I'm reading a book called "Delhi: Adventures in a Megacity" by an English journalist, Sam Miller who's written about walking in Delhi. I love the book for several reasons the primary of which is that he walked and didn't go from one touristy place to the other. The downside, if it is that, is that he's seen (and described) Delhi, warts included.
At one point in the book, he's described the American embassy. He starts off by talking about the American School which does not explicitly exclude Indian students but which, according to its website, "is neither designed nor empowered to serve the needs of Indian students." After stating the eligibility criteria for Americans, the website says: " Eligibility for all other nationalities (not Indian passport holders) is limited to children whose parents or legal guardians are temporarily relocated to India for employment purposes and are resident in Delhi." Can't imagine why it makes me think of all the "English-only" places during the Raj.
The author goes on to describe an encounter at the Domestic Staff Registry in a small enclave within the US Registry. Once in the registry where he had to show his passport before entering -- Indians are apparently excluded -- he was given the CVs of prospective domestic helpers, letters of recommendation, medical test results, and comments from members of the American Women's Association who had checked up with previous employers. He says, "There were many sorry stories, full of gossip and sadness, and I read and read, entering a world of pain and pathos," wherein "many job-seekers were described in terms more appropriate to a household pet."
He read of a woman who was described as a good worker who was clean, trustworthy and who bathed regularly but whose husband was a violent alcoholic, and who had caused her to miss work because he beat her. And the husband asked the employer for money.
He read of a woman who was described as not being literate, and whose 'memory it was best not to crowd with complex instructions'.
He read of a woman who 'came with good references' but whose employer found her to be difficult and argumentative, and who thought she had a 'massive chip on her shoulder'.
He read of a woman named Sonu who was exposed as a liar and a thief. She had apparently used an imported nappy as a sanitary napkin. The employer had underlined the word imported twice. As the author points out, "this was clearly an incomplete story. We do not learn how exactly this Sherlock Holmes of an employer found poor Sonu out, or what was her version of these events. And yet just outside, sitting on her haunches like the other women, was Sonu, hoping that I or some other foreigner might give her work, presumably unaware of what her previous employer had written about her."
I can't describe the revulsion I felt for the employers when I read about the "Domestic Workers Registry", and a part of me was glad that a white person, specifically, the universally accepted standard of rationalism and reasonableness, a white man, should have written that he learnt more about the former employers through what he described as "their often deeply prejudiced accounts". And I thought of Harlan Lane who wrote of deafness from the point of view of deaf people and whose "position, as Anna of FWD/Forward pointed out, as a hearing psychologist and linguist allow[ed] him to look “unbiased”, the way men are seen as unbiased about women’s rights, and white folks are supposedly dispassionate arbitrators of what is “really” racist."
I am, nonetheless, amazed that persons would be chosen for jobs on the basis of one-sided gossip from persons whose only qualification for the purpose of providing such gossip appears to be being white. I realise that letting a rank stranger into one's home isn't a bright idea. But Indian registries that I'm aware of collect police reports, and get police verifications. Gossip is not one of the main criteria used to judge a person's employability.
And just as an extra rant:
As for the employer who was so attached to imported nappies, I don't want to know how he/she found out that Sonu had used one but I am wondering (a) how he/she managed to miss one nappy unless he/she was obsessively counting -- babies require a lot, after all, and I'm assuming that the employer had one or more babies and (b) why he/she was living with a baby in India at all, and why he/she was in India if he/she thought that India doesn't even have usable nappies. Yes, I know that jobs can demand relocation, but I also know that I would rather give up a job than take a baby to a place which I think isn't capable of manufacturing usable nappies.
Also, I'm wondering just how many of the Americans and other foreigners who use this Registry would have been able to afford the kind of domestic help they get in India if they were living at home. And whether they would have considered behaving like this if they were living at home and employing persons who were not subjected to domestic abuse, who were not illiterate and who would have been in a far better position to tell them to take a hike.
0 comments:
Post a Comment