Why women are falling off the employment map

The murder of a woman in Alwar points to India’s most shockingly under-reported story on why nearly 200 lakh women have quit jobs

Neelam Jatav (right) with a colleague working on a railway track at the Gandhinagar railway station in Jaipur. Gandhinagar is India's only interstate train station run entirely by women. India is one of the world's fastest growing major economies but also has one of the lowest rates of female employment, and the trend is worsening.(AFP)Neelam Jatav (right) with a colleague working on a railway track at the Gandhinagar railway station in Jaipur. Gandhinagar is India’s only interstate train station run entirely by women. India is one of the world’s fastest growing major economies but also has one of the lowest rates of female employment, and the trend is worsening.(AFP)

All Usha Devi wanted was to give her kids a good education. The wife of a construction worker knew that her husband’s income was not enough to educate her children, Tanuja, 15, and Dheeraj, 10, and, so, she took a job at a plastic factory.

Not everyone was pleased. Incensed that she was ‘going against Rajput tradition’, her husband’s uncle, Mamraj Singh, objected and, when she refused to quit, hacked her to death on March 15. Mamraj Singh has since been arrested and the murder weapon, a sword, has been recovered. Meanwhile, at Alwar district, Rajput villagers are reportedly collecting funds for the children’s education.

The murder of Usha Devi points to India’s most shockingly underreported story. Census data, backed by the World Bank shows us that 19.6 million women from all sectors – formal and informal, rural and urban, illiterate and educated – fell off the employment map.

This decline happened, ironically, at a time of economic growth and when more and more girls are getting educated.

In the eight months that I have been travelling across India to understand the obstacles to women’s’ employment, I have spoken to IT professionals and factory workers, chefs and chicken farmers and the chief roadblock, in a word, is this: Family.

It is families that impose gender roles. It is families that tell women, regardless of whether they are managers or maids, that it is their responsibility to get dinner on the table (and clean and care for children and the elderly and, depending on where she lives, fetch water and firewood and fodder too).

If we were to take all this housework into account, women’s work would actually far outstrip that of men. But given the workload at home, very often when household incomes go up and they can afford to do so, women simply chuck up paid jobs.

In Usha Devi’s case, a relative said: “She used to wake up before 5 am and go out to collect firewood so that she could prepare food for her children.” Another added, “The house would always be clean. She was constantly trying to make the best out of limited resources.”

The message is clear: jobs are fine, but a woman’s primary responsibility is her home.

Families hold back women in another important way. A man is expected to have a job. He needs nobody’s permission. But when women seek jobs they must first get an all clear from fathers and brothers, husbands and in-laws and sometimes even village panchayats. For instance, there is a demand for skilled women in the hospitality sector but families often believe that serving food or housekeeping is not ‘respectable’ work for women and girls.

In an economy that is already facing a job squeeze, women tend to get weighed down by work deemed ‘suitable’ for them – beauty and healthcare, for instance. Job opportunities in rural areas are limited, but migration poses its own restrictions: how will she go, who will she go with, where will she stay? And when they work from home — a popular choice for those who can’t go out for jobs — they seem to be unable to move beyond the low returns of pickle-papad-tailoring ventures.

Apart from the family, there are other constraints like safe and affordable public transportation. Women often opt for low paying jobs simply because they are close to home.

Safety is certainly emerging as a concern. More than 80% of sexual harassment takes place in public – on the streets, in public transport, in marketplaces. Does it play a role in keeping women home? I would imagine that it does.

Educated women are leaving jobs faster than others. An IIT graduate with a master’s degree from the US told me that she quit because she couldn’t take the long hours. For her, as with most mums, 6 to 8 pm at home is sacrosanct; the only time they get with their children.

A few companies have begun looking at gender diversity but they are the exception. In the IT industry, women have an edge at entry-level with 51% of all new hires. But by mid-career, this dwindles to 30% and, at the very top, only 7-8% remain. Why?

If you examine the career trajectories of men and women, you will find that by mid career, men will have changed more jobs and taken more foreign postings than women. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to have taken breaks and sabbaticals for children’s board exams or to look after ailing parents.

We know why it’s important to have more women participate in the paid economy. Equal participation could boost GDP by 60%. Equal participation would improve women’s status in families and in society. It would lead to better investment in their health and education.

“Women’s economic empowerment is highly connected with poverty reduction, as women tend to invest more of their earnings on their children and community,” wrote Annette Dixon, World Bank vice president, South Asia, in a blog.

Usha Devi only wanted a better life for her children, for them to have the education she herself had never received.

No woman should ever have to die for this.

@NamitaBhandare writes on social issues

The views expressed are personal

The lamentable humiliations of Hadiya

At the heart of this controversy lies not so much the right of a woman to choose her religion and spouse, but society’s attitude to women

Twenty-four-year-old Hadiya (In red dress) at the Supreme Court, New Delhi, India, November 27, 2017(Vipin Kumar/HT)Twenty-four-year-old Hadiya (In red dress) at the Supreme Court, New Delhi, India, November 27, 2017(Vipin Kumar/HT

We should be grateful for small mercies. On International Women’s Day, a day when hashtags were declaring ‘Time’s Up’ and ‘My Body is Mine’, our highest court reaffirmed a more basic right: the right of an adult citizen — woman citizen, I should clarify — to marry.

Social media was split into two camps: Those still convinced that the 24-year-old Hadiya was a victim of brainwashing and, thus, incapable of making rational choices, and those celebrating the court-ordered granting of her ‘freedom’.

But at the heart of the Hadiya controversy lies not so much the right of a grown woman to choose her husband and religion, but prevailing attitudes towards women by society at large. Seventy years after Independence and despite a Constitution that guarantees us equality and dignity, we are simply not to be trusted when it comes to decisions about personal life choices, particularly if those choices don’t meet with social approval. Well into a new century, women are still viewed as the property of their fathers and, then, husbands. It is not good news and certainly not worth celebrating.

Hadiya’s marriage to Shefin Jahan following her conversion to Islam has been problematic for not just her father, a self-declared atheist, but also the state and several Right-wing organisations that see a larger conspiracy of love jihad — an evil plot, in their eyes, that involves the seduction of gullible young Hindu girls by wily Muslim men with the express purpose of converting them to Islam. But the theory in this case falls flat: If Hadiya married Jahan — a man she met on a matrimonial site — after conversion, where is the conspiracy to convert her?

In a ghastly turn of events, in response to a petition filed by her father, the Kerala High Court ordered Jahan not to have contact with his wife, gave the parents ‘custody’, and even annulled the marriage on grounds that a “girl [sic] aged 24 is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways”. This was done despite numerous affidavits filed by Hadiya asserting that she had not been coerced into either conversion or marriage. But for the court, there was no question of granting this ‘weak and vulnerable’ woman agency.

The March 8 Supreme Court verdict does overturn that pernicious judgment. Did it have any other choice? A court-ordered NIA probe into a larger conspiracy angle continues, and one must wait to find out what evidence our anti-terror organisation eventually unearths.

And, yet, uncomfortable questions persist, starting with a scrutiny of why the marriage needed to be restored in the first place. After all, the right to marry, says Indira Jaising who, along with Kapil Sibal, represented Hadiya and Jahan in the Supreme Court, is a fundamental right.

Why didn’t the apex court reunite Hadiya and grant her freedom in November itself when it ruled that she could continue her studies under the ‘guardianship’ of her college principal?

In which democracy must an adult woman literally beg for her freedom before three judges? The very fact that we should talk of ‘custody’ and ‘guardianship’ of a 24-year-old woman is obnoxious. And it is the job of courts to protect individual civil liberties, not behave like a khap panchayat in whisking away disobedient daughters, says lawyer Apar Gupta.

The treatment meted out to Hadiya has been unjust, humiliating and cruel, and no compensation can be possible.

One wonders just how many Hadiyas are out there, battling social and parental pressure so that they can steer their own destinies? How many have the mental stamina to withstand such a prolonged pressure?

It should not have taken a court battle all the way to the Supreme Court, sustained media attention and a dogged pursuit of justice by Hadiya to win her freedom. That it came on a day when women all over the world were asserting their right to equality and freedom only reinforced the irony.

Namita Bhandare writes on social issues and gender

Twitter: @namitabhandare

The views expressed are personal

The lamentable humiliations of Hadiya

At the heart of this controversy lies not so much the right of a woman to choose her religion and spouse, but society’s attitude to women.

We should be grateful for small mercies. On International Women’s Day, a day when hashtags were declaring ‘Time’s Up’ and ‘My Body is Mine’, our highest court reaffirmed a more basic right: the right of an adult citizen — woman citizen, I should clarify — to marry.

Social media was split into two camps: Those still convinced that the 24-year-old Hadiya was a victim of brainwashing and, thus, incapable of making rational choices, and those celebrating the court-ordered granting of her ‘freedom’. Continue reading “The lamentable humiliations of Hadiya”