NEW DELHI -- The sweet-smiling young boy wearing a knit cap and rag wool sweater seemed small for his age. But then, he had lived a harder life than most 12-year-olds. Raised on the streets of rural India, at age 8 he was sold by his aunt to a banker in Delhi to work as a house servant. For four years the youngster was on call 18 hours a day, scrubbing pots and cleaning rooms, one of the tens of thousands of Indian children now working as domestics, the new face of child labor in this country.

"The growing Indian middle class has brought this disaster to the lives of the nation's children," said Kailash Satyarthi, chairman of India's Global March Against Child Labor. As soon as they can afford them, Indian families want servants as a sign of their newfound status. And the cheapest and most docile workers available are boys and girls.

This particular child, whose identity was withheld to protect his privacy, is free now, liberated by one of Mr. Satyarthi's raid-and-rescue teams. He lives with about three dozen other former child laborers at the Mukti ashram on the outskirts of India's capital. Here they receive schooling and counseling until they can be reunited with their families.

Like millions of migrants before him, this young boy has no desire to return to his village. Despite the hardship he has endured, he loves the city. And, typical of all children his age, he dreams. He wants to grow up to be a pilot, despite having only six months of education.

As unrealistic as his dream may be, it is better than the nightmare of child labor that still traps millions of other Indian children, despite a 2006 law that makes it illegal to employ anyone under the age of 14. India still has more children working than any other single country.

Another slight, dark-haired 12-year-old boy, also at the ashram, knows the horrors of child labor all too well. For the last three years he embroidered suits and saris, working 16-hour days, six and a half days a week alongside two dozen other children ages 8 to 16 in a New Delhi factory. He slept at his work bench. And, he claims, he was regularly beaten when his embroidery did not satisfy the owner.

"In time," the boy recalled, "my father came to the factory and asked that I be sent home. But the factory owner refused. He said 'he has been eating a lot and you have to pay for his sleeping arrangement, so I won't send him home.' " Eventually, Mr. Satyarthi's team liberated him, too. And the family was given 1,500 rupees, about $35, for the boy's three years of work.

These boys are two of millions of child laborers around the world. The exact number is probably unknowable. It depends on the definition of childhood and the definition of work.

"Childhood is an evolving concept," said Mr. Satyarthi. The legal age of work varies from country to country. And, when it comes to farm work and family handicraft businesses, experts differ over where to draw the line between exploitative labor and children simply helping out.

In 2004, the International Labor Organization guesstimated there were 218 million child laborers worldwide, seven in 10 of them working in agriculture. That figure was down by 11 percent from 2000.

The Indian government admitted to 12.7 million child laborers in 2001, an increase of about one million in a decade. Child labor opponents claim the real total is more than double that figure.

In part, the increase and the discrepancy reflect the prevalence of domestic servitude, which is on the rise as Indian incomes improve. The 2001 government study estimated there were only 185,000 domestic child workers. Activists claim the number is much higher, arguing that domestic child labor is particularly hard to document. Children work privately one and two to the household, not publicly by the dozens in factories. And many are quite young. A recent study in the southern city of Chennai found that a quarter of child domestic workers began working before they were nine. More than 80 percent were girls.

"The law is being flouted behind every other door," said Mr. Satyarthi.

Such child labor persists, in part, because of widespread misperceptions about its economic necessity and social benefits.

• Myth 1: The prevalence of child labor is an unfortunate consequence of poverty. Not always so. Sri Lanka has a per capita income of $4,100 and 15 percent of its children work. India has a $2,700 per capita income but only 6 percent of Indian children are economically active. Poor societies don't have to have child labor.

• Myth 2: Children need to work to support their families. Indian surveys show that parents do send their children to work believing it will help sustain the family. But it's a bad bargain. ILO studies find that children earn about one-fifth what adults are paid for the same work, so a child's contribution is minimal at best. Moreover, premature work denies children the opportunity to acquire the skills they need to earn decent incomes as adults, undermining their ability to care for their parents in their old age. Sending one's child to work is both economically irrational and shortsighted.

• Myth 3: Curbing child labor hurts employment. "Almost all children who work belong to those families where the parents can't find jobs for more than 100 days a year," said Mr. Satyarthi. So many children may be taking jobs from their own parents. Despite the recent decline in child labor in India's carpet industry, thanks to better enforcement of labor laws and the consequent increase in labor costs, carpet exports are up and the jobs are being filled by able-bodied adults. Countries can have more jobs without employing more children. .....

• Myth 4: Children are better suited for some work than adults. This "nimble fingers" argument is widely believed. But an ILO study of over 2,000 weavers found that children were no more likely than adults to have the dexterity to tie the finest carpet knots. They can just be paid less.

• Myth 5: Child labor is a valuable part of early childhood education. Studies in Brazil demonstrate that entering the workforce before age 13 can actually lower adult lifetime earnings by up to 17 percent. Children learn best at a desk, not at a loom.

Clearly, the eradication of child labor need not await the eradication of poverty.

Brazil has shown the way. For more than a decade Brasilia has paid parents a small stipend -- $4.50 a month per child -- to send their kids to school rather than to work. More than a million children now participate in the program.

The ILO estimates that it would cost $38 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate child labor. Washington has already contributed more than $20 million to an Indian program to eliminate children from the most hazardous industries. More such investments are justified. Studies show the economic benefits of such spending outweigh the costs by nearly 6 to 1.

In Europe and the United States child labor did not disappear thanks to the elimination of poverty. It was eradicated once activists pressured governments to enforce the law and to create educational opportunities for all children. That same struggle is now ongoing in India. History suggests that outside pressure and financial aid can help.

"Child labor is a denial of childhood," said Mr. Satyarthi. "It's the denial of their future participation in the economy. This must end. And it is nonnegotiable."