& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

OPINION

Of Servants and Masters

Kaiser Kabir
My sympathies to Ms Fayza Haq who has been having a disappointing time with her servants as eloquently stated tn the Dhaka Day by Day Article "Where Have All The Servants Flown" (Star 11 Aug). Infect her servants are so inefficient, pathetically melodramatic, and incorrigibly ignorant that she feels that "I see no remedy for this apart from departing into a more mechanised and industrialised life". A* a passionate proponent of industrialisation In Bangladesh. I am always glad to hear of another supporter. However, the context in which the recommendation was made by Ms Haq leaves a bit to be desired. Rarely have I come across such a lopsided case made against an exploited class such as that of servants. I feel that a rebuttal is definitely Justified on the grounds of human rights. This short essay has no empirical foundations apart from casual observation and I sincerely apologise to those concerned If (he generalisations which characterise this piece are divorced from the true practices.
Servants in Bangladesh do not have written and legally enforceable contracts within which they could define and agree to the scope of their duties. The present structure of contracts are verbal and informal and they only deal with a very broad description of duties and determination of the salary level. Yet such a skeletal labour contract would be inconceivable in many industries. The following are examples of a number of important elements which are conspicuously missing from the present contracts.
• There are no specified working hours. The supply of the servant's labour is expected to be extremely responsive to the needs of the employer. For example, if the employer has to catch a train at 4 a.m.. the servant is expected to be up at that time as well. Moreover, the servant cannot expect to receive compensatory payments for having to get up at such an unreasonable I hour
• The servant has almost a negligible right in refusing certain jobs, such as cleaning faeces, removing dead rats etc.
• The servant cannot expect to have weekly or monthly holidays except under very special circumstances. Furthermore, a long serving servant cannbt expect to get the benefit of a pension or a similar scheme.
The treatment of servants greatly varies across employers in respect to salaries and living conditions. However, the trait across employer household remains the same — that provisions beyond a subsistence living, especially human dignity are redundant or at best extras.
There Is in fact a deep seated apartheid within the home of the employer. Although very likely the hardest working member within the household, the servant cannot expect to sleep on a proper bed, take meals with other members of the house, consume the same quality of food or use the same utensils used by the employer and his/her family. Worse still, the servant is not expected to express dissatisfaction over working conditions or demand the respect due to a human being
The humiliation faced by the servant is probably not unknown to the employer. Yet the apparent inertia of the latter tn creating a better working environment for' the former is mind boggling. Could it be that the wide asymmetry tn education, financial endowment. and overall superior status of the employer explain* the status quo. Yet. does not the employer come into contact with person* with superior education or wealth? In sueh circumstance* does not the employer expect to be asked to sit on a chair, share a meal, and tn general be treated with respect? If so. why cannot the servant be entitled to the same expectations? Why should she/he be subjected to
such a high degree of hypocrisy?
Some may point out that in some corporate and bureaucratic hierarchies a kind of master-servant relationship Is the norm. However, this by no means legitimizes the masterservant relationship at liome. . The practice of a retarded relationship at a higher strata of society is no excuse for its practice at lower levels.
Avery clever argument used by the employer Is that the servant would feel uncomfortable and out of place if treated like an ordinary member of the household. Undoubtedly this la true in many cases. Yet the sjl perficiahty of this argument is' contemptible. The poor self image of the servant is most likely the result of several years of exploitation. It is the duty of the employer to make the servant aware of his/her -basic human rights, rather than using his/her disadvantaged status for continuing morally reprehensible practices.
The fact of the matter Is that the employers of servants have so far had very little incentive to respond to the die-crimination faced by the former. Two facts stand out over the years — first, the supply of cheap domestic help far exceeds its demand ; second, a servant generally does not have other marketable skills and hence has little alternative but to accept poor working conditions. These two factors combined have given the employer* a lot of bargaining power in the market for servants, which in turn has led to unrealistic expectation* about the fu- L tiona of a servant.
Of course, as economic opportunities widen we may expect improvement* In the contractual terms under which a servant is hired. But given the economy of Bangladesh one cannot expect such change* to take place In a •hort while. Hence, we may wait for decades, or alternatively take up the t**ue of nr-vant* right* a* a moral obit* tion. Unfortunately, article* such as "Where Have AN The Servants Flown' turns the sue on it* head