In the child labour debate, one apologistic argument often rears its ugly head. It posits that many poor people rely on their children to work to support the family and that it would be naive to think this situation can be reversed quickly.

Which is preferable, proponents of this line of logic ask: a family able to feed itself, or a starving child in school? It is the question that passes through countless Western heads when they see small children hawking magazines at Indian traffic stops or serving chai at tea stalls.

Those with greater insight into the scourge of child labour, however, think differently.

Bhuwan Ribhu has rescued hundreds of child labourers from Delhi’s sweatshops and brothels. His stance is unremitting: child labour must be stamped out.

First, Mr Ribhu notes that most child workers make a pittance. The average wage of 35 children he rescued from a sweatshop this month was between 50 and 100 rupees — about 69p to £1.38 — a week, plus meals. This is not family-supporting employment, it is slavery. For the most part, children are employed because they are easily bullied and beaten, demand fewer rights than adults and can be paid next to nothing. There is no moral defence of an economy that rests on these conditions.

Second, Mr Ribhu believes that India has at least 60 million unemployed adults. Why, he asks, can they not take the place of their working children (especially if some of these children are earning enough to help to support a family)? Indeed, there is a provision in Indian law that says the roles occupied by child labourers must be offered to an adult member of their family — and another law that says that children must go to school.

Here, of course, lies the rub: India has reasonably good laws, but they are seldom enforced. Laws are a very good start — but if the country is to take its place as a true global power, it cannot afford to be weighed down by millions of uneducated young people.

The nation’s future depends on the laws being acted upon — now.