REPLY :
The question involves at least three issues:
1) National problem concerning dignity of labour;
2) A self-dependent working student’s problem of discouragement from his society; and
3) Job-discrimination by people at work place.
I would like to add one more dimension which is latent in these issues, i.e. the aggravation of the problem further if the person being undignified / discouraged / discriminated happens to be a woman, in the Indian context in particular, and in the socio-economically backward communities, bereft of the awareness of women power, in general.
For the first issue of non-, or token-existence of ‘dignity of labour’, the problem is better viewed from human psychological aspect, then socio-economic or any other dimension. For example, do you do all your chores yourself? Presumably not. Depending on our capacity to spare some bucks, we prefer to hire the services of others. The frequency and extent is a matter of capacity, which varies from individual to individual. When we can walk easily a good number of miles, we tend to take hand-pulled Rickshaw even for a distance as small as one mile, to save on our time and energy.
And this tendency (part of our mentality) has something to do with one’s economic, social and intellectual status and ‘perceived’ priorities.
When we are penny-less, and status less of course, we happen to do everything that we need to fulfil our basic necessities, ourselves. If we find, at the end of all efforts, ourselves still jobless, we don’t hesitate to stoop even to begging (by non-energetic / handicap people) or stealing / mugging (by physically capable people). Because, at that point, we need to have money for survival. We don’t care what others opine about us / our work / or methodology. Because, at that point, we recognise only of one power, i.e. ‘purchasing power’ which comes through money.
If, and when, that stage is overcome somehow, and the person has some surplus money beyond his basic requirement of food, clothing, shelter, affection and biological satisfaction, the question of better time utilisation vis-à-vis higher order needs arises. One tends to quest for gainful knowledge / information through which some sort of social belonging and recognition comes through, and better deal in life is achieved. We realise that we have got something else to do to satisfy ourselves, as per our taste, capacity and opportunity. We begin to identify and correlate ourselves with these newfound tastes and capacities, which were inherent in our personality but could not surface due to lack of opportunity. At this stage, the surplus money is spent on these activities, and some basic chores that were hitherto being done by ourselves, are relegated to be done by others, albeit at a ‘sparable’ cost. Objectively, we curtail on some of our tasks, and add new tasks, which we consider ‘more important’. The stage is thus all set for classification of tasks / labour as ‘important’ and ‘not-so-important’. Psychologically, this is the starting point when the ‘labour’, in our sub-conscious mind, suffers indignity. We engage domestic helps and since we know we have parted with the tasks that have been identified as ‘unworthy’ of our job or attention, we tend to treat the ‘help’ derogatorily, assuming, by this way, we are distancing ourselves with the unattractive / unwelcome tasks. In fact, the subject of our attack is the ‘task’ itself, which gets reflected in the behaviour towards the ‘person’. But, when we were in the position of that ‘domestic help’ or even lower, we had no qualm or scruple against the work / task and other similarly lowest ranked tasks though in sub-conscious mind it used to be abhorred.
It is a matter of ‘human-necessity fulfilment-position’ brought about by fluctuating ‘purchasing power’ and the sense of insecurity (for deficiency) associated with it, that our priorities get continuously modified to keep us in balance with our internal and external environment.
To move further on our discussion, at this point, we have two-pronged outlook towards different tasks and functions that we come across,
a) One is derogatory (as noted by you);
b) The other is of holding them with respect or awe (i.e. ‘dignity’, as wished by you.)
The tasks, which we are capable of doing ourselves, but due to availability of numerous options / alternatives, have discarded them as ‘unworthy of our effort / time’, we tend to frown upon; while the tasks which tend to fulfil our ‘financial’ needs or ‘social status’, but are unable to get it done without great effort or price, or are unable to perform due to lack of resources, technicalities, ignorance, physical incapacity or distance, or circumstances, etc. are held in awe or respect (dignity) if it carries with it the tag of some sort of social or other achievement.
In the given example, since the domestic helps in India, are easily available at a bargainable cost, we do not hold such labour in dignity. On the other hand, the labour involved in the coaching for our wards undergoing a vocational course, which we are unable to impart (because of special skills involved in it), and the people at the Coaching Centre are held in some dignity by we guardians. Even a subordinate staff finds due respect from us, which back home, the domestic help, doing the same job, is deprived of. Interestingly, in the very Coaching Centre, more often then not, the and affluent proprietor is found to treat the faculty with the same treatment, as the help in our backyard gets.
The demand-supply position and the skill category the task falls in, is responsible for this sorry state. The Scientists sitting over there at BHABHA RESEARCH INSTITUTE, or similar other SPACE RESEARCH CENTRES have not only the highest pay perks in the country, but enjoy the greatest respect for their job, because these jobs require high skill which is hard to get to, for mortals with low IQs. This proves that, higher the material and social accomplishments associated with the task, the greater the dignity for the labour. In the above cited case, had the Coaching Centre proprietor got the faculty with great effort or difficulty due to non-availability of their type or number, and retaining them would pose serious challenge, there would have been a qualitative and diametrically opposite attitude towards the faculty, like the one enjoyed by the ‘Scientists’ as stated above. There is no exception to this ‘psychological’ rule which is very much governed by the social and economic conditions, namely, demand for, and supply of, the labour, conclusively and decisively defining the magnitude of its dignity or otherwise, for or against the person going out to ‘offer’ it.
Now, the question arises, whether this phenomenon is universal or limited only to the Indian sub-continent / Asian / developing countries. We find ‘pay disparities’ in almost all the countries including the ‘developed’ one. Except, some erstwhile socialist countries, this rule is absolutely true. In those countries, the pay-disparities are somewhat reduced, but of late, they are also coming to terms with the ‘market economy’ and have begin to offer discernible pay packets and authority for highly skilled jobs.
The question of dignity of labour therefore, is directly associated with the monetary compensation and authority (social status) it can bring to the incumbent.
Now, having found that price tag plays decisive role in the attraction or otherwise for a job, we are now specifically concerned with the question of dignity associated with it. One should remember that our Indian civilisation is as old as the humanity itself. We have rich intellectual and spiritual heritage. Our great ancient social and philosophical administrators, comprising Rishis, Maharishis and Brahmarishis, had threadbare analysed the human nature, their capabilities and shortcomings, as also the disposable natural wealth and resources, and after much deliberations for removing the human miseries, had designed a balanced social system on the basis of which every individual could timely settle in their respective chosen field, discovered at an early age, through a team of experts appointed for the purpose, and could attain great heights and satisfaction in his life and contribute best to the collective development of the society in particular, and the mankind in general. The Vedic system of Varna & Ashram for all had its origin in those perfectly researched and prescribed rules and standards. We have description of that age in some of the invaluable scriptures, which is an eye-opener for the modern day economists and sociologists. No one was allowed to engage in an activity, which did not match his grooming or capability. Social control on individual was total and absolute. And surprisingly no one complained of any excesses either, on this account. The satisfaction level was highest. Since no one treaded into the fields reserved for others, mutual respect and co-operation for each other’s occupation and capabilities were worth noting. The Indian mindset that we find today is psychologically deeply imbued in those practices and despite higher educational or intellectual accomplishments, has never been able to come out of the sheds of those pasts.
This may somewhat explain your concern for one’s dislike to labour of some kind or description, because most of us had some sort of dream before being settled in job not of own choice but out of compulsion of circumstances, are not contented with one’s own skill level and class, not to speak of opportunity which remained elusive all through. The society is totally disorganised, fragmented, and has lost sense of responsibility, discipline, and direction in the name of modernity and progressiveness. All established institutions, which used to oversee the compliances from every individual irrespective of his status, and provided redressals for breaches, have long ceased to have any efficacy. We have one after another - compounding problem to aggravate the situation further. Over-population, illiteracy, ignorance, rise in immoral practices and crime, weakening and subjugation of womenfolk to an alarming level, control of resources by criminal elements in the name of democratic set-up, poor public policies and corrupt administration, all-round dissatisfaction and rise in cessationist forces and terrorism, hypocrisy in the name of caste system, mad race for material achievements in preference to moral integrity, etc have left the concern for mutual respect much behind, and perhaps to the point of no-return. The dignity of labour is therefore an inevitable casualty.
The developed countries do not face such problems e.g. over-population, illiteracy, etc as described above. Therefore they have shortage of labour force, which explains why they have no ill feeling for so-called lower order jobs.
Coming to the Second issue, where a student working for financial independence is discouraged, I don’t see possibility of such a scenario, at least in the lower class or even in the middle-class, unless of course, if the person concerned happens to be a girl from a conservative family. The social condition and poor protection system for women, having regard to the rising crimes against women in our country, is responsible for their apprehension which is more for the benefit of the young lady to save her from a later stage trauma and social stigma due to any eventual mishap of worst description, then meant to discourage her.
For a young man determined in earning while learning is a positive sign of his self-dependence and must be respected by all and sundry. If some obstacle comes his way, he must not feel let down, because one who is morally upright can withstand any onslaught to his integrity fearlessly. Exercise patience and chalk out your goals having regard to your resources. Never daydream. It may not lead you to any result, reward or recognition.
For the Third issue of discrimination at work place, it should be remembered that the owner / senior at the work place has the prerogative to deal with matters according to his likes or dislikes. Since he is the paymaster, he must get the value of his monetary sacrifice. This may cover his expectation from his staff / subordinates. No one can interfere with his judgement, if he is an honest, self-disciplined, hard-working, judicious, dynamic, creative, ambitious, benevolent and intelligent person. After all, he cannot have blind faith in modern day human beings who are as unpredictable as ever. Trust takes many tests before settling down with the question of characteristic integrity of the trustee. Here again, one should not sense discrimination, because it is, if at all, temporary. It will fizzle out once you have proved your capability, loyalty and worthiness to the organisation. Discrimination occurs only when there is suspicion about the character of the incumbent. One should try his heart out to erase all such suspicions and see for oneself the goodwork being handsomely rewarded sooner than later.