By Elishya Perera
(Commonwealth Union)_Late last month, a court in Switzerland issued a prison sentence to four members of the UK’s richest family for mistreating domestic workers at their mansion in Geneva. Having been found guilty of exploitation and illegal employment of staff brought over from India, Prakash Hinduja and his wife, Kamal, each received a prison sentence of four years and six months, while their son Ajay and his wife, Namrata, received four-year terms each.
The workers alleged they were paid as little as £7 ($8) to work 18 hours a day, only a fraction of the amount required under Swiss law, while their passports were confiscated by their employers and they were rarely allowed to leave the house. The prosecutor, who requested custodial sentences as long as five and a half years, also claimed the family spent more on their dog than on their servants.
The defendants argued the workers received ample benefits and were allowed to leave the villa whenever they wanted, adding that the working hours were exaggerated to include time spent by the workers watching TV with family members. They went on to claim that the employees had agreed to the working arrangements and “were grateful to the Hindujas for offering them a better life”. “We are not dealing with mistreated slaves,” Nicolas Jeandin, one of the lawyers of the accused, told the court.
The case made headlines in the United Kingdom and across the globe given the fact that the Hindujas are the wealthiest family in the UK with a fortune of £37 billion and interests in finance, media and energy sectors and business expanded across several countries.
However, the Hindujas are not the first Indians to make world headlines for exploiting their domestic staff.
Other Indians who made headlines
Earlier this year, Former High Commissioner of India to Australia, Navdeep Singh Suri was ordered to pay a penalty of $97,200 to one of his domestic workers for violating the Pacific nation’s Fair Work Act. The Federal Court heard that he had paid less than $10 to Seema Shergill, who had worked seven days a week for 17.5 hours a day for more than a year at the then-High Commissioner’s residence in Canberra. Shergill’s responsibilities included preparing meals, cleaning the house, maintaining the garden, and walking his dog, and her salary was paid to an Indian bank to which she did not have access while in Australia.
The Former High Commissioner, who was found to be in breach of Australia’s Fair Work Act on nine counts, was ordered the maximum penalty the court could have enforced. In her written judgement, Justice Elizabeth Raper described Suri’s treatment of his domestic worker as exploitative and akin to “slave-like” conditions.
Back in 2014, Devyani Khobragade, India’s deputy consul-general in New York, was charged with underpaying her maid and providing false information about her wages to immigration authorities. The diplomatic incident, dubbed “Nannygate”, involved Khobragade’s mistreatment of her maid Sangeeta Richards, an Indian national, who also alleged that police routinely harassed them at the instigation of Khobragade’s father.
India’s treatment of domestic workers
These incidents have provided an opportunity for India to reflect on its treatment of domestic workers back home. One cannot argue that these cases lend seamlessly to an analysis of workers’ rights in India, but does prompt some discussion on the matter. Plenty of Indians treat their maids, nannies and drivers well, offering decent wages and time off, paying for treatment when they are ill, treating them respectfully and showing gratitude for their hard work. Some Indians even educate their workers’ children, help pay for family weddings and pay them a lump sum on retirement and a monthly pension thereafter.
However, the situation is not so pleasant for a large number of domestic workers across India. Their employment is informal and often underpaid and a legal contract between domestic workers and their employers is rare. Formal working hours are unheard of among domestic workers. They are given a list of chores and once they are completed, more work is dumped on them, sometimes chores that are not within their scope of work. For instance, if the cook is on leave, the nanny or the driver may be asked to prepare meals.
When the employer and his family are dining out, they may take the nanny with them to tend to the children. However, she will not be allowed to sit with the family nor will she be allowed to eat from the restaurant. The driver, who drove them to the restaurant will be asked to stay on call, although they do not need to be driven back for a while. So the nanny will be standing looking miserable, hungry and out of place and the driver will be in the car, baking in the heat. Even back at the master’s home, the workers will have their meals in a separate area, off separate plates and glasses. They are not allowed to use the family’s cutlery and crockery nor allowed to eat anything in the fridge.
If one of the workers falls ill, the employer will either pay for their treatment with much irritation or will just send them off on the next train back home. The workers sleep either in an available corner or a passage of the house. In certain households, so-called servants’ quarters are available but they are often tiny rooms with a low roof, no windows and an inside latrine. Workers are expected to stay standing in the master’s presence, speak to the master with reverence and have their meals sitting on a mat or the floor.
These issues pale in comparison to the abuse and brutality some workers face in certain households. There are many reports of physical abuse, use of abusive language, restriction of movement and even situations of forced labour and sexual exploitation of domestic workers. Live-in workers are more vulnerable to such physical abuse and harassment. Back in 2013, an Indian MP’s wife was arrested after a servant working at their home died of severe injuries. She was accused of torture and death of her maid and beating a child servant at the couple’s New Delhi home. Over the years, there have been countless reports of maids in India, some in their early teens, who face severe physical abuse, including being slashed with knives and mauled by dogs.
Lack of legal protection
Millions of domestic workers across India remain vulnerable to such abuse and exploitation because they have no legal protection and social security, despite the significant contribution they make to the economy. The International Labour Organisation defines domestic as “work performed in or for a household or households” including cleaning, cooking, washing and ironing, taking care of children, elderly or sick members of a family, as well as household pets, gardening, guarding the house and driving for the family. According to government data, in July 2023, a total of 28 million domestic workers were registered in India but experts believe the actual number could be twice this figure because many domestic workers do not register themselves.
Therefore, it is time the government introduced new laws to protect those engaged in household work. While the Code on Wages of 2019, Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions of 2020 and Social Security Code of 2020 are aimed at providing decent working conditions and wages, and addressing grievances of all categories of workers, there are no provisions in these laws that address the specific needs of domestic workers. This has left them totally at the mercy of their employers.
While new laws are needed to protect the rights of domestic workers, these laws need to be executed by the state governments for them to have a meaningful impact. In January this year, the government of Kerala announced plans to bring new legislation to ensure the welfare of domestic workers. The proposed law, which recognises domestic work as formal employment, ensures minimum wages, fixed working hours and decent working conditions for domestic workers. The draft of the Bill will include the rights of domestic workers and the responsibilities of employers and private placement agencies.
This is an opportunity for other states to follow suit and introduce new laws and comprehensive labour policies to protect the rights of these vulnerable groups.
