:
2.10.1 The State party published an official draft policy in June 2001 with the declared intention of
replacing the 1974 National Policy on Children. It has again announced this intention in April
2003. The new National Policy /Charter on Children is slated to be brought before Parliament in
2003. Its available text (June 2001) selectively echoes the CRC, and the reported 2003 revisions
are believed to fall silent on CRC altogether. Is this acceptable for a State-party obligated to
implement the entire Convention? The updated text was not available to the public at the time
of this reporting (June 2001 official draft text provided as addendum).

11
2.10.2 The new draft National Plan of Action for Children (NPA/GOI drafts of December 2002 and
July 2003) makes no mention of legislative reviews or revisions as part of its intended action.
Nor does the available draft mention a national policy or charter as its guiding frame.
2.11 CRC Cttee # 12:
2.11.1 The Committee’s observation remains valid. In the case of the National Human Rights
Commission, the Commission itself has taken some relevant initiatives [such as declaring
nutrition to be a human right]. However, with action to set up a Commission for Children still in
abeyance, official instructions are that cases and queries on child rights are to be referred to the
National Commission for Women, instead of to the Human Rights Commission [which would
have been more logical].
2.12 CRC Cttee #13:
2.12.1 The state party has not responded to this recommendation. The Committee’s recommendation
should be reiterated. While these national commissions receive funding, only the NHRC (human
rights) has taken up child rights. The National Commission for Women has ‘girl child’ as an
assigned issue, but hardly addresses it. The national commissions for SC/ST and for minorities
are not child-focussed.
Coordination:
2.13 CRC Cttee # 14, 15:
2.13.1 The State party has not commented on this observation. The statement on # 15 does not
address the observation action to review and modify is cast in the future tense. What was the
action between 1997 and the Report? The Ninth Five-Year Plan came and went in this period. It
has been officially assessed; what was the child-impact?
2.13.2 The Report admits that gaps in rights realisation do exist, and says ‘such an action plan….would
be of immense value.’ Why no plan was framed during the reporting period is not mentioned
(Page 11, para 26).
2.13.3 In September 1992, the Govt of India adopted a National Plan of Action on the 1990s’ World
Summit Goals. This plan was not substantively linked to either the Eighth or Ninth Five-Year
Plans for national development (which coincided with its implementation period), which allocate
resources. It has no declared ‘national plan’ for CRC implementation. [The new Draft post-
UNGASS National Plan of Action is also not rights based, and makes no overt reference to CRC
.implementation]. It is important for the proposed new national policy, which should guide and
set the frame for the new NPA, to affirm the Constitution’s promises to children, and to be a
clear commitment to fulfilling child rights obligations.
2.13.4 Several State Governments, and Union Territory governments drew up ‘State Plans of Action’
during the time frame of the Report. The first batch of these focused on World Summit Goals,
but some of the more recent of them included references and commitments to CRC provisions.
The Report does not say how far and how well these were implemented, or mention any
tangible benefits to children of those states. Some few district plans were also formulated, in
hopes of local CRC influence; the Report does not mention them.
2.13.5 In recalling the 1992 NPA for World Summit goals, the Report omits to mention that India
achieved only 2 of the 27 goals by the target year of 2000. Part of the implementation period falls
within the time-frame of the Report. The shortfalls were reported without comment in the India
Country Report to UNGASS.

12
Independent Monitoring Structures:
2.14 CRC Cttee #16, 17:
2.14.1 Lack of reliable, up-to-date, disaggregated data continues to pose a serious information, planning
and monitoring gap. Basic fact-finding capability does not seem to be the problem. A lot of data
collected and stored by the huge Census operation is not usefully accessed, and 1991 data
continues to be ‘most recent’ in 2001/ 2002. Much ground-level data is gathered and not
invoked for use. The 2000 level of maternal mortality per 100,000 births is given as 407 in one
estimate and 540 in another, indicating sampling errors. Lack of both birth and death registration
deprives the system of a valuable way of checking such information. The State party’s response
that the “status of disaggregated data is available” on various aspects of the child’s situation is
unclear: what does it mean? If it is a claim that sufficient reliable data is available, this is not true
of child labour, on which estimates range from 11 to 17 million, to more than 60 million. It is a
matter of concern that information on children who are refugees, or affected by terrorism or
insurgency, remains only partially available, leaving both their safety and their status un-mapped.
2.14.2 Data reporting above the grassroots level is also questionable. On birth registration, the Report
cites a national level of “around 54 per cent.” The India Country report for UNGASS reports 40
per cent birth registration in 2000 (down from 47 % in 1990), the official 2001/2002 annual
report on women and child development reports 35 per cent in 2000, the 2002 official data
profile of the Indian child reports 55 per cent for 1995, and says no figure is available for 1998
(the most recent year cited). Which figure is true, and for when? What is the source and validity
of “around 54 %”? Four GOI reports of the same vintage offer different answers. On
prevalence of low birth-weight, the Department of Women and Child Development has
reported it as 22 % of all births, while the Tenth Five-Year Plan draws attention to it as one third
of all births; this is an 11 percentage point difference. Indian researchers and administrators alike
tend to use the term ‘guess-timate’ – but could India not have done better in investigating the
child’s reality?
2.14.3 The Report lists various Government data-gathering and monitoring institutions. The
Committee’s concern refers to independent monitoring structures and mechanisms. (If all the
listed government mechanisms for information gathering are really as good as reported, and
working as they should, why are accurate and up-to-date statistics not available)? Overall, the
SPR acknowledges that “data collection needs to be strengthened on all issues under the CRC
[sic] (Page xxviii).” If this is so, was it not felt necessary to do something about it, including some
additions to the content and focus of data searches carried out by all the institutions and special
bodies listed? It does not appear to be so much a matter of shortfalls in competence, but of
what priorities are brought to bear on their application.
2.14.4 The Government has reportedly created one serious knowledge gap for itself: At community
base, government functionaries do record sex-specific and other disaggregated data. However, it
is reported that the government does not call for this information to be conveyed to higher
rungs of the administrative ladder. So it stays on the local shelf and seems to be effectively lost,
when it ought to be an essential base for development planning and programme design.
During the review period 1997/2002, the country’s national Integrated Child Development
Services (ICDS) programme reportedly stopped seeking gender-disaggregated data from the field
(where ICDS personnel continue to collect it). This has been described as ‘streamlining.’ We
have not been able to verify another report that the system has stopped collecting specific
disaggregated data on the different grades of malnutrition. With the devolution of some social
development roles and controls to the local self-government (panchayat) level, it should be
possible to tap and use such data locally, but a centrally designed and run programme like ICDS
may have in-built constraints to real devolution of control. This is as ironic as it is avoidable.

13
2.14.5 The Committee should revisit this query and recommendation, and could seek more information
on quality, specificity and recency of data, and consequent relevance of indicators used to plan
and monitor for child rights.
2.15 CRC Cttee #18, 19:
2.15.1 As of June 2001, a draft Bill has been on the web. The stated tasks of the proposed commission
as set out in the 2001 draft are positioned in the context of the CRC as the standard expression
of child rights, but fall somewhat short of the CRC Committee’s expectations, in that they do
not seem to include the task of ensuring CRC implementation in the country. Objections to this
2001 draft become academic as the Government has reportedly revised the proposed Bill and is
understood to have further truncated its mandate and potential. (See Section 11 of this report:
sub-section 11.1, paragraphs 11.1.1 and 11.1.2). These reported changes depart significantly from
what the SPR states as the Government’s intention. The question arises as to whether this body
could be the ‘statutory, independent’ national commission envisaged by the Committee as
capable of defending children’s interests. The Committee could well revisit this
recommendation, to clarify how the State Party has proceeded on executing its intention.
2.15.2 The Government’s Cabinet Committee has approved the Bill for presentation to Parliament [It
was expected to be presented to the July/August 2003 monsoon session of Parliament for
adoption, and now intends to move it in the Winter Session in November 2003). The official text
on the GOI web-site remains the 2001 draft text.
2.15.3 NGOs have been pleading for a role and a say in planning this important commission.
Many NGOs and networks submitted detailed recommendations in July/August 2001, which
were subsequently endorsed by other NGOs, and alliances including IACR. It is not known
whether these have influenced the finalisation of the substance of the Bill.
2.15.4 The Committee’s recommendation [#19] spells out Indian citizens’ concern that the
commission should be statutory and independent, authorised and capable of acting as an
autonomous guardian of the CRC, and that it should be empowered to carry out the stated key
functions. There is continuing concern that its authority may not extend to review or correction
of any charges levied against actions of security forces.
2.15.5 Existing national commissions do not have an adequate apex authority or control over state level
commissions (which are appointed by state governments). Therefore the power of the proposed
national children’s commission to be a directive influence – or arbiter – of state or local CRC
implementation or defence of child rights could have the same limitations. There are arguments
for and against the autonomy of state commissions.
2.15.6 The Committee could consider revisiting this recommendation, whether or not the
proposed Commission gets established before the SPR is reviewed. The positive initiatives of
some state governments to enact progressive laws or appoint empowered bodies pitched to
higher standards than existing central legislation or action makes a case for provincial autonomy,
but such states are presently an exception.
Allocation of budgetary resources (art. 4)
2.16.1 The State party has not commented on this observation; it should have corrected the
Committee’s assumption. The education budget has not been increased to 6 per cent. Nor
is it 4 per cent. It stands at around 3.1 per cent, for all levels of education. Of this, less
than 1.5 per cent is allocated for primary education. Allocations have not increased; overall,
they have fallen. Much of funding actually goes to pay for salaries. The 6 % of GDP
commitment is now 10 years old.

14
2.16.2 There is need to clarify what is meant by ‘maximum extent of available resources.’ Some
basic minimum standards are needed, so that some obligation applies to what must be made
available for children. The national government does not as yet operate from a declared ‘rights
perspective.’
2.17 CRC Cttee #21:
2.17.1 Analysis of child impact, and conscious adoption of pro-child measures are inadequate. The
Report merely acknowledges the gap between “utmost priority given to children in policy
making” and budget allocations that are “sometimes less than desirable.” It goes on to admit the
need to advocate increased funding and improved analysis of the child impact of budgets and
new policies – but does not say who should advocate this, or with whom. Has India moved on
either of these during the reporting period? Some ‘child budgeting’ evaluation studies by NGOs
and academics have been recognised ; their findings are yet to be adopted. [The SPR is a report
by the Government of India, not by a nodal department or ministry, which might well be
pleading its case with some higher stratum; it should state the Government of India’s position].
Cooperation with NGOs
2.18 CRC Cttee #22:
2.18.1 The Committee’s observation remains valid, and could be reiterated. On preparation of
the SPR, some NGOs and some children were involved in a series of state and inter-state
consultations in the run-up to preparing the SPR. However, NGOs played no partnering or
consultative role in actual formulation or finalising of the Report. The consultations were an
advance on the process followed for the 1997 country report, and it is good that the SPR quotes
several NGO recommendations, but equally, several other NGO recommendations submitted to
the Government do not feature in the Report. (Had there been meaningful dialogue and
consultation, an alternate report might not have been necessary). On CRC implementation, the
Government, both central and state levels, generally confine this cooperation to NGO
implementation of government schemes; the recommended partnering role is not much in
evidence. In some instances, NGOs for their part, have made some headway by taking the
initiative to interact, but many such initiatives have also failed to build policy dialogue.
2.19.1 The Committee’s recommendation could be renewed. If there is any systematic approach,
so far it has been to not involve NGOs and civil society as partners in policy or planning, but to
offer implementation opportunities along prescribed lines. Government at times invites NGOs
to demonstrate ‘best practices.’ NGOs did indeed serve on some working groups and
committees preparing proposals and recommending strategies for the Tenth Five-Year Plan (as
some also did for the Ninth Plan). These were not officially communicated or handled as
CRC implementation opportunities. Few of the NGO recommendations have actually found
place in the Tenth Plan. On the flip side, many NGOs have expressed concern that CRC action
responsibilities which should in fact be undertaken by the State itself tend to be farmed out to
NGOs or – of late – suggested to the private sector. The State party’s response is interesting in
that it holds out a prospect of the National Coordinating Mechanism (NCM) monitoring civil
society action and internal dialogue. It is uncertain how this would be perceived by NGOs and
citizens’ bodies, who also see themselves as constructive watch-dogs. The NCM has only met
once (September 2000) since its constitution in January 2000.
Training/dissemination of the Convention (Art.42)
2.20 CRC Cttee #24, #25:
2.20.1 The State party has not so far moved to make child rights or the CRC a public issue. The
Government has not taken much initiative to make the CRC widely known, or well understood.
Information on national CRC implementation, declared and described as CRC action, is even

15
less publicised. The 1997 Country Report is not visible as a public information document; the
Concluding Observations are more readily available from the UN or the internet. Information
may be circulating in official infrastructures, but ‘widely known’ includes the public. The
Committee’s observation and recommendation of January 2000 remain valid, and could
be reiterated.
2.20.2 The State party reports a number of publicity measures it has taken, but still projects much of
the task as future action or things which should or could be usefully done. Several easily available
and low-cost options have not been used. The Information Ministry runs a publication
operation called “Books for the Millions,” making each published book available in all Indian
languages at very low cost (about 15 US cents). The National Book Trust, which publishes for
children as well, offered and offers another ready option. The CRC in simplified language could
have circulated widely through these two channels. State-run radio and TV operate in many
languages (21 for radio), and could also have informed millions about CRC. Dissemination need
not have been confined to State-owned information media, although these all offer active
channels of outreach. The Government itself could have thought of and carried out the nine
public information ideas and 11 capacity building suggestions obtained from NGOs at
the end of the reporting period, which the SPR lists.
2.20.3 On training, NGOs recommendations cited in the SPR call for greater attention to training and
sensitization. Systematic dissemination planning would logically link CRC provisions to
programmes on the ground. An action version of the CRC, with relevant policy information,
listing essential actions from the CRC Implementation Handbook and promoting a rights
approach, could have become a guide cum handbook for every government administrator and
service manager. A planning and programming guide for local self-government bodies
encouraging local CRC, implementation could have become available through the ‘panchayat and
nagar palika (rural/urban) systems.
2.20.4 The Information Ministry runs outreach communication programmes through drama troupes
and field publicity workers. The CRC should have become a priority item in their repertoires and
public education activities. State governments have similar public education units at provincial
level. CRC dissemination has not so far become a priority for any of these.
D.2 Definition of the Child
2.21 CRC Cttee # 26, 27:
2.21.1 This observation and recommendation of the Committee remain valid, and should be
reiterated to the State party. We believe the SPR misinterprets the application of this
provision. It states the view that the term ‘child’ can be variously defined in different laws, so
that there is no need for a single core national definition of who is legally a child. CRC Article 1
points to age of majority under the law (not ‘laws,’) of a country. (See earlier comments: paras
39,40 of this report).
2.21.2 Guided by its own interpretation, the State party has not moved to change its laws in this
respect. This interpretation needs to be questioned, and if necessary corrected. Review and
reform of laws will otherwise perpetuate this flaw. The CRC phrase needs to be unambiguously
defined, in the best interests of children who would otherwise become vulnerable to varied
interpretation. If the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 sets 18 as its age ceiling, the State party should be
able to make this a minimum standard which overrides other laws as they apply to the child – if
not in one step, then progressively. If not, the JJ Act’s protections cannot be uniformly applied
within the same State and jurisdiction.

16
D.3. General principles
The right to non-discrimination (Art 2)
2.22 CRC Cttee #28, 29:
2.22.1 The Committee’s concern is well-founded. Some major development programmes cite equity and
equality of opportunity as their guiding purpose, but in actual implementation disparities persist.
One default of government execution of its own schemes has been the tendency to leave the least-
served – target groups and locations alike -- to the last. Geographically less accessible areas –
officially termed ‘remote’ – are not reached. The ‘socially remote’ among communities stay at the
end of the queue, and many are so habituated to neglect that they are unlikely to complain.
Another fault lies in the very design of programmes that set out to provide better or at least
standard services to the already better-endowed, and lower-budget, non-formal or second quality
services, delivered by less-trained para-professionals, to the chronically deprived. This attitude that
something is better than nothing does not serve the best interests of the most disadvantaged and
poorest children. Programming from a rights perspective could correct this. .
2.22.2 Despite laws, enforcement has not ensured the eradication of these practices relating to caste,
ethnicity or community, and they persist. Daily life examples abound, and are not corrected.
Caste intolerance is often violent. The Report seems to imply that plans and actions are evolving
or imminent, not effectively under way. This is by no means an easy problem for India to solve,
but the Report does not convey any sense of urgency. While recognising that it is these
communities and not just their children who are oppressed and marginalised, the Report does
not mention any pro-active measures taken for the children. Studies show that most of those
who work insecurely in India’s unorganised sector are from ‘dalit’ (SC), backward caste or tribal
communities, whose poverty, limited skills and low income stability make it hard for them to
care for their children.
2.22.3 Non-discrimination is not about grants, but about the State’s pro-active protection of the equal
worth of every child. Re-naming old ministries or setting up new ones does not in itself
strengthen these protections. The State party’s statement that “special efforts …need to be taken
up” does not indicate what action has been taken.
2.22.4 Apart from scheduled castes and tribes, the lowest rungs of other backward castes also endure
denials and deprivations contrary to both law and natural justice. Minority communities, notably
Muslims and in a growing number of locations Christians, as well as neo-Buddhists (primarily
converts from dalit Hindus), are targets of at least social exclusion, and often of violence. Their
children cannot and do not remain unaffected. Communal violence occurs, and recurs. Violence
against children has been notable in recent outbreaks; NGO assessments point to increasing
evidence of children being deliberately targeted.
2.23 CRC Cttee #30, 31:
2.23.1 The Report admits ‘tardiness ’ in liberating scavengers from demeaning tasks; it does not refer to
measures to overcome basic social exclusion, and it does not mention disadvantaged groups
confined in a variety of low-prestige occupations and artisanal traditions.
2.23.2 Ref #31: The Government does not agree that the caste problem is an issue of racism. Dalit
movements argue that its manifestations are akin to apartheid.
2.24 CRC Cttee # 32, 33:
2.24.1 The Government’s response is superficial, and incomplete. There is more to the struggle for
gender justice in childhood than cartoon films can achieve. The most serious challenge India
faces today is the steady decline in the female/male ratio in the 0-6 age group. The 2001 National
Census has revealed a juvenile sex ratio of 927/1000 for this age group, an alarming widening of
the gender gap in infant survival (including in the womb), to the worst level yet recorded. The

17
NGO expert committee proposing priorities on social empowerment for the Tenth Five-Year
Plan period singled out this trend as the single most urgent national development challenge, and
urged top priority for action to address it. There is concern that the national population policy,
and family planning programme’s emphasis on reducing numbers by preventing births, does not
recognise whose births are most likely to be prevented. The law against pre-natal sex
determination tests (PNDT Act) has not arrested the trend to add female foeticide to the already
entrenched neglect of female infants. It is of concern that the draft National Plan of Action for
Children does not provide for any pro-active affirmative action to arrest this trend. The SPR sets
out various statistics in a 10-point list to illustrate gender imbalance – but does not include the 0-
6 juvenile sex ratio in that list (Pages 58-59). Can this be excused as an oversight in a report
about children?
2.24.2 The Committee has drawn attention to the role of cultural and religious leadership in re-
examining underlying custom and tradition. Available data suggests that infanticide, foeticide and
early neglect arising from ‘son preference’ may be most prevalent among the majority Hindu and
minority Sikh community, and foeticide is being successfully marketed in the northern half of the
country. But it is no longer unknown elsewhere or in other communities. (a) Personal laws for
minority communities are among measures originally and essentially aimed at protecting their
separate identities and cultures. However, India needs to find a way to bring about objective re-
examination of such laws in the context of the best interests of the child, and thereby of the
CRC provision for non-discrimination. The SPR mentions the possibilities held out by enabling
provisions and laws. This needs to be studied, and initiatives need to be built from within the
communities themselves. The Report does not say whether any steps have been taken to do this.
There are civil society demands for uniform and non-discriminatory enabling legislation. (b)
Harmful traditional practices persist in many communities, the commonest including denial of
care, early imposition of domestic duties, early marriage.
2.24.3 India joined other SAARC countries (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) to
observe a year (1990) and then a decade for the girl child, and did indeed draw up a national
plan. But the decade ended unsung and unreported in India in 2000. The 1991 and 2001 Census
data on the 0-6 sex ratio provide their own grim audit of what happened to the girl child’s right
to life during the 10-year period.
Respect for the views of the child (art.12)
2.25 CRC Cttee. #34,35:
2.25.1 The Committee’s observation and recommendation remain valid. Children use every opportunity
offered to play a role in community life and processes. Pilot experiments have demonstrated
their capacity to contribute. Many of these are NGO initiatives. The State party itself has not
moved to institutionalise child participation in decision-making processes, or to build in
safeguards to ensure the child’s right to information as well as to expression. The new Juvenile
Justice Act (2000) has been criticised for not allowing the child to be heard in court or in juvenile
board proceedings [See footnote to Pt 41 above]. School teaching by poorly trained teachers
relies on rote learning and discourages children from asking questions. This is an area for greater
State effort, which this report does not mention. Within-family and household customs based on
elders knowing best may be slower to change and harder to modify. However, the attitude that
parents or guardians ‘own’ and therefore control the child or ward must come within the
purview of State attention.
D.4 Civil rights and freedoms, (Name and nationality (art. 7))

18
2.26 CRC Cttee # 36,37:
2.26.1 The Committee’s observation and recommendation remain valid, and could be
reiterated. The State party response (and main report) does not say what practical effort has
been made since 1996/97 to improve civil registration, and birth registration in particular, and
with what result. The SPR mentions that there are 200,000 registration units and 100,000 local
registrars in the country, but does not report what they do, or indicate why so many of them are
not able to record what might at most be one or two births a day in any one area. It does not
provide an accurate present registration figure (See earlier points). It does not report that birth
registration fell from 47 to 40 (or perhaps even 35) per cent over the 1990 –2000 decade; nor
does it say why.
2.26.2 There is concern that the State view of who qualifies for ‘name and nationality’ may not be
sufficiently clear in recognising the civil right to registration of babies born to illegal / transient /
migrant communities, who are unlikely to be registered. Such groups with little or no legal status
and usually no fixed or recognized location or address, cannot lay claim to other civic supports
such a food ration card. According to India’s Constitutional provisions (cited in the SPR) anyone
born in India or resident in India for 5 or more years, or born to parents of whom at least one is
Indian, has the right of nationality. What needs to be clarified is whether this provision is in fact
being honoured in respect of migrants (including illegal migrants) into the country. Does the
illegal status of the parent or parents deny the right of name and nationality in India to the child
who fulfils the conditions of birth or residence? [See also our comment on CRC Cttee
observations # 61,62 (D.8)]. An emerging concern is the reported deletion of reference to
this right in the revised draft national policy for children.
Right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (Art 37 (a).
2.27 CRC Cttee # 38,39
2.27.1 The State party has given a de jure response. Its half-page chapter in the main body of the SPR
(Page. 94) is inadequate in both substance and size. In terms of the JJ Act, it is not fully
operational as all states do not have the required infrastructure in place. Maltreatment can take
place within the household, and measures to detect and address domestic violence are
inadequate. The State party’s statement that ‘there are also no widespread incidences [sic] of
victimisation of children in the country’ deserves to be questioned. India has an estimated
400,000 child prostitutes, an unknown larger number of child workers, with an unknown number
of bonded labourers among them. Can it be claimed that they are not victimised, and that the
treatment they receive is not degrading or cruel? The SPR refers to the NGO campaigns in
support of CRC Article 37(a): why are the NGOs engaged in these campaigns if there is no
widespread incidence of victimisation? The SPR comment that personnel of child care
institutions are being sensitised on children’s rights does not include any reference to whether
there are provisions, or whether steps have been taken to raise vigilance and accountability
standards or to punish any personnel found guilty of mistreating the children they are paid to
protect. Other custodial institutions are not mentioned. The response does not mention whether
the recommended changes have been made to the Criminal Procedure Code. The Committee’s
observation and concern remain valid.
2.28 CRC Cttee # 40,41:
2.28.1 The State party has not responded to these two recommendations. It should have provided
relevant information. Some related information contained in pages 361,362 of the Report is not
cited. De jure safeguards may not always be available to the child in fact. The Committee’s
concern and recommendations remain valid.

19
D.5 Family environment and alternative care
Adoption (art 21)
2.29 CRC Cttee # 42,43:
2.29.1 The State party’s response does not fully answer the recommendation. Variation in adoption
provisions and laws stems from personal laws for minorities, which are in place in recognition of
minorities’ rights to their traditions. It is difficult to review or revise these without the leadership
of the minority communities. A serious emerging concern in relation to adoption placement is
the apparent perception of some in Government that all Indian children are ‘born Hindu,’ and
that the placement of a child with non-Hindu adoptive parents would result in ‘conversion,’ as if
anyone is born with a religion.
Violence/abuse/neglect/maltreatment (art. 19)
2.30 CRC Cttee # 44,45:
2.30.1 The observation is about violence, abuse, maltreatment and neglect, not just corporal
punishment. The State party’s response is only on corporal punishment, and it simply makes an
observation about families guarding their privacy. Domestic violence continues to be an under-
reported/un-reported and ‘hidden’ rights violation of significant proportions. Police data indicate
that most of the offenders (70 to 80 %), including sex offenders, are family members or
members of the household. The SPR itself reports this (Page 128), and cites legislation (Page
129), and says that child rape accounts for 27 % of all rapes, citing reported cases, but does not
specify how many cases were ‘home or household based.’ It does not report how effective law
enforcement or other community-based controls or rehabilitation measures have been. It does
not elaborate on new measures apart from the new JJ Act. The reported move to consider
bringing forward a ban on corporal punishment in institutions under the Department of
Education is welcome. The SPR does not say when this move began and how far it has
progressed. The Committee’s recommendation remains substantially unanswered.
D.6. Basic health and welfare
Children with Disability (art. 23)
2.31 CRC Cttee # 46, 47:0
2.31.1 The State party says the Government is ‘taking several measures’ to implement the 1995 Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act. The
Report is being made 5 years after the Act was adopted. What did not happen? How can 5%
coverage be justified? There is also no acknowledgement of the wastage and damage caused by
failure to prevent impairment and disability – estimates indicate that 50% of disability in India is
from preventable causes. Only 2 per cent of children with disabilities are reportedly in school. Of
the planned network of district rehabilitation centres, only 11 have been set up, one apiece in 11
states. Clearly, this is not regarded as a priority. There is no analysis or acknowledgement of how
these inadequacies would allow impairments to become disabling, and prevent consequently
disabled children from avoiding the handicapping effects of neglect. There is no mention of
whether, and how well, early detection of impairment or special needs is really occurring in MCH
or child development services. The education measures contained in the ‘catch-all’ Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan – a programme launched by Government as its professed EFA campaign –- are
supposed to ‘include’ children with disabilities; how well does the campaign do so, and how
meaningful is the inclusion to date? The Committee’s observation and concern, and its
recommendation, remain valid.

Every Right for Every Child India

Every Right for Every Child India

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Every Right for Every Child India

Similar to Every Right for Every Child India (20)

More from HAQ: Centre for Child Rights

More from HAQ: Centre for Child Rights (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Every Right for Every Child India