Evolution and Rang De Basanti...

26th Jan 1950 was the day when India became a republic. The day is celebrated as a national holiday since then. Rang De Basanti was released the same day this year. It is a about a revolution. It is about the importance of having Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad even today - today when India is already free from foriegn rule. But they are needed equally badly today because even today there is injustice and the poor (and their lives) are sacrificed on the altar of luxuries of the rich (and their consumptive desires).

What the British did to Indians then, Indians are doing to themselves these days. Injustice abounds. Government turns a deaf ear to people's calls for justice. Judiciary goes blind even in the face of stark evidence. It is in this context that we need people like Chandrashekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh even today.

The movie was released more than 2 months back, then why am I writing about it today. Because much water has flown down the Yamuna in the past 2 months. There has been an unprecedented response to injustice that was meted out in Jessica Lal murder case. Jessica Lal was a middle-class upcoming model. She was bar-tending at a Page-3 party one evening, when a group of roitous young men asked her for some drinks. She obliged. But when they came again, it was past the party-time and they were closing. She politely refused. They insisted. She was stern. Then one of the boys - son of a high-fi government official - allegedly pulled out his revolver and shot her in the head. She died even before reaching the hospital. Tens of people must have seen this. It was national headlines the next few days. But, seven years after the incident, the accussed were declared not-guilty. The judge says, "I know that you did it, but the investigating agency has not provided enough evidence". Strange...

The injustice struck a chord with the people. They had seen Rang De Basanti just a few days back. They felt that they can do something. They protested against the judgement. SMSes were recieved from far and wide. People from all over the place wrote against the injustice. Media flared up the issue far and wide.

It was strange. After a really long time was the middle class shouting. They had always been the quiet class. They recieved all the goodies - though not much in terms of "luxuries", but still a very good deal in terms of what they spent and what they got.

The poor were shouting from help, but it was rare that someone from the middle class would stop and listen to the problem and work for a solution. Or show solidarity with the poor and say that they deserved more. The middle class was never bothered about what was happening anywhere else. It was not content within itself either. It would ask for more freebies from the government - subsidies on Petrol and LPG, cheap ration, free water, cheap electricity, better roads, better TV stations and what not. But it never shouted.

That millions of people in thousands of villages do not even get clean drinking water did not bother them. They had their taps running. They used (and still use) the drinking water to wash their cars. Millions of Indians have been displaced to give electricity, minerals, water and food to this so called middle class - its actually less than 5-10% of Indian population.

But middle class had come out on the streets this time - since they felt the pain of injustice - possibly for the first time in many years...

I was hopeful that this awakening would continue. That having felt the pain of being meted out injustice, this set of influential people will possibly raise their voice whenever they see injustice. I was wrong.

On 8th March, Narmada Control Authority (NCA) cleared the decks for raising the hieght of Sardar Sarovar Project dam to 121.92 m from the present 110.2 m. They said that rehabilitation has been completed upto this hieght. It came as a shock to the villagers who were yet to be given any land. 35,000 families is not a small number. It counts to more than 1 lakh people even if you consider 3 members per family.

Jessica Lal was just 1 person. She was killed in a party attended by a limited few. The middle class had still believed the story and arose to ask for justice.

Here were more than 1 lac people, who were being murdered in broad-daylight - for everyone to see - but no one came for help.

Jessica Lal did not have even an organization giving out the details of the event, for Narmada hundreds of organizations across the world are asking for Justice (check out http://petitions.aidindia.org/narmada/), but the middle class is unperturped. The PMO is silent. The President doesn't seem to care. The state governments are lying in the face of evidence. The people are suffering. But the middle class is sleeping.

But this was not why I started writing this article. I was triggered by another event.

Union Carbide plant in Bhopal leaked "unquantified" amounts of Methyl Iso-cyanide in air on the night of December 3, 1984. This was more than 21 years back. Thousands of people died on that night. Mass burials followed. A few survived. But their survival was difficult than death. They were suffering from disorders unknown to mankind. Union Carbide fled the country. It valued every life to about USD500. It gave the compensation to the government (not to the affected people) and fled.

The government did not ask for more. The government did not evaluate the damage caused. It simply took the money. It gave a few thousand rupees to the affected people. It kept the rest with itself - to develop Bhopal. The money was meant for survivors and affected families of the Gas Disaster. It was not a tax that someone had paid - to be used at the whims and fancies of some Babus sitting in air-conditioned offices in Delhi.

The people were suffering. Their problems have not yet been diagnosed. They still encounter births with congenital disorders at a much higher frequency than any general population would. More than one generation have been affected.

The disaster is counted as the world's worst industrial disaster. One would imagine that government would give them some special services - like Japan government did to the survivors of the nuclear bombings. But these people don't even get clean drinking water.

The tube-wells in the area, have all been contaminated by chemicals from the factory. The chemicals that Union Carbide had left in the open - and fled - had leached into the underground aquefiers. The Supreme Court had directed the government to provide clean drinking water to the affected localities. Even two years after the order, and one and a half years after the Supreme Court directive, they did not get drinking water.

In desperation, the survivors walked from Bhopal to Delhi - a distance of 800 km (http://bhopal.aidindia.org). The middle class people in Delhi are afraid to walk even 8 km in the scorching sun. But they did not feel the pain.

I went to show solidarity with the marching people in the last leg of about 6-8 km. It was a pity. The marchers - who had walked 800 km - were being treated as cattle by the police. They did not even get water on the way to Jantar Mantar (from Nizamuddin).

But they continued to walk. I continued to learn. I learnt that their resolve was strong. I learnt that they still forgave the police-wallahs. I learnt that even though they did not get any drinking water by the sides of the roads, they still liked Delhi - not for its people - but for the beautiful roads.

I also learnt that they did not see what I saw - that while crores were spent in beautifying roads in Delhi, even if a small percentage of this amount was routed to the gas affected families in Bhopal, they would not have needed to walk 800 km to Delhi.

But there was more learning to come.

I reached home after the march. I was not very tired. I am used to walking. 8km was not a long distance for me. I was definitely overwhelmed. I was excited about meeting Rashida di and Champa didi and Satinath Sarangi and Rachna and many others who had walked the distance and were ready to go on fast from the next day on. I was humbled by their resolve.

A few comments/ questions came my way. "Did you accomplish anything by wasting a day there?" "Shouldn't you rather contribute to the success of the country by working harder at office - working for something you are skilled at?" "Don't you think that a person could be hired at Rs.60/- a day to increase the crowd there?" "Did you not waste your day?"

I chose not to answer the questions - lest a fight ensue. But yes, I learnt more that evening. I realized that the effect of Rang De Basanti was not as real as I had hoped it would be.

I wondered that if I had gone for the candle light vigil in Jessica Lal case, would my family have responded similarly. Or would they have proudly claimed to their friends that I was there. I am not sure. I think they would not have resisted my participation there.

In fact, so strong is the feeling against my fighting for these causes that even when I went to Dharamsala - on a completely personal excursion/ adventure trip - I recieved a comment from one in the family "I thought you went there to light some candles on the road." The satire and sarcasm in the voice hit me hard. But then you have to learn to live with it.

Rang De Basanti possibly did not bring about an evolution in the middle class after-all...

Equal Opportunity Employer (and Gender)

It is a kind of a fashion statement for organizations to claim that they are equal opportunity employers. What does "equal opportunity employer" imply? To me, it implies that they give equal opportunities to people with equal caliber, independent of sex, caste, creed, sexual orientation, economic status and so on - at the time or recruitment. It also means that they are fair in their dealings with all employees - after recruitment - and base their decisions without any consideration of gender, caste etc., but go for results based promotions and incentives.

I was talking to a female colleague recently. The conversation drifted to gender equality in work places. And then I realized that there is more to equal opportunity, at least in context of gender, at work places than what seems obvious. Definitely more than what was described above.

This takes us to a very relevant question - does "equal opportunity" mean visibly equal opportunities - like both men and women getting similar salaries for same kind of work, equal growth prospects in the organization etc.? Or does "equal opportunity" actually mean unequal visible opportunities - targeted to decimate physical and social differences?

I don't know the answer. I know the needs. And, I mostly speak of the knowledge based work-force here - and that too in a patriarchal society like India. That is because of my limitation of having worked only in this kind of organizations. And I do not claim to be correct. But I am free to voice a concern.

Physically, women have to bear more - independent of the society or country they are in.

Just as an example, carrying a child is something that puts a huge burden on the women - physically, emotionally and also socially. For men, at least the physical burden of this responsibility is clearly less. Most organizations (knowledge-based) do recognize the physical burden. Therefore, women get a special maternity leave - of at least a month (based on employment status) to upto 4.5 months. This is good. At least when the child is born healthy.

But what happens if there is a complexity in the pregnancy? Quite a few of my colleagues have been advised bed-rest or less stressful work-hours during pregnancy. This might be due to long working hours (around 8-9 hours, including lunch) during which the women can't take physical rest. This may also be due to stressful (at least mentally) jobs that knowledge-based corporates usually offer. So, this is a relatively common phenomenon in intelligent, modern work-force. However, there is no respite in this situation. Organizations usually don't offer such long leaves (which may extend upto 9-11 months - based on the stage in which pregnancy complications arise).

What happens if she suffers a miscarriage? While some organizations may offer the employee to go on maternity leave, others may treat it as any other medical condition. Those who offer maternity leave - cut it out of the total allowance of 2 maternity leave incidences. Those who treat it as any other medical condition are unfair because of two reasons. First, men never suffer it - so it can not be treated as any other medical condition that any employee can suffer. Second, the condition extends beyond the physical realm to emotional and social realm also. Therefore, some flexibility should definitely be offered to the person who suffers this loss.

Are organizations wrong in doing so?
Possibly not. Businesses exist to make profit. If they don't put such conditions or limitations - then in the equal wages concept of "equal opportunity employment" - they see female employees taking away more than the fair share. Because, while on leave, employees are on the rolls of the organization (and therefore get benefits -even if no salary) - but no work gets done.

The burden of being a equal opportunity employer - in the present meaning of the term - does not let the organization to pass on this loss of business interest to the women. Therefore, in its (and the share-holders) supreme business interest, an organization needs to put such limitations, or prefer to not hire female employees.

Not hiring female employees is definitely detrimental to interests of the organization. So, it doesn't get any share of the slice of "equal opportunity employer" pie. And therefore it loses in terms of business esteem and integrity. Therefore organizations prefer to put limitations on leaves that employees can take.

But what does putting such limitations do to the life of women. Most of them end up deciding to choose between career or family. They can't continue working (if they want to give higher priority to family - which is an expectation in patriarchal society like India) simply because their jobs are not flexible enough.

The problem gains higher significance because incidences of miscarriages and complexities in pregnancies are increasing - esp. in the knowledge based work-force. This is not only because of the stressful jobs and the need to sit in a place during the working hours, but also because of an attempt on the part of women to keep going to office - despite physical discomfort - to save some more leaves for post-delivery needs.

I understand that we have been asked to believe that men and women are equals. They should be treated equally. I fear that in this quest for equality (in the face of real physical and emotional differences), we may have ended up making the field more skewed against women - at least in the knowledge based industry. The present concept of equal wages poses limitations and therefore something needs to be done.

A logical suggestion to this end would be - allow women more leaves (when they need them) even if at the cost of pay. This will at least ensure that the women retain their financial independence and that the basic needs of the child are met. While this will not compromise on the business interests of the organization it will also be beneficial for the female employees.

But there is more in it for the organization than what I mentioned above (and things are not as simple). When an organization offers more leaves (even if non-paid) to its employees, then they are in a complex situation. They had that employee in the team because that person was doing some critical work. Now, this person is away on a long leave. Even though the leave may not be paid (and therefore not a direct financial burden on the organization), it does mean that some job function in the organization suffers. To avoid this, the organization will have to bring in a new member. But what happens to this new employee when the old employee returns?

Knowledge based organizations spend a lot of time and effort (and also finances) in training people for their respective job-functions. If the new employee is to be hired on an ad-hoc basis for 3-4 months, then he/she would not add any much value to the organization anyways - for by the time he/she understands the system and working methodologies in the work-place, it would be time to move on. So, what do organizations do? To prevent the business from getting impacted, the organization may decide to hire some additional employees to fill in for the employees missing on account of leave (paid or non-paid).

Redundancy in the work-force is also not a lucrative solution because typically employees needing long leaves will be at different job functions. So, even though at a time 2-4% of the work-force would need such extended leaves, the organization will end up supporting at least 10% additional work-force. So, this again is a financial burden on the organization.

However, this is exactly where the concept of "corporate social responsibility" and the claim of "equal opportunity" comes in.

Women should have a more flexible work-space. For the years/ months when the women need more flexibility (in terms of more leaves), they may ask and be paid less than their male counter-parts for the additional leaves. They should still be considered for any salary increments (that other employees are due for) and promotions. When they decide, they can ask to switch back to the normal mode and therefore, same number of leaves as male counterparts and equal salaries. It would be great if this facility is extended to all employees (and not just females).

But the secondary financial burden (like cost of special arrangements or redundancy in work-force) should not be passed on to the employees. This is where the company will be making its contribution to undo the differences that either nature or society have introduced into the life-styles. It is after this that an organization should claim to be an equal opportunity employer. Just giving equal salaries for equal work should not qualify an employer as "equal opportunity" employer - but simply a "fair" employer

While this is one aspect of providing equal opportunities to all employees (and may be valid almost anywhere), there is another dimension to equal opportunity that organizations have to ensure.

To be able to grow like their male colleagues in the organization, females may want to work late in the office (just like their male counterparts). So, to be an equal opportunity employer, the employer has to ensure that it is equally easy for female employees also to work late. But in a place (say, like Delhi) where safety and security of females is clearly a concern, the organization will need to take specific actions to ensure safety of the female employees. These actions may not be extended to males (if the financial cost of providing it to all employees is a concern), but are definitely needed for the females.

This additional effort will ensure that females really get equal opportunities to grow in the organization, despite inequities in the society. But this also means that women will end up introducing higher financial burden on the organization.

More such gender specific needs exist - esp. in a society like India, where expectations from the women - to contribute to the family - are high and the disparities in the society against the women are big. And each of these needs may require the organization to make special efforts to make the work space as equal for women as for men.

All these efforts should come under the ambit of Corporate Social Responsibility and should be counted to give the organization a title of "equal opportunity employer".

So, many organizations that claim to be equal opportunity employers may not really be. I say so, because to be an equal opportunity employer - visibly different policies for male and female employees are needed. It is only then that an employer will be able to provide equal opportunities to men and women.

So, am I professing different salaries for male and females even in a knowledge based work-space? Yes, as a choice and for a limited period of time. And I am also professing more responsibility on the part of the organization (as part of CSR) to ensure that the work space is equal for all people.

But, is this concept of lesser salaries not retrograde? No - because this "lesser" salary is applicable only in the years when the women need the flexibility. And more importantly because I am also seeking to change the job structure to suit women more - and therefore give them "really" equal opportunities to grow without compromising on the responsibilities of the family - at least as they exist in a patriarchal society.

And, what are the checks and balances? Won't this system be misused? During my discussions with quite a few people I realized that this system - though noble in thought - can be misused by both the employer and also the employee. Therefore an elaborate check-and-balance system has to be put in place. It can be in the form of having a 'special needs cell' that has members from all departments and levels in an organization. This cell would meet as and when they recieve a request for "switching ON or OFF" the special mode of employment. They would consider every case objectively - understand the need in terms of medical reports or condition of the employee - and approve. There can also be an additional ceiling that at a time, 1-2% of work-force can be in this special mode. This should be more than sufficient because normal pregnancies will be in normal operation mode and will go on regular maternity leave. But having this mode as an option will enable special cases - which are not an ignorable number either - to be able to contribute to the organization at the best possible level.