Domestic helps posted abroad are no slaves
One of the consequences of the recent India-US diplomatic fiasco has been an overwrought debate on domestic helps in this country. The charge against Ms Devyani Khobragade, that she lied about her housekeeper's salary on the latter's visa application and paid her less-than-minimum wage in violation of local labour laws, has been used to push a larger narrative that the phenomenon of domestic workers in India is, by default, abusive and exploitative. The media in the West and its jholawallah lackeys here have used the case to not just portray Ms Khobragade as some sort of a modern-day slave master but also sought to take this entire country on a guilt-trip for ever having employed domestic helps. In fact, one Washington-based, Indian editor writing for a reputed American daily even described it as “India's dirty secret”. Comfortably couched within the human rights narrative as this moral indignation may be, it reflects an acute ignorance of India's cultural, social and economic scenario.
Take the Khobragade case itself. When the Ministry of External Affairs cried foul over the arrest of Ms Khobragade, who was then the Acting Consul General in New York, many sanctimonious commentators wondered why New Delhi had not stood up for her housekeeper Sangeeta Richard. Wasn't she the actual victim given that she was being paid supposedly paltry wagesIJ The answer is a resounding no. Ms Richard, who is still absconding, was on an all-expenses paid assignment (she paid no rent, no utilities and incurred no costs on food, insurance or travel, for instance) and received another Rs30,000 per month that was deposited in her Indian bank account. Put together, this is not just significantly more than what the average housekeeper in India makes but the total figure almost matches New York minimum wage standards. look at it from any angle and it is crystal clear that such an assignment is a lucrative opportunity for the domestic help to earn (and save) a pot load of cash. That Ms Richard abused this opportunity to claim residency in the US, at the cost of her employers, is disappointing. But what is absurd is that it has led many to question why Ms Khobragade needed a domestic help in the first placeIJ After all, they argue, working women in the West make do without any such assistance. But Ms Khobragade is not a Western professional. She is an Indian diplomat, serving in a country where domestic help (particularly children care) is prohibitively expensive and where she herself does not make minimum wages. If she then employs an Indian national as her housekeeper and compensates her handsomely, it is a win-win situation.
If the chattering classes, particularly in the West, have failed to see it as such, it indicates that their opposition to Ms Khobragade's employment of a housekeeper is not just legal but also moral. It seems like they are unable to accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with someone else cleaning your dishes or mopping your floors, as long as you pay them a fair market wage. This wage is a product of two factors: Quantity (or supply) and quality of labour. In a populous country like India, therefore, the wages paid to domestic workers, who are mostly unskilled, is an economic phenomenon, not a social problem.