DC Debate: Recognition to woman household works

The masterpiece judgement, delivered by Honourable Justice Bhanumathi, held that “ . . . . We often forget that the time spent by women in doing household work as homemakers is the time which they can devote to paid work or to their education. This lack of sensitivity and recognition of their work mainly contributes to women’s high rate of poverty and their consequential oppression in society, as well as various physical, social and psychological problems.”

These observations formed the basis for enhancement of compensation to the family, which lost its homemaker in a tragic road accident. Can we as a society be pleased with this concept being confined to cases of motor vehicle accident claims, where the quantum of compensation for the deceased homemaker is being decided? Should we not do some introspection and accept that this concept should be extended to a woman when she is alive and serving every member of the family? Or should we agree to the posthumous recognition of services of women to her family and accept the compensation, which again is her posthumous service to her family!

Often we come across cases, where the husband nags his wife claiming that she is not earning or contributing towards the expenses of the family. This is one of the most common reasons for NRI husbands to send their wives back to their parents’ homes and eventually seek severance of marital ties.

A lot of emphasis is laid on women’s empowerment. The empowerment envisaged is aimed at giving economic independence to women. But the time has come to work towards restoration of dignity and financial security of women in general, and in particular to those who dedicate their lives to service of their families. The agony of such women, who are sometimes forced to knock on the doors of courts for their sustenance cannot be described in words. This situation is definitely attributable to the insensitivity of society towards the existence and needs of such women.

Laws in our country do not give married women any right except maintenance, which includes shelter. Much hope and expectations were awakened by the enactment of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In reality, the Act is giving little to women.

The judgement of the Apex Court, affording protection to the properties of in-laws from residence orders, may be right in cases where such protection was given in the circumstances of the case. But its application universally is affecting the rights of many women, even in arranged marriages, where the very same in-laws participate at every stage of the marriage from selection of the bride for their son to making demands for and receiving dowries.

Laws and judgements essentially reflect the state of affairs in the society. But this one judgement is definitely an eye opener for a society, which has placed material needs above human values. S. Vani, Supreme Court advocate.

However, these efforts have not been able to explain how this information would actually translate into compensations when accidental deaths of women take place; or how women will be compensated when they get pregnant, give birth and raise kids; or even when women would like to retire from active domestic work.

Lack of conceptual clarity on women’s work, and its significance for replacing labour (through their fertility) and recycling of labour (through their domestic and care work) and reproducing cultures (through their emotional and socialisation activities) has severe implications on women’s employment opportunities and the way society provisions for women within work places, communities and families.

Women’s work, which contributes to social reproduction, needs to be widely acknowledged. I think this is a sensitive judgement that has brought to focus the value of women’s work and the need to recognise and pay attention to it. We need many more judgements that recognise women’s contribution, but not “essentialise” it as something that only women can do.

While all lives are important, the evaluation of the loss of the housewife in this case is far too less in monetary terms. For example, there is a loss of ‘investment’ made on her, from childhood until the time she died, by the family and the state. The loss of each adult life, which would have contributed productively to society through paid or unpaid work, needs to be at par with any worker who dies during the course of delivering his/her responsibilities.

If the government or private parties were to compensate for deaths of men, women and children due to road accidents or while delivering everyday work like fetching water, firewood or facing sexual assault due to lack of toilets; or school buses meeting with accidents at level crossings, etc., then there would probably be a greater sensitivity to loss of life. At the moment, as a nation we are insensitive to loss of lives.

The courts are the right bodies to provide guidance and directives on such matters. As an old Chinese saying goes: “Domestic work is like threading beads with no knot at the bottom of the thread”.

Families will understand the significance of women’s domestic work, only when women refuse to do them each day, day after day. Often, all kinds of work and labour that women do within families are made invisible by branding them ‘a part of women’s wifely duties’, ‘primary responsibility’ and a part of ‘natural’ division of labour. By doing so, women are conditioned to think that all other public domain work participating in employment, being visible in public spaces, engaging in leisure activities outside home; participating in politics or taking up careers are viewed by families and often by women themselves, as an ‘add on’ which they should learn to juggle.

Acknowledging that all the work that women do for families can be remunerated monetarily, provides the possibility to place the value of all domestic work at par with market rates. Lakshmi Lingam, Dy Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences.