When the interiors of the now contentious Herald House were being redone to accommodate a passport office some years ago, the daily workers who did the heavy lifting included several women with infants. With no creche provided by the contractor, who no doubt made a tidy profit on this assignment, these infants, some just able to crawl, were left to fend for themselves on the piles of sand and construction debris outside the building, in constant peril of being hit by the many vehicles that cruise down the narrow lane.
This building is a little over five km from 10, Janpath, the most significant address in India's capital city for the ten years between 2004 and 2014, and its refurbishment was to benefit either the occupant of this particular Lutyens' bungalow, her family or the party she headed, depending on the outcome of a current high-profile court case. The welfare of a handful of casual workers would, naturally, be considered too far beneath the concerns of an Indian politician involved in high policy-making to burnish her pro-poor image, but it provides a good example of the distance between politics and realities in India.
In fact, it is almost ironic that it is her estranged sister-in-law and current minister for women and child development, Maneka Gandhi, who is pushing to include a provision in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to make it compulsory for all establishments with 30 to 50 women employees (whichever is less) to provide access to creches in the vicinity.
This is unlikely to address the needs of casual women workers involved in small-time jobs like the Herald House one, but it is a start. Indeed, in contrast to her cockamamie ideas on animal welfare that ended up antagonising the antagonists even more when she held independent charge of a portfolio called Animal Care under the previous National Democratic Alliance, Ms Gandhi's approach to women's welfare has been sensible so far. Late last year, her ministry had also proposed raising paid maternity leave for women from 12 to 26 weeks, a proposal that aligns with globally recommended standards for new-born healthcare.
If both proposals are accepted into law, this government would have shown itself to be more genuinely sensitive to women's welfare than the previous government with its token women-oriented funds and banks and other impediments like mandatory women's representation on corporate boards. The real question is how far it will impact workplace practices.
Legally-mandated reform can only go that far in making workplaces more conducive to women employees. Ensuring compliance alone is near-impossible for the millions of shops, establishments and factories around India's 29 states and seven Union Territories. Establishing an inspectorate doesn't answer the purpose, since the experience with factory inspectors has demonstrated the opportunities for corruption embedded in such subjective surveys.
As for relying on voluntary compliance, the prospects for that look distinctly dim if we consider what's happening with internal sexual harassment complaints committees in organisations, which became mandatory after Parliament passed a law in 2013. Surveys have shown that over 90 per cent of Indian establishments don't have them and most aren't even aware of the law. This should come as no surprise when it was discovered that the establishment that published Tehelka magazine, which literally wore its gender-sensitivity credentials on its cover, lacked this basic requirement.
Equally, the penalties for non-compliance are not robust enough to as to act as deterrents. Under the Maternity Benefits Act, the penalty for contravening the Act is imprisonment for the employer from three months to one year and/or fines that range between a princely Rs 2,000 and Rs 5,000. Failure to have an internal complaints committee in place or to implement the recommendations of the committee attracts a penalty of just Rs 50,000 (a repeat offence can, however, attract a cancellation of the licence to carry on business).
It is also possible that more stringent provisions under the Maternity Benefits Act will encourage employers to hire fewer women (or none at all). The stark truth is that laws can rarely alter basic social prejudice. Some progressive companies, mostly those representing international brand-names, have gone well ahead of the minimum legal requirements, importing best practices from their global portfolios. A handful of Indian family-owned conglomerates point to their daughter-inheritors as signs of progress, but this is not quite the same as creating gender-friendly organisations. For the most part, Indian businesses, from family-run conglomerates to the tiny sector, remain stolidly male-dominated. Nor has the economy expanded fast enough to force them to alter this innate chauvinism. India is the poorer for it.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
