Breaking down the question
The question has two linked parts. The first asks you to point out the main causes of child labour in India — a demand for a structured account of why children are drawn into work. The second asks how far state policies have succeeded in its elimination — an evaluative demand that requires you to weigh legislative and welfare efforts against persistent reality.
At ten marks the answer must be tight and analytical. The command point out invites a clear, itemised treatment of causes, while how far calls for a measured judgement rather than a blanket verdict of success or failure. The connecting logic is that policy must be assessed against the causes it claims to address.
Sociologically, the anchor is the recognition that child labour is a structural phenomenon rooted in poverty, the informal economy and the failure of universal schooling. Myron Weiner's influential argument — that India's persistence of child labour reflects less economic necessity than a political and cultural failure to make education compulsory and valued — provides a sharp analytical edge.
How to approach it
Divide the answer cleanly into causes and assessment, with a brief conclusion. Begin by defining the scale of the problem in a single sentence to establish that it remains substantial despite legal prohibition.
For the causes, organise into economic, social and institutional factors. Economically, poverty and household survival, the demand for cheap and docile labour in the informal sector, and family indebtedness draw children into work. Socially, caste, illiteracy, large family size, and a cultural tolerance of children working within family occupations play their part. Institutionally, the weakness of universal, quality schooling — Weiner's central point — leaves children with few alternatives, while lax enforcement sustains demand.
For the assessment, survey the policy architecture: constitutional provisions, the prohibition and regulation legislation, the National Child Labour Project, and the right to education. Then evaluate — legal prohibition has narrowed the worst forms and rescued many children, yet enforcement gaps, the family-enterprise exemption and the sheer weight of the informal economy mean elimination remains distant. Situate the problem within our note on the informal sector and child labour.
Model answer
Child labour persists in India despite decades of legislation, and its explanation lies less in individual misfortune than in structural conditions. Its causes may be grouped into economic, social and institutional dimensions.
Economically, poverty is the primary driver. In households living at the margin, a child's earnings — however meagre — are a survival strategy, and family indebtedness often binds children to employers through customary obligation. On the demand side, the vast informal sector prizes child labour precisely because it is cheap, compliant and easily exploited, from workshops and roadside eateries to agriculture and home-based production. Socially, caste disadvantage, parental illiteracy, large family size and a cultural acceptance of children learning a trade within the family occupation normalise the practice. Institutionally — and this is Myron Weiner's crucial insight — the failure to provide universal, compulsory and worthwhile schooling leaves poor children with no compelling alternative to work. Weiner argued that India's tolerance of child labour reflects a political and cultural failure to treat education as a non-negotiable right rather than simple economic necessity. Weak enforcement of existing law completes the picture by keeping demand cheap and risk-free for employers.
How far have state policies succeeded in eliminating it? The policy architecture is substantial. The Constitution prohibits the employment of children in hazardous work and directs the state towards free education; the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation legislation, subsequently amended, bans employment in hazardous occupations; the National Child Labour Project has sought to rescue and rehabilitate working children; and the Right to Education has made schooling a justiciable entitlement. These measures have achieved real progress — the recorded incidence of child labour has declined over successive census counts, awareness has grown, and the most hazardous forms have contracted.
Yet elimination remains elusive. Enforcement is thin, penalties are weakly applied, and the informal and household economy lies largely beyond effective inspection. The exemption permitting children to assist in family enterprises has been criticised for reopening a wide door, particularly for girls in home-based work. Above all, so long as poverty and inadequate schooling persist, the structural sources of child labour survive the laws aimed at its symptoms.
In sum, state policy has curbed the worst excesses and shifted the moral and legal climate, but it has not eliminated child labour, because it has not fully addressed the poverty and educational failure that produce it. Weiner's prescription — universal, compulsory, quality education backed by political will — remains the most credible route to elimination.
Examiner's perspective
At ten marks, examiners look for a disciplined two-part structure and resist the temptation to write everything known about children. Causes should be itemised across economic, social and institutional registers rather than reduced to poverty alone.
The decisive move is to invoke Myron Weiner's thesis that child labour endures chiefly because of the failure to universalise compulsory education, not because families are too poor to spare their children. Candidates who deploy this argument convert a descriptive answer into an analytical one.
The evaluation should be balanced. Credit the genuine legislative and welfare achievements and the measurable decline, but note enforcement gaps, the family-enterprise exemption and the informal economy's reach. A conclusion that ties failure of elimination back to the unaddressed structural causes demonstrates the analytical closure examiners reward.