The Hindujas made UK headlines for mistreating their servants. In India no one batted an eye – here’s why

Although some domestic staff in the subcontinent are treated well, for most it is a relentlessly harsh and thankless existence writes Amrit Dhillon in The Guardian

How the Hindujas, Britain’s richest family, treated their domestic staff at their Swiss mansion made it to the courts and on to the front pages last month. But in India it failed to elicit even a flicker of attention.

Plenty of Indians treat their cooks, maids, drivers and nannies very well. They offer a decent wage, time off, speak to them politely, and appreciate their hard work. They educate the staff’s children in good schools and help to pay for family weddings. When staff grow too old to work, they are bid adieu with a lump sum and a monthly pension for the remainder of their lives as a token of gratitude. During sickness, they are taken to good doctors for treatment without having to pay.

Ajay Hinduja and his wife, Namrata, with their lawyer Robert Assael outside court in Geneva in June. Photograph: Salvatore Di Nolfi/EPA

Some Indians are very generous. When one employer heard that a young woman who had worked for her briefly had been diagnosed with HIV – which she had passed on to her son in pregnancy – the ex-employer began paying a generous sum into her bank account every month to help the young mother manage.

The norm across India, though, is less benign. For most of the maids, cooks, drivers and ayahs (nannies) who work in homes, the following rules apply:

Your work is never done

All the chores may have been finished but no break or relaxation is allowed. It affronts the master’s sense of decency. More work is created. “Come and massage my legs.” “Polish the brass ornaments.” “Oil granny’s hair.” In Aravind Adiga’s novel The White Tiger, when the couple’s cook is not available, they order the driver to cook for them. If a family has no plans to go out, the driver is kept on call, even though he is baking in the heat and could easily be sent home.

Adarsh Gourav as Balram, and ​Priyanka Chopra Jonas, who plays Pinky, ​in ​the Netflix adaptation of The White Tiger​. Photograph: Singh Tejinder/Netflix

Drivers get every Sunday off but maids are lucky to get two Sundays off in a month and certainly no birthdays. This has prompted some maids to claim they are Hindus married to a Christian man because they are then entitled to more public holidays and festivals.

No space is your own

The maid sleeps on the landing or passage or any available corner. If there are “servant’s quarters” in the home, they are kennels on the rooftop. It is imperative that the rooms have a low roof and no window. When builders erect opulent apartments fitted with Italian marble and Belgian chandeliers, they designate a cell for the help, which can contain an inside latrine – yes, inside – so the maid has to use the toilet in the same tiny space. She must speak to her employer standing up, never sitting on a chair, and eat her food sitting on the floor or mat. Even if the family is out, the sofas and chairs are out of bounds.

Use your own plates

The kitchen is a segregated zone. When the maid eats or has a drink of water, it’s off a separate plate and in a separate glass from those used by the family. She is “clean” enough to cook the family’s meal but not clean enough to use the same crockery, even if it’s only cheap melamine.

Do not fall sick

When a maid becomes ill, the family balk at paying for treatment. You’ve got tuberculosis? Tough luck. We’re not paying for tests or medicines for the stipulated six months. She is sent packing on the first available train back to her village.

Manju Bibi, a domestic servant, resting in her room in a New Delhi slum. Maids are lucky to get two Sundays off in a month and certainly no birthdays. Photograph: Getty Images

No one wants a maid who is incapable of working and incurs expenses. This is the same maid or ayah who will have spent years getting up at night to nurse and comfort the family’s sick children.

The fridge is policed

She may spend all day cooking lovely meals but any expensive treats in the fridge are out of bounds. India is the only country in the world where fridge manufacturers add a lock; even the multinationals have succumbed to this demand. When the family leaves the house, the fridge is locked. In many cases, the mistress of the house actually doles out the food on to the maid’s plate to ensure there is no gluttony. Almonds and other nuts are locked away in a cupboard.

Avoid going out for a meal

Once in a while, a grotesque scene plays out in a restaurant or five-star hotel. The family is dining out and has brought the ayah with them to tend to the toddler so that they can enjoy their evening. The family will not tolerate her sitting with them. She is forced to stand by the table, looking miserable and self-conscious in an environment where she feels hideously out of place. Not only is she the only one standing in the restaurant, she is the only one not eating. The family eat and drink, pay the bill and leave without ordering anything for her.

Use the right lifts

In many housing complexes, the part-time (as opposed to live-in) maid has to use a separate lift, presumably because the residents may be offended by the smells wafting from her in the confined space.

Staff have a separate lift in many Indian apartment blocks. Photograph: Le Pictorium/Alamy

Yet it occurs to no one that perhaps the housing conditions of those who work for the residents should be clean and hygienic instead of the fetid shanties near the complex where they are forced to live, sharing a toilet with 50 or more other families and with no running water.

Do not expect anything

Urgent action needed to protect ‘dying’ Kenyan domestic workers in Gulf, say rights groups

Read more

People living in gated communities will never provide a shelter or install a fan for the press-wallah who irons their clothes outside in the scorching heat, or give him a plastic chair where he can sit to rest in between bouts of work. When this was rashly raised by some do-gooding, bleeding-heart wuss in one south Delhi neighbourhood, the residents’ welfare association erupted in outrage. They argued that all the drivers and security guards in the area would congregate at the chair, and the spot would become a “den of iniquity”, with people playing cards and gambling, while chatting with the press-wallah. Some associations ban drivers from parks and sitting on the benches. Memsahib thinks their presence lowers the tone.

Structural Realism - a theory to interpret International Politics

 

Khobhra-gate in New York may end nanny service for Indian diplomats

Chidanand Rajghatta in Times of India

WASHINGTON: Indian diplomats and officials serving abroad may lose the privilege of taking domestic help from India as a result of the Khobra-gate episode in New York where a mid-level Indian diplomat is in the dock for allegedly misrepresenting and underpaying her housekeeper.

The Indian government has vehemently challenged the US interpretation that led to the charges against Devyani Khobragade, but considering the number of such episodes in recent years and the financial implications (both in terms of legal fees to fight the cases and the restitution awarded to the complainants in some cases), the thinking is that the issue of taking domestic help abroad needs to be reexamined.

Even before the latest incident, the matter had been discussed at a Heads of Mission conference in New Delhi last year where various such cases were deliberated on. The ministry of external affairs is said to be looking for a long-term solution, including withdrawing the provision enabling taking housekeepers abroad, and instead compensating diplomats for employing local personnel.

This is easier said than done, according to some officials. Not only are there security sensitivities involved in going down this route (In case of the .S, there are also heightened intelligence issues considering recent developments,) but the costs will also be enormous given that diplomats often entertain late and travel at short notice.

Officials joked sourly that at $ 9.75 an hour in New York ($ 8.25 in Washington DC) plus overtime, any local labor they employ will earn more than the diplomats considered the hours they will be needed, while contesting the general impression that foreign postings are lavishly paid. The salaries are modest, they insist, and in fact it is the perks such as taking domestic help abroad that makes such postings tolerable they say.

In fact, federal minimum wages in the US, which is stuck at $ 7.25 since 2009, is poised to go up to $ 10 soon (some states like NY will mandate more in keeping with higher costs)

''Which Indian would pay a help Rs 6500 ($ 100) a day?'' asked Shakti Sinha, a former principal secretary in the government of India who did various stints abroad, including at the World Bank and various UN agencies, assuming eight normal working hours. Nevertheless, Sinha is for withdrawing the privilege of taking Indian help abroad while complying with local laws. At the same time, he says, New Delhi should also not ''spare any US diplomat who is even close to breaking any Indian domestic law.'' The suggestion here is that New Delhi does not similarly enforce its domestic laws strictly against foreign diplomats and officials.

Indeed, Indian officials say foreign diplomats in India, including US officials, will be on weak ground if New Delhi took their various infractions seriously but the Indian view is that diplomatic niceties need to be observed. They are incensed that in the case of Khobragade, the young mother of two was jumped on and handcuffed by US authorities when she was dropping her daughters to school. ''It was not as if she is a terrorist or proven criminal and was about to flee or was endangering lives,'' one official fumed. ''It could have been handled better.''

On Friday, Taranjit Sandhu, the charge d'affaires at the Indian Embassy in Washington once again conveyed New Delhi' displeasure at the incident, and according to an Embassy statement, ''reiterated Foreign Secretary of India's strong demarche to the US Ambassador in New Delhi regarding the treatment meted out to Dr Khobragade.''

''It was emphasised that Dr. Khobragade is a diplomat, who is in the U.S. in pursuance of her duties and hence is entitled to the courtesy due to a diplomat in the country of her work. She is also a young mother of two small children. Government of India is shocked and appalled at the manner in which she has been humiliated by the U.S. authorities. It was also conveyed in no uncertain terms that this kind of treatment to one of our diplomats is absolutely unacceptable,'' the statement said calling on the U.S. State Department ''to resolve the matter at the earliest''

But US officials were largely unrelenting in the matter. ''We are handling this incident through law enforcement channels. We have a long-standing partnership with India, and we expect that partnership will continue,'' a state department spokesperson told wire services.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the Indian diplomat who is at the center of a flaming row between New Delhi and Washington is also a Dalit women's rights champion.

Devyani Khobragade, the deputy consul-general of the Indian mission in New York, spoke in April this year on ''Women's Rights and the Influence of Demographics in India'' at the Australian Consulate in Manhattan. ''The continued entrenchment of women's rights through affirmative action, such as reservations for women in parliament, a holistic approach to education and gender sensitisation were also discussed by Dr Khobragade and the round-table participants,'' according to the Australian consulate, which identified her as a ''woman of the Dalit caste.''

On the social media though, there was little sympathy for the diplomat, with some readers pointing to her involvement in the Adarsh housing issue, where she is reportedly a member. Her father Uttam Khobragade, is a retired Maharashtra government bureaucrat and former head of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA).

Others recalled several notorious cases of Indian families mistreating their domestic help and using them as slave labor, although the U.S charges against Khobragade mainly pertained to fraud and misrepresentation, not abuse.

In one of the most egregious cases the wife-husband team of Varsha and Mahender Sabhnani, NRIs who owned a multi-million dollar perfume business in New York, were sentenced in 2007 to 11 and 3 years respectively for abusing their Indonesian housekeepers. Their callousness and brutality provoked such revulsion that New York tabloids dubbed Varsha Sabhnani as ''Cruella De Evil.'' The couple was also ordered to pay restitution of more than a million dollars to the women they enslaved.

While that episode brought to light what the judge hearing case called modern day slave labor practice, Bharara has signaled that the U.S will not tolerate exploitation of foreign workers even by diplomats.

''Foreign nationals brought to the United States to serve as domestic workers are entitled to the same protections against exploitation as those afforded to United States citizens. The false statements and fraud alleged to have occurred here were designed to circumvent those protections so that a visa would issue for a domestic worker who was promised far less than a fair wage. This type of fraud on the United States and exploitation of an individual will not be tolerated,'' he said in a statement.

But Indian officials insist there was no intended fraud or misrepresentation. They point out that the domestic help in this case, Sangeeta Richard, was flown to the U.S at government expense, and she had no problems with her wages, which were split between paying her in New York and her family in India, in the eight months she worked in the Khobragade household. Things only got complicated when she wanted to seek permanent residency in the US.

Officials explained that because diplomats typically take care of all the other needs of the domestic help brought from India, such as housing, food, medical treatment, and trips back home, their written commitment to mandated local wage in western countries ( $ 9.95 per hour of $ 4500 per month in the Khobragade case) is only of a ''technical nature.'' The real cost does work out approximately to that, they maintain, adding that the situation has become complicated because in several cases, the domestic help from India have figured out they can make a killing and gain permanent residence by ''going legal.''

But the flip side is that this is the third such case involving the Indian consulate in New York. In June 2011, a former housekeeper, Santosh Bharadwaj, had sued India's then consul general in New York Prabhu Dayal, accusing him of intimidating her into forced labor and seeking sexual favors. The case is close to being settled out of court. In February 2012, a New York City Magistrate Judge ordered that Neena Malhotra, a diplomat at the Consulate, to pay nearly $1.5 million for forcing an under-aged Indian girl, Shanti Gurung, to work without pay and meting out ''barbaric treatment'' to her. The case is still being contested. There have also been such cases in Europe.

In most cases, Indian officials insist the complainants, helped by NGOs, exaggerate and conflate issues in an effort to seek permanent residency and restitution. ''The same complainants have had no problems working with the same officials in places such as Morocco or Cambodia. It is only when they come to US or Western Europe that all these issues crop up,'' one official fumed.

But much of the public and media perception in New York has been shaped by one egregious case of domestic abuse (not involving Indian diplomats) that occurred in 2007. The wife-husband team of Varsha and Mahender Sabhnani, NRIs who owned a multi-million dollar perfume business in New York, were sentenced to 11 and 3 years respectively for abusing their Indonesian housekeepers. Their callousness and brutality provoked such revulsion that New York tabloids dubbed Varsha Sabhnani as ''Cruella De Evil.'' The couple was also ordered to pay restitution of more than a million dollars to the women they enslaved.

For many, the case encapsulated the Indian practice of treating domestic help badly. It's a rap that even diplomats have had to bear in the line of duty.

What lies beneath the mask of marriage

The dynamics of any couple - like that between Charles Saatchi and his wife Nigella Lawson - are hard to fathom, but conflict can be deceptively subtle

Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson: their row has ignited an important debate Photo: Alan Davidson

By Kate Figes in The Telegrapg

6:20AM BST 19 Jun 2013

The photographs were indeed shocking. Charles Saatchi’s large hand around his wife Nigella’s Lawson’s throat as they sat having an alfresco lunch at Scott’s in Mayfair, London. It’s the haunting look of deep fear in Nigella’s eyes that suggests this is more than just a “playful tiff”, as Saatchi subsequently said, hours before receiving a police caution for assault. Nigella, who has moved out of the family home, temporarily at least, is nowhere to be seen.

The media storm surrounding these photos has highlighted what those helping the victims of domestic abuse have known for a long time – that it can affect couples of every social strata, even seemingly confident and successful women who have the means to leave. Domestic violence is one of the most unreported and misunderstood crimes. Two women a week are killed by someone they know well. Countless others live silently in fear for years of what their partner might do to them should they leave.
-------------
Also Read:

The secret to an enduring sex life - cups of tea

For Indian women in America, a sea of broken dreams
--------------

But perhaps what these pictures prove best is our confusion around what domestic violence actually is. In the past two days there have been mountains of speculation around the Saatchi-Lawson marriage: Saatchi’s temperament (he’s “explosive”) and Nigella’s troubled past (her mother would “shout and say 'I’m going to hit you till you cry’ ”) have been cited in an attempt to explain what must surely have been an exception rather than the rule. We don’t want to believe otherwise from such a golden couple.

But a celebrity union is no different from any other marriage, and is just as prone to the wielding of power and control, which is of course the substance of most abuse. The black eyes, the woman beaten about so badly that she is forced to seek refuge with her children in an anonymous safe house is just the thin end of the wedge.

Within all relationships there is the potential for abuse because it can be so subtle. Most domestic abuse is emotional or psychological long before it becomes physical, with men and indeed women chipping away at the other person’s sense of self and self-confidence in small but significant ways. Over time, with enough undermining day after day, one makes the other feel so bad about themselves that they believe it when their partner says that nobody else could possibly want them, or love them like they do. 

Victims of abuse are often blamed for everything, shamed or humiliated in public. Their partner makes all the decisions or they find themselves increasingly isolated from family, friends or other sources of support. “It’s the insidious level of control, the petty enforcement of rules – anything from how you wrap up the cheese when you put it back in the fridge to how you close the car door,” one married woman told me for my book Couples: The Truth. “And you think this is just a small thing; OK, I will do that because it doesn’t matter. Now I can see that what I was giving him was power. That was before he started smashing up the furniture when he got angry, and then hitting me.”

Domestic abuse can be economic or financial as spouses (usually men, because they earn more) withhold money or credit cards, make a woman account for every penny she spends, or prevent her from having a job or pursuing her own career. And abuse can be sexual, not just in the form of marital rape or pressurising someone into sexual practices they would rather avoid, but also by withholding sex.

I will never forget one young woman I interviewed whose husband refused to have sex with her for four years. “He has killed my self-confidence because I feel completely unacknowledged as a woman, and humiliated, too, dressing up for him in sexy underwear and still being rejected. If he had been knocking me about for four years that would be acknowledged as unacceptable controlling behaviour, but this isn’t.”

Affairs, too, are often a form of abuse, taunting a spouse with the evidence but denying that anything is going on. Instead, accusations of paranoia are hurled back at the victim, dismantling their psyche still further.

Abuse builds when one person in a couple consistently tries to exert that dominance, through intimidation, threats, anger and violence against furniture and walls. There are arguments in every relationship. But there is a fine line between healthy, constructive disagreements that allow people to air resentments and express what they want, and destructive rows full of character assassination and blame.

When a strong man has an anger-management problem, women understandably feel compromised about standing up for themselves. Arguing back could make matters worse. Nigella has been quoted as saying about her marriage: “I’ll go quiet when he explodes and then I am a nest of horrible festeringness.”

No one can really understand what goes on in another person’s relationship. One’s own is enough of a mystery. But if I were to turn back the clock seven years and write my two books on relationships again, I would probably structure them differently around the subtleties of abuse because of what I now know.

What is clear to me is that we find it so hard to understand the very fine line between common relationship difficulties and abusive patterns of behaviour when we are in love with someone, and when there are so many other ties that bind us such as children, reputation, lack of money and not wanting to be alone.

“Why doesn’t she just leave?” is a naive statement and one that won’t help Nigella, or any other woman in a relationship with an “explosive” man whom she probably still loves.

Our ignorance about abuse is also compounded by the taboos surrounding relationships and family life. We believe our private lives should be kept private. We shouldn’t interfere in other people’s problems. People took photographs of Charles and Nigella, but nobody approached the table to ask if they were all right. And it is this hidden nature of family life that makes abuse harder to live with and 

harder to talk about. For a successful woman, just admitting that there have been abusive situations is tantamount to failure. And so, so shaming.

I wish them both well. Perhaps the most hopeful legacy from this whole sorry affair will be greater transparency about how common abuse can be. But I also believe that too many people lack the key tools to help them build their relationships from the inside, which in turn allows abuse to flourish. We can’t trust everything to love.