What is dignity of labour?

An excerpt from New York Times about Taj hotel in India read thus:

''In every men’s washroom at the Taj is a helper. As you approach the sink, he salutes you. Before you can turn on the tap, he does it for you. Before you can apply soap, he presses the dispenser. Before you can get a towel, he dangles one. As you leave, he salutes you again and mutters: “Right, sir. O.K., sir. Thank you, sir.”
Step outside, and you see sedans reeking of new affluence.India may be changing at a disorienting pace, but one thing remains stubbornly the same: a tendency to treat the hired help like chattel, to behave as though some humans were born to serve and others to be served.''…..and so continued the rest of the artile ....

As I read the abovementioned article published in The New York Times, Asia Pacific section, titled, Exploring India’s Prosperity Through the Eyes of the Invisible Men, my mind registered instant protest. It was not easy to immediately find the right words to describe it, for these are complex issues but something was not right somewhere, and I sought to bring it to light as cohesively as I possibly can to myself and now perhaps to whoever reads this.

Among my first reactions was incredulity, such a half baked portrayal of things. The second was amusement, it is so typically one of those articles which are so fashionably pro- poor nowadays, and which exploit words like inequality and disparity to their gain. Exploitation abounds in various forms and for various reasons. It needs to be condemned whatever be the reason for its existence, whether it be physical comforts, financial gains or as in this case, literary gains. ‘Oh, typically an article for the western world. It is what they want to believe of us’ people in India would say on reading the article under question.

The article largely came across as something written about India as it appears to the West , but appearances need to be delved into so as to unearth the real understanding. No doubt it was an article written for the west in a western paper but surely even the West likes to have the complete picture, complete with the context and reasons?

I write not because I completely disagree with the above mentioned excerpt but because its only part of the picture. One, the understanding of the situation is very cursory and shallow, and second, the facts far too generalized to be applicable to a vast population as in India. Besides, no written piece about a nation or a society is complete without a context. In an absence of the context, even the right figures, the right data may also generate the wrong picture as is so in the case of the piece that I seek to comment upon. I do not question the fact that there are insensitive people who deliberately erode the dignity of lesser priviledged people in India but unfortunately, sometimes even the more sensitive ones (like this article), in their march towards equality and sensitivity , end up trampling on peoples dignity without realizing it. The article and its beginning is a case in point….but first the background…

India....

India contrary to the west is an economy rich in its human resources. WITH ITS POPULATION TOUCHING A billion mark India has to take a path that is very different from the rest of the world. Its biggest liability its vast population has to be turned into its asset. Its human resources have to be optimally tapped if we were to make a suitable difference to our future , and admittedly handling human resources can be a far daunting task than many. Besides India started out late on its quest of equality and justice, as late as 1947-the year of its independence from a Raj where social disparities were at its peak. Considering that, and its vast population, India seems to be following the natural trajectory, which is ridden by struggle and contradictions but is nevertheless very natural, predictable and progressive. True, social disparities abound in India as they would in any country which has its population touching a billion mark, and true there are bound to be people who exploit the situation but by no stretch of imagination can we generalize the situation to suit ourselves.

With such a high population, India invariably sees a lot of it’s work done by human resources rather than machines and invariably it generates more incidents, and stories-facts and fiction, for machines do not complain, humans do, and rightly so, but only when truth is not compromised.

What is dignity of labour?

There are two things we need to remember

1.No job is bad. Every job deserves dignity and every worker deserves to be treated with respect whatever be the job he is doing
2.The job should not be forced but be based on one, freedom of choice and two, the workers circumstances, namely level of education, job opportunities etc.

The article starts by lamenting the position of the attendant in the bathroom and how Indias’ progress is no progress from his point of view. I am sorry but I do not understand. Dignity of labour is not about what job you do. Rather its about how you get treated by others for doing that job. No job is good or bad, it’s the way we treat the people who are doing those jobs that ends up classifying a good job from a bad job. And that is what dignity of labour is all about. As I read the piece, what seemed wrong to me was the pathetic way in which the attendant was portrayed, as an object of pity by the observer. I found his portrayal by the writer more demeaning than the facts of his job. True, a soap dispenser would any day be preferred over a person putting soap on our hands but then in a country teeming with people and unemployment, every job created is a blessing! WHAT COUNTS IS HOW WE TREAT THE PERSON DOING THAT JOB. And of course, what that job IS, depends on the state of your economy. You cannot create a managers job for an uneducated person, and yet you cannot allow him to perish looking for the ‘respectable(?)’ job…for what is respect and dignity afterall ? Isn't it something which we should give to everyone who is trying to do something…whether it being an officers job or an attendant’s? The problem is not with the attendant or his job, or the hotel who employs him. The problem is with US who do not try and study in the right perspective, the myriad factors coming together in a situation.

This will shock many, but then, reality often does… do you know that the attendant in the men’s toilet in Taj whose plight the author laments, would actually be considered privileged by his peers in India? Why?.. because all he has to do is squeeze soap on a polite man’s hand in an air conditioned clean room, and hopefully be thanked for it too, whereas he could have instead landed up slogging in the harsh sun lifting weights, and earning one tenth of what he does in Taj ….You see, the facts are right, he is indeed squeezing soap, but the context is not …..for he does not consider himself underpriviledged, as the article seems to imply. He knows that what he is getting paid for can very easily be done with a soap dispenser, and is glad that it is not so; for given his background and education levels, he is not likely to get any better employment. We who pity him or mistreat him for being an attendant, degrade his efforts to stand upright.

Neither are we talking of forced labour here nor lack of choice. He like every other person on this planet makes the most optimal choice given his circumstances, and has the right to quit or protest at any point that he deems fit. Unfortunately, the fact that he is born in India makes it a choice between pulling a rickshaw or dispensing soap. In the west it would perhaps be a choice between being an executive or being self employed, but a CHOICE nevertheless. And that is what counts. Any society which grants freedom of choice will surely one day find its equality and rights...just give it time. The attendant, like every other Indian also knows that he belongs to a young country which is struggling itself, and needs him to put in that extra bit, which would see his next generations better off, educated, and in better positions. At that point , I am sure he will not mind being replaced by a dispenser. I once again reiterate that his job as an attendant is not objectionable, it is the attitude of people like us who forget to thank him or treat him like dirt simply because he cannot protest, which is wrong.....

There is no denying that exploitation exists...but contrary to ‘dehumanization ‘ as quoted in the article, India to those who know it well, is a perfect example of human resources working in tandem to their mutual benefit, and I highlight mutual benefit as against ‘exploitation of the poor’. India at present can boast of one of the largest social development network in the world right now. It happens to be a country where corrective measures against social disparities emerge quite spontaneously. In short, India has always had a self correcting mechanism, which when supported by external help like government support or international development agencies, or even responsible media has known to have far reaching impacts. Success stories abound.

Give India Time.......

Social development takes time. Social development takes patience and social development takes understanding. Neither is charity the answer nor is blind support either to the poor or the rich . The requirement of the day is careful understanding of the situation, and provision of intelligent support. The poor is not likely to get rich in a day, and even if he does he would not be able to handle it. Development studies clearly highlight the need for people to get self reliant slowly and surely for the development to be consistent. The need for education cannot be emphasised enough. One has to work towards ones’s upliftment and the results are not obvious immediately. Sometimes they get reflected only by the time the next generation grows up. There are no miracles. Hence, the social disparities in India are not likely to disappear in a day but neither are they all pervasive nor as grotesque as the West is made to believe. All one wishes to see the west do is to study India and its problems in the right context...Indian context...not their western context.