This is with regard to Parul Chandra’s article “India must ban the feudal practice of diplomats taking housekeepers on stints overseas.”
Let me begin with disclosing that I am a diplomatic spouse, although I stay put in Delhi, running an NGO that takes up my mind and energy. I occasionally visit, and my spouse tries to stay put in Delhi himself. Let me also say that I cannot imagine life without an efficient housekeeper in Delhi, or abroad. Chandra's piece had me thinking about whether it is feudal to take housekeepers or not. First of all, congratulations, Parul Chandra on at least calling them housekeepers, not servants. To set the record straight, my use of that term is not new either (which Parul knows from being my Facebook friend).
I don't believe that it is feudal to take someone abroad ‒ it is feudal to mistreat them, in India or abroad. And I am writing to voice this, because it is key and was missing from the article. What we see abroad is a reflection of what the elite are back at home in India. Of course, we read about stories from New York to New Zealand to Geneva, about the cruelty meted out to housekeepers. They are all fiercely contested and while we are not witness to each one, it is likely that many of the housekeepers making these allegations could be abused and ill-treated.
We also see the hundreds of young women in India in posh restaurants, seated isolated on tables of their own, watching and famished children and their families feast, but fasting themselves. We see skinny maids struggle unhappily with large dogs they are forced to walk at 6 every morning, as part of their 14-hour day. We see the many young boys and girls, just children, many of them, working in homes, serving water and running errands ‒ baby slaves, whose employers claim they have a better life in the city than starving in leaking huts in their villages. None of these situations ‒ in India or abroad ‒ is acceptable. We need a paradigm shift in how we treat those who serve us.
It was troubling that Parul Chandra focussed so much about India's image abroad being tarnished when housekeepers are traumatised thus. Of course she has a point, but to me, India's image is tarnished in any case when the world hears about women raped, wives of MPs allegedly murdering domestic help and child labour carrying on and on. Often, they hear about it from the social media, and from angry Indians themselves. Isn't the image less relevant than the fact they we are simply a really hierarchical society where equity and equality is the elite's nightmare? That is what we must repair. Banning Indian diplomats from taking staff abroad is not going to address this. What makes us believe that someone likely to abuse their domestic housekeeper won't abuse their Filipina maid or the possibly illegal Bangladeshi part-time cook? How does that headline read?
Housekeepers may be spared being slapped abroad, but a majority of them will continue to be slapped by many other memsahibs in India. How to we find ways to address this? I can think of registering all housekeepers (and now a possible provision to provide health insurance under Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna to domestic workers will incentivise them to register), campaigning in the right media for their basic rights so they too hear the voices of their protectors, and go all out in schools ‒ especially where the elite and middle class send their children-to teach the young in tangible ways to respect those who help their parents run the house. Additionally, the Ministry of External Affairs could set up a cell that directly monitors and communicates with all housekeepers, and informs them about this cell and its duties.
For me, the change will be here to stay when maids considers it usual practice to drink their morning tea from the same mug as their employers, anywhere in the world, in an Indian household. Till then, India runs the threat of Indian diplomats and their families truthfully representing the real India. ‒ Bharati Chaturvedi
Parul Chandra responds:
Isn’t it feudalism to pay the IBDAs much less than what their counterparts in the West earn as wages for doing the same amount of work? Does this not amount to exploitation of those financially weaker than us? Ill-treatment of domestic help, whether in India and abroad, is abominable. Nobody would disagree with this. But I believe it’s equally feudal to continue the practice of allowing diplomats to have IBDAs (India-born domestic assistants) in this day and age. After all, a lot of Indian professionals abroad do manage with local part-time help and that too after shelling out much more money.
We may well justify the lower wages on the grounds that the salaries of IBDAs earn are far greater than the money they would normally make back home. However, it appears to be one of the reasons why disgruntled IBDAs have begun approaching NGOs abroad once they become aware of the higher wages overseas (largely US and Europe) and their curtailed rights.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, the country’s image does suffer be it for dowry deaths, female foeticide, farmer suicides, child labour, etc. Or when Delhi finds mention as the world’s rape capital. But surely Indian diplomats hitting the headlines for their alleged ill-treatment of domestic workers only serves to reinforce the country’s image as one that is exploitative of its poor and down-trodden.
Most Indian Foreign Service officers do not misuse the IBDA system, but why give the chance to others to exploit the practice by continuing with it.? The sahayak (orderly) system in the Army, for instance, has degenerated over the years into one where soldiers trained for combat are reduced to performing menial tasks when they are actually meant to act as “buddies” and radio operators of their officers, apart from taking care of their arms and uniforms.
We welcome your comments at
[email protected].
Let me begin with disclosing that I am a diplomatic spouse, although I stay put in Delhi, running an NGO that takes up my mind and energy. I occasionally visit, and my spouse tries to stay put in Delhi himself. Let me also say that I cannot imagine life without an efficient housekeeper in Delhi, or abroad. Chandra's piece had me thinking about whether it is feudal to take housekeepers or not. First of all, congratulations, Parul Chandra on at least calling them housekeepers, not servants. To set the record straight, my use of that term is not new either (which Parul knows from being my Facebook friend).
I don't believe that it is feudal to take someone abroad ‒ it is feudal to mistreat them, in India or abroad. And I am writing to voice this, because it is key and was missing from the article. What we see abroad is a reflection of what the elite are back at home in India. Of course, we read about stories from New York to New Zealand to Geneva, about the cruelty meted out to housekeepers. They are all fiercely contested and while we are not witness to each one, it is likely that many of the housekeepers making these allegations could be abused and ill-treated.
We also see the hundreds of young women in India in posh restaurants, seated isolated on tables of their own, watching and famished children and their families feast, but fasting themselves. We see skinny maids struggle unhappily with large dogs they are forced to walk at 6 every morning, as part of their 14-hour day. We see the many young boys and girls, just children, many of them, working in homes, serving water and running errands ‒ baby slaves, whose employers claim they have a better life in the city than starving in leaking huts in their villages. None of these situations ‒ in India or abroad ‒ is acceptable. We need a paradigm shift in how we treat those who serve us.
It was troubling that Parul Chandra focussed so much about India's image abroad being tarnished when housekeepers are traumatised thus. Of course she has a point, but to me, India's image is tarnished in any case when the world hears about women raped, wives of MPs allegedly murdering domestic help and child labour carrying on and on. Often, they hear about it from the social media, and from angry Indians themselves. Isn't the image less relevant than the fact they we are simply a really hierarchical society where equity and equality is the elite's nightmare? That is what we must repair. Banning Indian diplomats from taking staff abroad is not going to address this. What makes us believe that someone likely to abuse their domestic housekeeper won't abuse their Filipina maid or the possibly illegal Bangladeshi part-time cook? How does that headline read?
Housekeepers may be spared being slapped abroad, but a majority of them will continue to be slapped by many other memsahibs in India. How to we find ways to address this? I can think of registering all housekeepers (and now a possible provision to provide health insurance under Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna to domestic workers will incentivise them to register), campaigning in the right media for their basic rights so they too hear the voices of their protectors, and go all out in schools ‒ especially where the elite and middle class send their children-to teach the young in tangible ways to respect those who help their parents run the house. Additionally, the Ministry of External Affairs could set up a cell that directly monitors and communicates with all housekeepers, and informs them about this cell and its duties.
For me, the change will be here to stay when maids considers it usual practice to drink their morning tea from the same mug as their employers, anywhere in the world, in an Indian household. Till then, India runs the threat of Indian diplomats and their families truthfully representing the real India. ‒ Bharati Chaturvedi
Parul Chandra responds:
Isn’t it feudalism to pay the IBDAs much less than what their counterparts in the West earn as wages for doing the same amount of work? Does this not amount to exploitation of those financially weaker than us? Ill-treatment of domestic help, whether in India and abroad, is abominable. Nobody would disagree with this. But I believe it’s equally feudal to continue the practice of allowing diplomats to have IBDAs (India-born domestic assistants) in this day and age. After all, a lot of Indian professionals abroad do manage with local part-time help and that too after shelling out much more money.
We may well justify the lower wages on the grounds that the salaries of IBDAs earn are far greater than the money they would normally make back home. However, it appears to be one of the reasons why disgruntled IBDAs have begun approaching NGOs abroad once they become aware of the higher wages overseas (largely US and Europe) and their curtailed rights.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, the country’s image does suffer be it for dowry deaths, female foeticide, farmer suicides, child labour, etc. Or when Delhi finds mention as the world’s rape capital. But surely Indian diplomats hitting the headlines for their alleged ill-treatment of domestic workers only serves to reinforce the country’s image as one that is exploitative of its poor and down-trodden.
Most Indian Foreign Service officers do not misuse the IBDA system, but why give the chance to others to exploit the practice by continuing with it.? The sahayak (orderly) system in the Army, for instance, has degenerated over the years into one where soldiers trained for combat are reduced to performing menial tasks when they are actually meant to act as “buddies” and radio operators of their officers, apart from taking care of their arms and uniforms.