A critique of Udit Bhatia’s paper ‘Coronavirus and the Constitution — II: Household Staff &Employment Protection’

By Aman Agarwal

Introduction

This paper is a response to Udit Bhatia’s commentary titled ‘Coronavirus and the Constitution – II: Household Staff and Employment Protection: Obligations, not Charity’ dated 26 March 2020 where the author argues that during the nationwide lockdown, there exists an obligation on behalf of individual employers to continue offering income to their household staff as a matter of duty rather than a charitable good. He further asserts that the absence of a welfare state without robust income redistribution policies puts the onus on the employers to provide protection to their household workers when they cannot fend for themselves. Mr Bhatia attempts to substantiate his claim by exploring three hypothetical cases involving relatively well-off individuals to substantiate his arguments.

While providing one’s employees during difficult times is indeed a noble act, to blame employers for having elected governments and guided policies as beneficiaries of the system is a claim that requires scrutiny. The aim here is not to extend support to a particular group but rather critique ideas that are fallacious and biased.

Government for the people

Throughout the article, the author points out that the absence of a welfare state in our country is the reason why obligations have to be placed on the employers to look after their household workers which include cleaners, cooks, laundry staff, security staff, amongst others. The system in power which does not provide adequate benefits to the poor by lacking an effective income redistribution policy, serves the interests of the rich (here: employers). Hence the lack of a welfare state has contributed to the wealth and advantage of the rich while there has been no strengthening of the benefits in place for the poor. He further states that the positive actions of the rich, such as the politicians they elect and their omissions, mainly their unwillingness to speak about the gaps in the social safety net, renders them complicit in morally relevant ways. Hence the employers, i.e, the relatively well off, are the beneficiaries in the current system who are indirectly responsible for the lack of benefits that must be available to the poor in a welfare state.

However, the central problem with this argument is that in no way can the rich be held accountable for electing a government that serves their interests. Article 326 of the Constitution of India states that elections in the country shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age. Hence every adult in our country, rich or poor, has an equal value of vote.

Another uncontented assertion here would be that India comprises a large section of population who belong to the relatively poor sections of the society and would need benefits during emergencies or otherwise. The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) survey, based on a classification of the total voter population into four main categories namely poor, lower, middle and upper class, estimated that about 53 percent of the voters belonged either to the lower class or below. From here it follows that they have had a say in electing governments throughout our history. Hence it is against the spirit of our democracy to hold a certain section of people responsible for bringing a government to power.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in power can be examined in this regard in terms of its vote share. The NDA won the 2014 Indian general election winning 282 seats and came back to power in 2019 increasing its seat count to 303 receiving 37.36% of the votes cast.

When we examine the 2014 Lok Sabha elections both numerically and with respect to alignment of preferences, we find that the poorer and lower classes have voted more for BJP than Congress or any other party.

Even if we were to believe what Mr Bhatia has to say with regards to the current system being pro-rich, analysis of its re-election in 2019 could be a useful metric. However, the numerical conclusions state otherwise. In the 2019 elections to the Lok Sabha, there had been a sharp increase in the BJP’s vote share in rural constituencies of 7.3 percentage points with the difference between the party’s vote share in urban and rural constituencies reducing from 8.9 percentage points in 2014 to 3.5 in 2019. Further, the party increased its vote share the most among the lowest economic strata. While this by itself may not be conclusive that all the poor want the current government in power, the increasing vote share amongst the poor is at least indicative of some pro-poor disposition. Let alone the current BJP government, portraying any government as one propped up by the rich to work against the interests of the poor would be hasty generalisation or ideological delusion.

While it cannot be denied that every party receives funding from wealthy individuals and corporations, the claim that such a party when elected would only serve the interests of the rich while neglecting the needs of the poor is fallacious. The rich may be beneficiaries in any such system but this does not imply negligence of the needs of the poor by a bourgeoise propped up regime which actively works against the interests of the poor. In a polity with universal adult franchise wherein about 53 percent of the people comprise either lower class or below, for a political party to be actively engaged in benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor is a loss of large numbers of votes and thus loss of power. Hence, the. exclusive pro-rich agenda of a government is against its very own interests.

Addressing the point regarding the existence of a welfare state, Article 38 of the Indian Constitution reads: “The state shall strive to promote the welfare of people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice-social economic and political-shall pervade all institutions of national life.” The BJP government has brought about numerous financial schemes for the poor like the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN), Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana to name a few. Under these schemes, the government has so far taken a calibrated approach to offering relief and a welfare package for farmers, the poor and workers in the unorganized sector during the COVID-19 lockdown. Steps are being taken by the state to help those who need it amidst the lockdown instead of no help at all as conveyed by the author.

Classification Problem

While Mr Bhatia believes that the cases he presents may have solved the two problems arising out of his claim, namely the ‘blamelessness problem’ and the ‘specification problem’, there exists a third and probably the most important problem which I call the ‘classification problem.’ His premise is based on the assumption that there are two kinds of people, the relatively well off and the household workers. The rich employers elect the government of their choice which serve their interests and they also unjustly benefit from the services rendered by their household staff. This binary classification of the society into two distinct groups is an error to begin with.

The fact is that there are some financially well off individuals who are going out of their way by providing help not only to their employees but also other helpless people in large numbers. Some are setting up stalls distributing food while others are making small or large donations to various funds that are attempting to help the needy. Consequently, the identity of unjust exploiters cannot be attached to the rich because a huge number of them are helping the country out as noble philanthropists.

However, some among the relatively well off, as he mentions, may have suffered losses as a result of the lockdown leaving them incapable of providing income to their workers. Students and working professionals who have taken massive salary cuts may not be able to provide for their employees. The pandemic has brought misfortune to not only the poor but also for the ones who otherwise operated at the margin or with limited budgets to make ends meet. These people cannot be grouped into the category of well off employers under the current circumstances. Hence this binary classification fails the test of reasonable differentia.

Even among the individuals willing to extend help, there are many who are incapable of doing so because their employees may be lacking digital platforms to receive money. It would be foolish on the part of those who are breaking lockdown guidelines to help others. In fact, such acts put the lives of both the helper and those he helps at risk. Primum non nocere (First, do no harm) is the best help one can provide under certain situations.

Coda

The Prime Minister’s plea that employers must continue to pay their household staff must be looked at as a call for help coming from those capable and when possible. Trying to look at this from a lens of preconceived notions is a judgement problem on the part of the author. While he holds the Prime Minister guilty for missing the ‘normative relationship’ in which private employers and their household staff find themselves, he himself fails to take into account the ‘relationship’ between the state and the individuals.

Even though there is no doubt that the household workers should be adequately compensated by their employers. during the lockdown despite no services being offered in return, it should not be reduced to a plutocratic narrative. The state needs to ensure the survivability of every individual by making adequate arrangements and any help from the relatively well off. should be appreciated. However the inability of some to do so due to situational constraints should not be termed as disrespect to moral injury.

About the Author

Aman studies Economics at the Shri Ram College of Commerce and is a research intern at the IYEA.