Child Labor In Nepal and India

Nepal has centuries old system of Indentured Servitude called Kamlari that relives on girls from Nepal’s lowest caste the Tharu. These girls aged 6 to 18 are sold into service by their families for debt repayment or to increase a families income due to the desperate poverty in which they live.
Abuse is rampant with long working hours, sexual and physical assault with no means of redress or protect for those caught up in the system.

The scrubbing, cooking and sweeping started as early as 3 a.m. When the landlord's children awoke hours later, the 9-year-old girl got them ready for a school she could only dream of attending.
Afternoons and evenings were spent cutting hay and tending animals. Around 10 p.m., she'd collapse for a few hours before starting again, seven days a week.
It must be my fate, she thought, a feeling eventually replaced by anger and bitterness.
Every January or February she'd see her family for a week, only to watch her father "sell" her back into another year of drudgery for a mere $25.

Child labor and its abuses isn’t confined to Nepal as India has a long history of children being forced to work long hours at jobs that are dangerous and require physical strength beyond their development.

children under the age of fourteen working in carpet making factories, glass blowing units and making fireworks with bare little hands. According to the statistics given by Indian government there are 20 million child laborers in the country, while other agencies claim that it is 50 million.

Of 12.6 million children in hazardous occupations, India has the highest number of labourers in the world under 14 years of age.[1] Although the Constitution of India guarantees free and compulsory education to children between the age of 6 to 14 and prohibits employment of children younger than 14 in any hazardous environment, child labour is present in almost all sectors of the Indian economy[2] Companies including Gap,[3] Primark,[4] Monsanto[5] etc have been criticised for using child labour in either their operations in India or by their suppliers in India.

Diamond Industry

n 1997, the International Labour Organization published a report titled Child Labour in the Diamond Industry.[8] claiming that child labour is highly prevalent in the Indian diamond industry, as child labourers constitute nearly 3% of the total workforce and the percentage of child labourers is as high as 25% in the diamond industry of Surat. The ICFTU further claimed that child labour was prospering in the diamond industry in Western India, where the majority of the world's diamonds are cut and polished while workers are often paid only a fraction of 1% of the value of the stones they cut.[9] Pravin Nanavati, a Surat-based diamond businessman argued that, since high cost diamonds could easily be lost or broken while cutting or polishing, employing a child labourer would mean risking "lakhs of rupees" and “Around 8-10 years back, some western countries deliberately created the impression that child labour is prevalent in the Indian diamond industry" and called the boycott for monopolising in the sector.

Recently Senator Mike Lee Republican gave a lecture to a group of law student’s concerning states rights as spelled out in the United States Constitution. Senator argued that the Federal Government had not right to regulate child labor because the Constitution makes no mention of it. Except that the Commerce Clause gives the government this right:
　

Congress decided it wanted to prohibit [child labor], so it passed a law—no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called Hammer v. Dagenhardt. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting — that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned — that’s something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. [...]
This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.

The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

This U.S. Supreme Court case UNITED STATES
v.
DARBY.　Which Senator Lee fails to mention overturned Hammer v. Danghardt established that the Congress has the right to regulate child labor within the United States.