Image from Pixabay | For representational purpose only
Morung Express News
Dimapur | October 10
“This is not ‘exchange for education’. This is child labour dressed up as charity.”
That searing indictment, drawn from one of the many responses, captures the fault line running through a poll conducted by The Morung Express on a practice long woven into Naga society - placing children in urban households as domestic help in exchange for education.
The survey asked a single, pointed question ‘Is this arrangement safe for a child’s physical and psychological development?’ The answer was overwhelmingly negative - 68% said no, 8% said yes, and 23% “other,” offering conditional, ambivalent or experiential perspectives.
A practice under fire
The majority outcome was unsparing. One respondent invoked the year itself as an argument, “Seriously, in 2026, how is this even a question? Shame on anyone who allows this.” Another stated the arrangement as “modern slavery,” arguing that children are “taken away from their parents without the children’s will and consent” and “caged at a very young age” under the illusion of charity.
Several respondents drew a sharp distinction between fostering and servitude. “Either you welcome a child as foster parents, in which case they shouldn’t be treated any different from one’s own biological child, and it should be done through proper channels,” one wrote, “Or you are trying to benefit from some children’s poverty for your own advantage.”
The critique extended to institutions and society at large. One respondent noted the irony of a state “professing to be ‘Christian’ but endorsing a system of child labour and trafficking from poorer areas.” Another pointed to government schools being free and of poor quality, meaning “the only thing the child gets is the food and accommodation in exchange for their own happiness and nonstop chores.”
The psychological toll was a recurring theme. “For the child, this arrangement often becomes a ‘Cage’,” one response read. “They face verbal, mental, and physical abuse when they fail to perform perfectly.” Another warned that children “grow up with deep psychological and mental issues with no confidence in life, extreme fear” robbed of childhood itself.
The minority defence
The 8% yes responses rested largely on arguments of resilience, adaptation and opportunity. “Children can adopt things easily and get adjusted in a new environment,” one argued, listing “people management, self-discipline, work ethics” and “moral values” as benefits. Another suggested that “children from very remote and economically weaker sections… staying with decent families in urban towns and getting education should be fine,” provided guardians are responsible and the child willingly shares in chores.
The ambivalent middle
The 23% “other” responses revealed a more conflicted reality. Several framed the practice as “50/50” wholly dependent on the character of the fostering family. “There are families who genuinely embrace these children as their own,” one wrote, “and there are also families who treat these children merely as domestic helpers.”
Others spoke from personal experience. One respondent recounted raising a boy from eastern Nagaland from Class 4 through a master’s degree in political science. “Doing domestic work doesn’t mean we are harassing the child,” he wrote. “We are training them to learn the basic necessities of life.” Another, however, acknowledged “enduring psychological and emotional consequences” from their own placement, urging that “the age and developmental stage of the child must be given serious consideration.”
A recurring structural argument held that poverty and educational neglect leave families with few options. “Most villages do not have schools… most towns do not have colleges,” one respondent noted, describing a cycle of early marriage, uneducated parenting and intergenerational poverty. Another asked bluntly, “Would you rather they stay in the village and work in the fields… or would you rather let them study outside in a better environment?”
Calls for law, data and accountability
Across all three categories, a common demand emerged - oversight. Several respondents called for legal clarity, noting that “as per the law it is illegal to keep a child as a domestic helper if the child is below 14 years of age.” Others urged Child Helpline to “conduct a survey to see how many of these children are sent to private schools” and whether they are “treated as equal” to biological children.
“We urgently need laws to check abuse of such vulnerable children,” one response read. Another proposed that “respective tribal and student bodies, along with various CSOs, should take a more active and compassionate role in knowing where these children are staying and regularly checking on their well-being.”
Some pointed to root causes. “If we build quality and proper educational infrastructure at village level, with quality teachers, then the requirements of sending our kids away for education purpose will be solved,” one respondent wrote. Another placed blame squarely on rural ministers and voters, “They are the ones solely responsible for making lives better.”
A question of dignity
Perhaps the most succinct summation came from a respondent who wrote, “A child should NEVER have to sacrifice their childhood and safety in exchange for education.” Whether framed as charity, opportunity or cultural practice, the poll suggests that for a clear majority of respondents, the arrangement, however well-intentioned in some homes, remains a gamble with childhood itself, one that Nagaland is increasingly unwilling to defend.
