CASE NARATIVE

SETU
Introduction:

The term ‘unorganised sector’ refers to that part of the economy where the employment
relationships, wages and other working conditions of workers are not regulated or
protected. By this criterion, the total labour force, according to the 1991 census was 317
million. The organised sector comprises 8.5%, i.e., 26.8 million whereas the unorganised
sector comprises as many as 91.5%, i.e., 290.2 million.

Such a large population of unorganised labour has its own implications for both the
working class and the economy. For the workers, it means exploitation by way of low
wages, unfavourable working conditions, contributing to a poor quality of life and human
development. For the economy, it indicates a great proportion of non-articulate and
poorly productive labour with low levels of awareness and commitment.

Unorganised labour in the urban areas constitutes workgroups such as hawkers,

construction workers, casual labour in factories, domestic workers; workers in home
based industries such as rolling bidis, making food items, repairs of household appliances
like electricians, carpenters and load carriers (AILS/MKI, 1988, Sethuraman 1981).

The College of Social Work did not want to be merely an academic institution, teaching
Social Work courses, but wanted to respond dynamically to the new emerging social
realities. This is essentially the basis for the nine projects of the College of Social Work.
As unorganised labour forms 92% of the total labour force, the College has shown keen
interest to be involved in the realities of these workers’ lives and problems.

SETU – GHAR KAMGAR SANGHATNA, is a field-action project of the College of

Social Work, Nirmala Niketan, Mumbai. It was initiated in 1992 and is involved in
organising and conscientising domestic workers. Setu emerged from the Danda Housing
Project, which worked with the slum population of Khar Danda on the housing issue.
Like other College projects Setu aims at ​empowering the powerless and developing their
human potential.

Most of the domestic workers in the city are migrant workers. Migration occurs largely
due to caste or family oppression, displacements due to large-scale development projects
in villages, famine, drought or restricted employment opportunities in rural areas.
Increasing numbers are added to this work force everyday. In 1951, there were 61,690
domestic workers in Greater Mumbai. A study conducted by the Social Welfare
Department of the Maharashtra government (1990) revealed that there were about 78,000
women domestic workers in Mumbai. The NGOs working with domestic workers quote
present (1998) estimates at 3-4 lakhs in Mumbai and 9 million in major cities in India.
The problems encountered by domestic workers can be enumerated as follows:
i. Absence of legislative protection​:
None of the existing labour legislations are applicable to domestic workers, as
they are not considered as “workers”. They also lack political and social power to
influence policies and plans.

ii. Lack of critical awareness​:

They are hence unable to be organised as domestic workers and this results in
further exploitation. Secondly, they are physically scattered, illiterate and unable
to maintain communication amongst themselves and hence also vulnerable to
exploitation.

iii. Lack of employment security​:

Employers decide their wages arbitrarily. There is no provision for days off, no
old-age and other social securities available to other workers even in the informal
sector. Dismissals are arbitrary and no work contracts exist between employer and
domestic workers.

iv. Insecurity about personal safety and stigma of work​:

They are liable to sexual harassment, physical and verbal abuse. They are primary
suspects if anything is missing in the house and may be arrested and harassed by
the police. The work carries a stigma for young girls as their prospects for
marriage are adversely affected.

v. Nature of work​:
Domestic work is arduous, with no rest periods. The poor nutritional status of
such workers and consequent ill health has an adverse effect on productivity.

vi. Dependence on kinship, caste and regional ties for employment and survival:
Domestic workers depend on such contacts, particularly full-time domestic
workers.

The College of Social Work initiated intervention in the Khar Danda slum community
from 1969 onwards. A formal setup known as the Nirmala Niwas Chuim Community
Centre came into existence in 1969, established by Nirmala Niketan. It very soon became
an independent body.

The slum community consisted of fresh migrants. To make an intervention within the
community, the primary entry point was the crèche, as this facility would ensure that the
mothers could go to work without worrying about the safety of their children.

From the 1980s, the housing issue was prominent in Danda slums. There were questions
raised as to whether the slums should be authorised, photo passes issued to the slum
dwellers to prevent eviction, etc. Around this time, land on which the slums were situated
became very precious.

Since Chuim Community Centre (CCC) was functioning with a major focus on service
delivery, the College of Social Work wished to make another intervention in an urban
slum around the issue of housing, with emphasis on people’s participation and
community organisation. Due to the change in perspective, in 1985, the College started
the Danda Housing Project (DHP).

The gender perspective developed with the housing issue. The DHP initially worked
mostly with men. However, whenever any conflict arose during the day, the men were
not there and women had to deal with it. According to the Director, “When the land
collector came during the day to collect the rent, the men were not there. Women had to
face him. So we began to realise we had to organise the women, empower the women.”

Women were involved in the day-to-day issues around the house. Thus the project
realised that they had to empower them and make them the main target groups. This led
to the focus on women. Those utilising the crèche and Balwadi of the CCC were targeted.
The project thus used the services generated by CCC as an entry point to conduct
meetings, take up health matters, hygiene, and child health.

While working on the housing issue, it was realised that wages were a very important
component of income. In these contacts with the women, it was realised that these were
largely female-headed households where women were the critical breadwinners, whereas
men were casual labourers or not working or squandering money on drink. It was also
realised that housing has implications for wages and the focus was shifted to the wages
received by this category of labour. It was learnt that 85% -90% of these women are
domestic workers and one vital area of exploitation was the work situation.

The life history of SETU has been divided into four phases.​ ​The first phase began
in 1989 and has been elaborated below:
Phase - I (1989-1992)

This was a phase characterised by a deeper awareness of the work and living conditions
of the domestic workers. It was also characterised by efforts to mobilise domestic
workers and conscientise them about this issue. These efforts were successful also
because the domestic workers were organised into a task centred group called Gharkul
Kamgar Ekta. There was thus a positive response from the client group towards the
efforts by student social workers to conscientise them. Setu had not been initiated then.

The work with domestic workers was due to the efforts of student social workers placed
with Danda Housing Project (DHP) with the responsibility of researching into the
domestic workers’ issue and later working towards organising and mobilising them. It
was an experimental entry into the domestic workers’ issue, which was tried out through
DHP and as mentioned earlier, received a good response from the client group.

ENVIRONMENT

The Client Group

While working on the housing issue, the gender perspective emerged and led to a focus
on women. While working in the slums and conducting meetings with women availing of
the services of Chuim Community Centre (CCC), it was realised that 85%-90% of the
women were domestic workers. Through the meetings, it became obvious that domestic
workers face an exploitative work situation with no job security, no social security, no
medical benefits and no leave. Above all, it was a realisation that there was no
recognition that they are “workers” which led to their being denied any legislative
protection. As student social workers researching the issue in 1991-1992 said: “​they have
a low salary, no holidays, no bonus, no overtime.​ ”

In this phase, there was research done into the domestic workers’ life situation and work.
It was found that these domestic workers are mostly women who are part-timers. There
are several employers and one employee which results in various demands being put on
one domestic worker by several employers.

The student social worker conducting her research on this group said: “​Domestic workers
go to work after finishing their house work. If they are late for work they have to hear
from their employers. The problem is the difference between part-timers and full-timers.
For part-time workers, employers always complain that workers are not on time that they
are not regular. When we discussed this, we found employers create this problem. The
previous employer asks them to do a little extra work, resulting in them being late for the
next employer. Full-time domestic workers do not face these problems because there is
one employer and one domestic worker…” ​She found that such a work situation creates
psychological tension for the domestic workers because they fear losing their jobs. There
is this redundancy aspect to their work which domestic workers have to deal with and
supply always outstrips the demand for domestic workers.
Besides work, their life situation is also difficult. If they are unmarried, then domestic
work carries a stigma and it becomes difficult for them to find a suitable match. If they
are married they have other problems in terms of inadequate food, being beaten by their
husbands, having the responsibility of looking after children and the household chores.
After completing their household work, they leave the children with the grandparents or
older children and go to work. Some finish work in one household in the morning and
have to go again in the evenings. If they return late in the evenings, they have to face
their husband’s suspicion.

According to a social worker (1991-1992) ​“A woman domestic worker’s life is very
rushed. She has to get up early in the morning to finish her house work, leave the
children in the crèche before 9 a.m. and then go to work. Women come back to the crèche
between 1.30 and 3p.m. , depending on when they finished their work. Some women go
again in the evening and then they have to leave their small children behind in the care of
older ones. The work maybe for 10-15 minutes but they have to travel distances. At end of
the day she is very tired. During the day she has to face different moods of all the
different employers. If they come home late, their husbands suspect them.”

Chuim Community Centre and DHP

Setu has not yet been started. It was an experimental foray into the issue. At the request
of the director of DHP, to focus on the domestic workers’ issue, the College of Social
Work placed student social workers with DHP at the CCC.

Employers
There was interaction with the employers in this phase. The student social worker
(1991-1992) took up cases of harassment of domestic workers by employers and paid
home visits to these employers. There were cases where the employer was not paying the
dues of the domestic worker, or where the domestic worker was falsely accused, or
dismissed from the job. The student social worker (1991-1992) took up these cases and
the outcome was to the mutual satisfaction of the employer and domestic worker.

Police
Another strategy used to build up the confidence of domestic workers was to reduce their
fear of the police. The domestic workers thought that their employers would take revenge
if they speak up against them. They would probably accuse them of some theft.

The student social worker (1991-1992) at Khar interacted with the police inspectors of
police stations at Khar and Santacruz. The purpose was:
1) To rectify the perception in society that domestic workers are thieves. It was felt that
irrespective of whether the student social worker was present in a time of crisis, the
domestic worker should be supported as a member of Gharkul Kamgar Ekta (a group
created through the efforts of the student social workers 1990 – 1991). If there was a
problem either the Gharkul Kamgar Ekta or DHP should be contacted by the police
station.
 2) To give the domestic worker the emotional security of having an ID card of Gharkul
Kamgar Ekta that would support her.
3) To provide the domestic worker further security on a personal level in cases of
family harassment, wife beating, harassment by husband where she could go with
ease to the police station, register a complaint and be confident that she would get a
hearing.

The target group area came under Santacruz police station, and Hanuman Nagar was
under Danda police station. A meeting was organised with police authorities in
Santacruz and Khar so that the police became aware that domestic workers were being
organised. At this meeting, the police pointed out that there were many cases of theft, etc.
involving domestic workers. Hence, it was decided to issue ID cards to domestic workers
belonging to Gharkul Kamgar Ekta. These ID cards could be shown to police authorities
and they would be identified as belonging to the organisation. After this meeting, police
were also very cooperative and in some cases have helped the organisation too.

STRATEGY

Vision:
In 1989, the issue of women domestic workers had arisen. According to the Director of
Khar Danda Housing Project (KDHP) and Setu (which came into existence later):
“… we realised around 1989 that they (domestic workers) were being exploited as a
group. It just stared us in the face and we felt we could not avoid taking it up as an issue.
Besides, it was so linked to housing that we felt we had to begin organising them.”

The vision for this phase was to focus on these women domestic workers as a group,
research into their life and work conditions and move towards organising and mobilising
them on this issue. It was a very experimental initial foray into the issue and with positive
results the project later came into existence.

Goals
The goals around this phase were not very concretely formulated. It was not an
independent project but being looked at and worked upon by the student social workers
placed with DHP by the College of Social Work. They were tuned in to the response of
the client group. The goals appeared to be as follows:
1) Awareness of domestic workers as a group.
2) Research into their work and life situation–to know more about their condition.
3) Conscientise the domestic workers on the issue.
4) Organise them into a collective.

Objectives
Various objectives arose as work on the domestic workers’ issue progressed. All actions
were finely tuned to the response from domestic workers. This was crucial since it was an
experimental foray into the issue of domestic workers. It was yet to be seen whether the
domestic workers would be conscientised or get organised since the issue had not
emerged actively from them. Each programme with the domestic workers was
formulated keeping in mind the above goals.
Approaches and Methods of Intervention
Approaches used were the same that were adopted when starting DHP – the concept of
community organisation /mobilisation, building the capacity of clients to take on their
own issues and to enable clients to actively participate and take decisions in matters
pertaining to their issue. The change in focus from service delivery to participatory
approach with which DHP began was maintained here.

The methods of intervention were: research, group work (meetings with women domestic
workers), case work (to handle cases of harassment by employers of women domestic
workers), community organisation for which the strategy of ID card was used and an
identity created for domestic workers as members of Gharkul Kamgar Ekta.

Programmes

Research (1989-1990)
The student social worker placed with DHP in 1989-1990 initially had to work on the
housing issue and later on shifted to the domestic-worker issue. She conducted an initial
survey on the domestic workers.

It was found that most of the domestic workers in Khar Danda had part-time jobs. The
main difference between part-timers and full-timers was in the number of employers.
Part-timers had many employers and one domestic worker would work in several houses.
This was a source of psychological tension for domestic workers. They have to face
different employers, different moods and personalities and thereby different demands. In
the corporate sector, if an employee has to report to more than one supervisor in the same
organisation, it is considered a poor structure. It is believed to have an adverse impact on
the employees’ capacity to function effectively.

Meetings with Crèche Mothers (1991-1992)

These meetings were conducted once a month by the student social worker (1991-1992).
There were sessions on nutrition, care of children, preparing low-cost food. The purpose
of these meetings was to build a relationship with the mothers coming to the crèche. Most
of these women were part-time domestic workers.

The women gradually began to relate to the student social worker and to share their
problems with her. After the meetings the student social worker (1991-1992) would ask
the domestic workers to wait for a further 10-15 minutes. She would then discuss their
problems and get their opinions and views. She used research methods with them to get
to know more about their problems, their life and work situation.

Meetings were also used to create awareness about the exploitative situation that they
faced as domestic workers, to conscientise and organise them, eventually mobilise them
to unite to fight for their rights as domestic workers. The final decision rested with the
client group. According to the Director of DHP and Setu :​“If they organise and come
together they can do it. We would provide awareness; we would provide support in terms
of showing them the road to be travelled … start a dialogue with the government, help
them come together as a group.. but it was largely their issue; we told them if they want
to go ahead, we are there with them. If they don’t fine.. when they are ready they can tell
us.”

Individual Cases (1991-1992)

Individual cases of harassment of domestic workers by employers were taken up, such as
peremptory dismissal from jobs and accusations of theft. It was crucial at this stage to
build the faith of domestic workers in the efforts of the student social worker and in the
domestic workers’ issue, to keep the conscientisation process progressing smoothly. This
was the purpose behind taking up such cases. Although they are a method of intervention,
they became a concrete strategy. By presenting the other side of the picture to the
employers, the student social worker was able to get some mutually agreeable solutions
for the domestic workers and employer. The success of these cases led the domestic
workers to believe:
1) their situation can change; they need not always stay exploited
2) in the efforts of the social workers at DHP
3) in the need to organise themselves and fight for their rights.

Community/Area Meetings (1991-1992)

Area meetings were held in the community. Initially 2-3 women would attend and the
other women in the community would flock around in curiosity. As a result, slowly the
participation in area meetings also increased. The student social worker would discuss the
issues of domestic workers. Area meetings were conducted for the following objectives:
1) to increase awareness among the community women about the domestic workers’
issue
2) to elicit their active participation and involvement in the domestic workers’ issue
3) to increase the strength of client group and thereby generate increased support for
the issue.

Gharkul Kamgar Ekta (1991-1992)

While handling cases individually, it was realised by the Director of DHP and Setu that
casework alone was going to have a limited impact, what was also needed was to
organize the workers. The purpose of starting a group called Gharkul Kamgar Ekta was
to organise the women, to help them feel a sense of identity, of solidarity, of security
that a group was there to support them.

Issue of ID Cards by Gharkul Kamgar Ekta (1991-1992)

This move had the following purposes:
1) To identify with a group called Gharkul Kamgar Ekta which was dealing with the
domestic workers’ issue (something unheard of hitherto).
 2) To give the existing members a feeling of belongingness and security that they were
not alone and were representatives of a group.
3) To attract new members to the group. As there were photographs taken of the
domestic workers, it was an attraction in the community for the women to have
their photos taken and be given an ID card.
4) To give them confidence in the power of the group, particularly if they were to face
the police in a time of crisis.

Police Meetings
The student social worker (1991-1992) placed at Khar, interacted with the police
inspectors of Khar and Santacruz police stations. She organised meetings for a half days’
duration at CCC for domestic workers and the police inspectors, to create a platform for
dialogue and mutual co-operation.

STRUCTURE

Organisational Structure: PHASE I (1989-1992)

The organisational structure of Setu in this phase has been graphically represented below

Setu Khar Danda

|

Research Organising Working Police

Domestic workers with Meetings
● Gharkul Kamgar
employees
Ekta
● Area groups
● Selection of leader
● Training programmes
● Issuing of ID cards

Roles and Responsibilities

The present Director of Setu and DHP was guiding student social workers placed by the
College of Social Work with the specific responsibility to look into the domestic
workers’ issue. The social worker of DHP was also guiding the student social workers.
The Director would have weekly meetings with student social workers and monitor their
work and progress.
PROCESS

It was an experimental foray into the domestic workers’ issue using the student social
workers. At the end of this phase, when the entry into the issue had been quite successful,
the project Setu began and a social worker was employed.

Decision Making
The Director made the decision to start working on the domestic workers’ issue.
From the account of the student social worker (1991-1992), it was understood that the
Director of DHP gave broad guidance only. The student was quite independent and
allowed to deal with basic tasks. The Director did not impose her own ideas but would
elicit the participation and views of the student on what could be done. She preferred to
use discussion wherein the student could also put across her views, which would be
discussed, usually to a mutually agreeable decision.

Planning, Monitoring Evaluation

This was usually done through weekly group conferences of the student social workers
with the Director of DHP and later Setu. Besides the group conferences, there were
individual conferences where students would discuss the work they were doing. Six-
monthly and yearly evaluations were also conducted.

Performance Appraisal
Evaluation of the students was conducted once a year and monitoring at each half term
apart from the day to day monitoring – regular monitoring every week at individual and
group conferences.

PERFORMANCE

The outputs were as follows:

1) The initial foray into the domestic workers’ issue was successful. It received a
positive response from the client group.
2) The positive response from domestic workers themselves was quite crucial, as the
issue had not emerged from them. The social workers working on DHP had found
that housing was linked to wages and the women in Danda slum were mostly
domestic workers. The response of the domestic workers manifested itself in the
formation of a task-centred group called Gharkul Kamgar Ekta.
3) This was really the beginning of Setu. Once it was seen that domestic workers were
accepting this issue as their own, willing to come together to fight and mobilise for it,
it was a signal for the intervention with domestic workers’ issue to move onto a new
level. This new level was the expansion to include full-time domestic workers, the
opening of a new centre at Walkeshwar for them in the next phase and the birth of
Setu.
4) The Director realised that the concept of community organisation and participatory
approach could work in this issue as well.
5) A collective consciousness of domestic workers as a group of a certain kind of
workers, entitled to certain rights and benefits had emerged. According to the
Director, “​A certain collective consciousness was born that they are a category of
workers… a certain kind of workers…domestic workers. So they began to see
themselves… as they had not been seen before. That I feel was the most tangible
outcome.”
6) Domestic workers also felt they were supported by an organisation, their employers
could not treat them the way they did earlier and they could speak to them as equals.
7) There was a success rate of 25%-30% while handling the cases, which proved a
useful method cum strategy to put the other viewpoint across to the employers. It also
proved to be a major motivating factor for the domestic workers themselves to
involve themselves and participate in the struggle for their rights.

PHASE - II (1992-1994)

This was the phase when Setu actually started the intervention. Since the initial foray into
the domestic workers’ issue had elicited a positive response from the client groups and a
collective consciousness developed among domestic workers. It was now decided that the
project should come into existence, though the name Setu had not yet been decided.

The project worked with another category of domestic workers – of full-timers. It was a
phase wherein the grassroots became very strong, enabling progress into the next phase
of lobbying, networking and awareness generation at all levels. In this phase a student
social worker (1992-1993) initiated a centre at Walkeshwar. The next student social
worker (1993-1994), eventually joined Setu in June 1994. This was another stabilising
influence on the growth and progress of the project.

ENVIRONMENT

Client Group
The client group in this phase expanded from part-time domestic workers who were
mostly women domestic workers at Khar Danda, to include full-time domestic workers
with a new contact centre beginning at Walkeshwar.

Initially there were only girls at Walkeshwar but it was realised later that there were also
boys employed for domestic work. These boys wanted to come to the Walkeshwar centre.
The girls consented to the boys being allowed to join and in 1993-1994, the boys were
also permitted to attend the literacy classes. Thereafter the client group in Walkeshwar
increased in strength. The boys would bring in other domestic workers interested in
literacy. They slowly increased in number; however, eventually the girls dropped out.

At Khar Danda, work continued with part-time women domestic workers, who had
formed a group called Gharkul Kamgar Ekta, with the efforts of Setu and the student
social worker (1991-1992).

In 1993-1994, the student social worker of 1991-1992 joined Setu as a professional social
workers and resumed her work with domestic workers. The women domestic workers at
Khar Danda approached her on any issue concerning them.

The Project Director felt that fatalism and being treated like objects were the reasons for
an attitude of hopelessness among the women. According to the Director, ​“They say to
themselves ‘we don’t matter to anyone. We are not persons.’ Then you speak of struggle
and rights. This was language that was so unrealistic to them. It was always, ‘how can
this ever be? Even in terms of wages, if we dare to ask for more whatever little we are
getting will also stop. So half a loaf is better... Please don’t ask us to fight.’ So we (at
Setu) let it go at that, we did not rush the pace we said if you are happy with that it is
fine; but we feel things will change…”

A domestic worker who was confident, articulate and outspoken was selected as leader at
Khar Danda. She eventually entered the organisational structure in the third phase as she
was paid a small stipend for her efforts to mobilise domestic workers. She was quite an
outspoken and courageous woman and had a bitter experience as a domestic worker with
a family in London. She was made to do a lot of work, given a very poor diet and when
she asked to be allowed to return to her family, her passport was not given to her. Her
experiences made her strong and she realised that all domestic workers had problems.
She thought of starting a group wherein all could face their problems together and that
was how she came in contact with Setu. ​“ ..we used to have meetings every month. Setu
used to sit with us and tell us what we never knew, how to solve the problems. Setu
started telling us, how to get together, how to form a group.”

She described the difference between CCC and Setu as being: ​“Nirmala Niwas was there
with us… Today we can go further. Setu is there with us. They can fight for us. So that is
the big difference. Before Nirmala Niwas used to tell us what to do, what not to do, where
to go. Yet earlier, we had to go and fight for those issues. But today, Setu is there to fight
for us. They can say okay, we are there. Don’t worry whatever happens we are there, we
will come with you. That is the difference between Nirmala Niwas and Setu.”

Employers
The employers who were approached or contacted by the project were those employers
whose domestic workers came to Setu as its clients.

There were employers’ meetings at Khar Danda whereby using the pretext of training
domestic workers, employers were introduced to the organisation. Eventually their
participation in the domestic workers’ issue was sought and they began to see the
domestic workers’ point of view. The employers were also a part of a society, which was
not conscious about the issues of domestic workers, that the domestic worker is a human
being and entitled to rights and benefits. Slowly some of the more humane ones among
them began to see that they needed to show greater understanding.

However, the employers meetings at Khar Danda did not meet with such a favourable
response. Sometimes there were about two or three members and sometimes none at all.
The work with employers however proved successful and they began to realise the other
side of the story.

The strategy of home visits and interactions with employers at Walkeshwar was also
developed.

The College of Social Work

Setu is a field action project of the College of Social Work. The College provides the
project with material realities such as space and infrastructure. The philosophy,
perspective and the knowledge base of the College is provided to each of its projects. The
College wanted to be more than a mere academic institution teaching Social Work
Practice to students. It wanted to dynamically respond to emerging social realities. This is
the basis behind all the nine projects of the College of Social Work.

Unorganised labour forms 92% of the total labour force in India. Thus, the College has
shown a keen interest in being involved in the realities of these workers lives and the
problems that they face at work.

Setu is a part of this initiative. The relationship of Setu with the College is an informal
one. Setu keeps the College informed about broad decisions such as the Public Interest
Litigation filed by Setu. The College has agreed to be a respondent in this litigation.

According to the Director of Setu, being a part of the College of Social Work provides
Setu with a wealth of knowledge and expertise. There is plenty of borrowing of practical
experiences, expertise and strategies between projects, both consciously and
unconsciously. The College being an educational institute enables projects to keep
abreast with new knowledge and theories and to implement these in Social Work
Practice. The credibility of the College helps to push through many social interventions,
by way of the projects, in society and with the Government. The secularity of the College
is trusted and the College is seen to have no vested interest in undertaking these social
interventions. There are some limitations, which arise out of the College being primarily
an educational institution affiliated to the Mumbai University. The College may be
unable to take a very militant and activist stance.

Networking with Pune Molkarin Sanghatna

Pune Molkarin Sanghatna (PMS) is an organized group of part-time domestic workers
very similar to Setu. To instil hope in the members of Setu, these women from PMS
would be invited by Setu to share their experiences of their long years’ struggle and
achievements. Leaders from Setu were sent to visit PMS to boost the former’s morale and
again instil hope that their cause was attainable.

Donor Agencies
Setu has a single sponsor – an educational organisation in Japan called School Sisters of
Notre Dame (SSND). It funds education initiatives for those sections of society without
access to education. It tries to promote education in the broadest sense, to the largest
number of people, particularly in the developing countries. Besides Setu, it funds some
other projects in India concerned with educating under-privileged groups.

The Director of Setu explored the possibility of funding from SSND in 1992. By 1992,
the College had decided to start Setu, using a non-threatening approach such as literacy
with the client group. Literacy for Setu was a means of conscientisation and
empowerment of the client group.

Funds are given twice or thrice a year depending on their utilisation. Funds are received
by the Foreign Contributions Regulatory Authority (FCRA) in the college. The FCRA
requires special permission from the government. The SSND funds are used mostly for
salaries of social workers. The requirements from Setu are submission of an annual report
and an audited statement of accounts. SSND officials visit Setu once a year to get
first-hand information on the progress of the project.

Student social workers try to raise funds locally for programmes of Setu, by approaching
individual donors and companies. Setu also asks domestic workers to make their
contributions, however small, to encourage their participation.

STRATEGY

Vision
By 1992, it was clear that Setu had to be started. The Director said that the vision of
Setu was to be a bridge:

♦ Between isolated and scattered domestic Workers,

♦ Between domestic workers and their employers and
♦ Between domestic workers and society at large.

Goals
The goals grew out of the vision. These were:
1) To bring the workers together and develop a collective strength.
2) To create a feeling of solidarity to fight for their rights as a group.
 3) To build a bridge between employers and domestic workers and ensure the
emergence of a positive, equitable, respectful, just relationship between these two
groups.
4) To bring the attention of the government and policy makers to the issue of
domestic workers and to obtain protective legislation for them.
5) To create awareness about the issue of domestic workers at all levels.

The professional social worker (1994-1996) said, ​“Up to 1994, the goals were never put
down but they were there at the back of our minds.”

Objectives
The objectives were in keeping with the goals and even in this phase they were
environmentally fine-tuned. They related to the immediate needs of the client group.
They were generated for each programme, home visit, and meeting with domestic
workers.

Approaches and Methods of Intervention

The approach was totally people’s participation. Client group was told that Setu would
provide awareness and support but it was largely their issue. The Director would tell
them: ​“We will make you aware of it, help you to come together as group start a dialogue
with the government. We would take this trouble but ultimately it is your wish. If you
don’t want to–fine – when you are ready you tell us.”

Since it was the International Year for Literacy, in Walkeshwar, the strategy used to enter
the community was a non-threatening activity such as a door- to-door survey on literacy.
Employers were then persuaded to send their domestic workers for literacy to the centre.

Methods of intervention were meetings where group work and conscientisation was done,
followed by organising and mobilising them. There were meetings with employers,
casework and visits to the homes where domestic workers stayed or where they worked.
Outside cases were also dealt with and research methods were used to initiate the
Walkeshwar centre. The initial entry was by way of a door-to-door survey on literacy.
Interactions with the person in charge of St Elizabeth’s Hospital for space led to their
offering their recreation room for the literacy class.

The Director of Setu mentioned: "​Methods of intervention used were casework, group
work, employers meetings. Basically awareness generation through meetings, using
puppets, flip charts, various methods to create awareness of the situation -- to instil some
hope".

Programmes

The programmes in this period were:

Community/Area Groups
Separate groups were formed in different areas and the reach of the project was
expanded. Also the student social worker (1991-1992) joining Setu as a professional
social worker helped the domestic workers feel there was continuity in the work. Area
meetings were continued which increased participation from the community. Thus
separate groups for each area was created.

In 1993-1994, the minimum wages and holidays of the workers were being discussed The
above discussions were part of a process of conscientisation and awareness generation to
elicit their feedback about the problems they faced and what they felt they should
deserve.

Around this period, four group leaders were selected to organise domestic workers’
meetings at the CCC. These had to ensure that their members attend the meetings which
were organised in evenings in different areas and separately for crèche mothers. Once in
three months, a common meeting was organised.

Employers Meetings and Casework

Setu felt that intervention with the domestic workers alone would not solve the problem.
Experience from handling cases had shown that in the interaction with employers when
presented with the side of Domestic workers, the more humane employers were quite
sympathetic and ready to understand. It was agreed that they also study the problems
faced by employers. The domestic workers feared this move from Setu might make them
lose their jobs. The entry mechanism was home visits to employers during which they
were informed that the domestic worker uses the crèche facility. According to the social
worker, ​“We said she is a member of the crèche. She keeps her child in the crèche and we
would like her to develop in an all-round manner.”

This was the method used but the actual intention was to organise the employers and later
on discuss the domestic workers’ issue with them.

The Director was present for the employers meetings. The decision to organise employer
meetings was taken with the Director. At these meetings, they would discuss employer’s
problems and ask for suggestions regarding the skills that should be taught to domestic
workers. But the meetings did not progress much further though all interactions with
employers had the effect of sensitising Setu staff to the concerns of the employers. The
interaction proved useful when developing and formulating the code of conduct for
employers and domestic workers in Phase IV- (1997-1998).

Casework with employers continued and Setu began to take outside cases too. There was
a case at Khar Danda where a domestic worker was accused of stealing Rs.2 lakh from
her employer. This girl was not a member of Setu. However one of the members of Setu
members referred this case and said that she knew the girl well, and that she could not
have stolen the money. The contact generated with the police in 1991-1992 helped
greatly and the social worker was allowed to talk to the girl personally and the police
were cooperative. It was decided that they would not tell the girl’s mother about the
situation as she was suffering from heart disease and there could be further problems. The
girl’s sister was informed of the case.

The social worker (Khar 1993-1996) requested the police inspector to arrest the girl the
next day. This was done so as to enable the girl to go back home and inform her mother
that the employer would be going away for some days and she would have to stay in the
employer’s house. The police supported the Setu social worker and he allowed this move.
The girl was in custody for a week and then released on a bail of Rs. 2000/- generated
through contributions from fellow domestic workers who gave Rs.50-100/- each. It was
later learnt that the daughter of the employer had stolen the money. The case was
withdrawn and the domestic worker got back the Rs.2000/- that had been paid on her
behalf as bail. Taking up such cases and getting a just and equitable deal for the domestic
workers created a standing and greater support for Setu amongst the client group. They
showed increased willingness to come together on this issue.

S​ election of Community Leaders

Around this period, four grassroot leaders were selected who would organise domestic
workers at the CCC. These leaders had to ensure that their members attend the meetings
regularly.

These women domestic workers were outspoken and interested. They were ready to take
the risks involved and invest the time required. They were informal leaders and Setu
reinforced that leadership by giving them opportunities to meet other people, attend
training programmes after which they would then come back and report to the group.

Training Programmes
Training programmes were of two types: skill-training programmes and issue-based
programmes. Skill-training programmes, e.g., included the skill of sweeping - techniques
used in sweeping. These programmes benefited both employers and domestic workers.

There were leadership-training programmes, on issues currently facing domestic workers

such as rationing. The leaders would be sent to these training programmes which would
teach them about the public distribution system, its functioning and action to be taken to
remove gaps in functioning. The leaders got this information and training and came back
and reported to the group. This helped the group to take action and reinforced the
leadership among the women. Women domestic workers spontaneously began turning to
them to handle cases and problems. According to the Director of Setu, ​"They became the
group’s leaders."

Networking with Pune Molkarin Sanghatna

Setu would invite one or two women members of PMS, a group that Setu was in touch
with working in Pune. It was a part-timers’ group very similar to Setu. These women
from PMS would share their experiences of their eleven years’ struggle and
achievements. Setu domestic workers felt that this talk of rights was inspiring. Once or
twice leaders from Setu were sent to visit PMS to boost their morale and again instil hope
that their cause was attainable.

Awareness Generation Amongst Domestic Workers in Other Areas of Khar Danda:​

The feedback from the women domestic workers who were Setu’s members was that they
were so few. All this talk of rights, benefits and minimum wages was good but as they
worked in residential areas of Khar and Bandra there were women domestic workers who
would also come there from other areas, not just from Khar Danda alone. Thus they
feared if they made demands they would risk losing their jobs. They felt it was necessary
to create some awareness by going to these buildings and speaking with other domestic
workers as well.

This feedback from the client group was incorporated. Two leaders from the domestic
workers’ group were trained and had become community leaders. They would stand near
the entrance of the buildings and meet the women domestic workers there. But
unfortunately at this point there was a deviation in plan.

Deviation in Plans
Towards the end of 1994 and the beginning of 1995, the housing issue came up strongly
leading to a change in focus, from the domestic workers’ issue to that of housing. This is
discussed in the next phase, Phase III - 1994-1996.

● At Walkeshwar
In 1989-1990, a student social worker was placed at Khar Danda and had seen the issue
of domestic workers just emerging. In 1992-1993, in BSW III, she was placed with
Regina Pacis, an agency dealing with full-time domestic workers. She was keen on
developing some strategy with domestic workers. There were conflicts with the welfare
approach (followed by Regina Pacis) as the College encouraged the social-action,
community-organisation approach among students intervening with unorganised labour.

At that time, the Director of DHP - the present Director of Setu- was thinking of starting
a project for domestic workers. The question since 1989 was whether they should start
this project. This student social worker (1992-1993) encouraged this. The Director said,
“At the end of first term I told her we are thinking of starting a field-action project for
domestic workers and you are going to be the pioneer or guinea-pig. You have to be
ready to take this challenge. You wanted to do something now the field is yours. You
demonstrate. We will give you whatever support we can but you will have to give it all
you have got.”

“We found an area with a high density of domestic workers – Walkeshwar. We found a
place at St Elizabeth’s Hospital. We seized the opportune time, the International Year of
Literacy. Given all these supportive factors the student social worker was really very
involved in all this. She did not spare any personal cost to herself and she got this group
of 20-25 girls organised by the time she finished her fieldwork in March 1993.”
The centre at Walkeshwar thus began and the programmes were:

Door to Door Survey on Literacy

It was the International Year of Literacy. With this as an advantage, the student social
worker (1992-1993) conducted a door-to-door survey on literacy. She used literacy as an
entry point into the issue of full-time domestic workers. During this survey, it was
realised that the domestic workers were illiterate. The student social worker followed up
this survey with visits to employers requesting them to send their domestic workers to the
literacy classes at St Elizabeth’s Hospital in the afternoons between 3-5 p.m. Since this
was a totally non-threatening approach, the employers readily agreed. In this way, the
student social worker (1992-1993) was able to organise a group of 20-25 girls by the time
she finished her fieldwork.

Literacy Programme
A student social worker (1993-1994) was placed at Walkeshwar because she had
specifically asked for a domestic-workers placement since she was curious to know how
this issue would turn out. When she joined the centre at Walkeshwar the work had just
started. She mentioned: ​“on my first day there were 18-19 girls at the centre. It was
primarily a literacy activity going on.”​ After she joined, other programmes were
initiated.

There was an employer who volunteered to conduct the literacy classes. According to the
Project Director, ​“ … For about two years (1992-1994) she came regularly, she taught
them, gave them so much of love and concern. When the student social worker
(1993-1994) who also joined Setu as a professional worker in 1994, was placed at
Walkeshwar that year, the volunteer’s husband retired and they went to Andheri. It was
difficult for her to come from there. By then the student social worker (1993-1994)
decided to join the Setu team and she went on to provide a stabilising influence…”

Home Visits and Continuation of the Literacy Programme

The student social workers (1993-1994) began going for home visits to increase the
number of workers attending the literacy programme. On this occasion they found that
boys were also employed as domestic workers and that they were very keen to get into
the literacy programme. Setu began to question the rationale of having the programme for
girls only as boys also represent domestic workers and child labour. The student social
worker (1993-1994) said, ​“ When we are talking of domestic workers’ issue we do not
mean only domestic workers who are the majority but also the minority. That’s how our
centre opened up to boys after we had asked the girls whether we could allow boys in…”
The girls were asked whether boys could also join, since they had no objections the boys
also attended. The group thus increased. By the time the student social worker
(1993-1994) had completed her term, the recreation room at Walkeshwar was filled to
capacity. This response was a result of word of mouth publicity and home visits. Rapport
had been developed and the employers also wanted their workers to go in for the literacy
programme. Thus a very strong relationship developed with the workers.
Community Programmes
The student social workers (1993-1994) tried to extend themselves to community
programmes at the Banganga area. But they did not succeed, as they required a lot of
energy and effort, the plan was thus shelved after having been tried for six months.

Conscientisation and Self Development of Domestic Workers

The Literacy programme comprised holistic development of the workers and awareness
generation about the issue of domestic work. There were discussions on the sessions to be
planned for the workers. As the domestic workers had no confidence in themselves,
sessions aimed at addressing these needs were planned.

Initially, cooking-classes were introduced, but later when there was better rapport the
Setu social workers asked questions to assess their consciousness and feelings about their
work situation. Their responses would be: ​“Bhabhi is very good when I need money she
gives it to me. We are so safe in that house.”​ When questions were asked about the
salary, it was as low as Rs. 250. The student social workers tried to make them
understand the situation: ​“…you say your Bhabhi is good but had she paid you Rs.800 for
the last 3 years, don’t you think you would have had a balance which you could have
drawn from? You would not have needed to take a loan from Bhabhi and feel indebted to
her.”​ It took them some time to think differently.

STRUCTURE

Organisational Structure: PHASE II (1992 -1994)

The organisational structure of Setu in this phase has been graphically represented below:

SETU

Khar Danda
● Community Groups
● Employees meetings
● Case work
● Selection of leader
● Training programmes
● Networking with PMS
Roles and Responsibilities
The student social worker was placed with DHP in Khar in 1992-1993, with the specific
task of working on the domestic workers’ issue. She was reporting to the present Director
of Setu for guidance.

In 1993, the first professional social worker joined the DHP. Setu was not yet in
existence. Her appointment letter was for DHP but it was clearly mentioned therein that
she would work on the domestic workers’ issue. She was a BSW from College of Social
Work, Nirmala Niketan. As a student social worker in 1991-1992 she had experience
working on the same issue. Her work entailed co-ordination of domestic workers. At the
time, reporting was through a monthly meeting of the social worker and the Director.
Besides this there was an opportunity for the students to discuss issues that came up at the
weekly visits of the Director to the CCC.

From 1992-1994, student social workers were placed at Walkeshwar. The centre began
with their efforts and was also stabilised to some extent especially when the student
social worker (1993-1994) joined as a professional social worker in June 1994.

Division of Tasks
There was no division of tasks among student social workers or the professional social
worker (June 1993). They did whatever needed to be done. The Director would give
broad-level guidance. The students and the social worker would plan and implement the
day-to-day decisions.

Extent of Hierarchy
The social workers and the students reported to the Project Director.

PROCESS

Decision Making
The Director made the decisions to start Setu as a project distinct from DHP and to initiate
work with full-timers.

Regarding decision making and the professional social worker, it appears that the Director
gave broad guidance. Decisions were arrived at by mutual consultation and the Director did
not interfere in the basic day-to-day functioning. According to the social worker,
“ Even as a social worker she (the Director) accepted whatever ideas I had… In fact she
used to welcome whatever ideas I had. She would not always discuss my ideas with me and
provide inputs. She found me quite capable of working independently. She had given me
full freedom. She would never ask me why I was trying this out or that. She used to be in
college. I used to come to college once/twice a month and she used to come once a week
with students to Danda. But she never used to ask me why you have done this /that...”

Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

The social worker would attend the monthly meetings in College. They would discuss the
work she was doing. There were other occasions, such as the weekly visits by the Director to
Khar Danda with the students where they would meet and discuss issues. Planning would be
done before students came in for the year. They would discuss the vision for the half-term,
the organisational /environmental needs requiring attention, and the tasks to be given to the
students.

Mobilising resources and workers was done in the initial two phase from, 1992-1994.
Ongoing tasks included: a basic number of workers to be covered; employers meetings held;
home visits made. These were also required as organisational needs, to achieve concrete
progress in the expansion of issues and to achieve the organisation’s objectives. These were
not formally-written tasks to be done- they were just ongoing tasks of the organisation,
which needed to be done.

Reporting, monitoring and evaluation of work was done through weekly group and
individual conferences. There was also a mid-term and yearly evaluation​. ​The students
reported to the present Director of Setu on a weekly basis for group conferences and
individual conferences. Their work was also monitored and evaluated through these
meetings. There were also mid term and yearly evaluations of students.

Every programme held was evaluated in terms of the learning etc. When the students
finished the academic year they would evaluate the strengths and weaknesses. There was
thus ongoing monitoring though not in a very formal fashion.

Communication Patterns and Information Flow

There was a response from client group and this feedback flowed upward to the Director.
The Director gave broad-level guidance and communication related to the feedback and
interaction with certain organisations. Those kinds of decisions were communicated to the
workers. As the organisation structure was very flat and there were only two centres, there
were very few communication needs and these were not so complicated.

Conflict Management, Power Relationships and Group Dynamics

​These were not a part of this phase. The social worker (1993) was given a free hand and not
questioned about the day-to-day handling of issues. If a programme did not work out, the
Director was supportive and not critical. The social worker had an independent style, was
capable of making independent decisions and was a committed worker.

Recruitment:
The Director employed the student social workers after they had completed their graduation
because she felt they knew the whole background of Setu and were committed and
interested. According to the Director, ​“They were with us through the birth pangs almost.
Both readily agreed to join as social workers, which was a big contributing factor. They
showed commitment and interest; so it made sense instead of hiring someone totally
unfamiliar to this issue… these two were thrown into the issue as students, they continued
with dedication as social workers...”

Performance Appraisal
The Director conducted a performance appraisal twice a year. Initially it was done using the
format that the College had formulated for Project staff. There was at this time no linkage
between performance appraisal and incentive increase.

PERFORMANCE

In this phase, the initial foray into the domestic workers’ issue at Khar Danda stabilised
further and there was a full response from the women domestic workers in terms of their
leadership, and taking responsibility. According to the social worker, ​“Through these
training programmes and regular meetings women who were very reluctant to speak to
anyone, were very open, became very active, started participating in other activities and
taking responsibility.”​ The fact that the client groups’ response was positive and they
thought that this issue was worth struggling for is indicated by the emergence of leaders
from among the women.

The Director said, ​“ We had not kept(appointed) leaders. It was during the meetings that
they emerged as outspoken and interested, were daring and courageous and ready to take
risks and give the time involved. These were natural leaders that emerged and we just
had to reinforce that leadership by giving them opportunities to go for training
programmes and come back and report to the group. These leaders after the training
programmes became even more confident and would help the group take action which
again reinforced their leadership. It was found that domestic workers began to turn
spontaneously to these leaders to handle cases, problems. They thus became the group’s
leaders.”

This response led to the idea to start a field action project. Working in a formal manner
with the domestic workers’ issue could become important to the target groups, given the
efforts on the part of the Project. Likewise when work on the issue was started at
Walkeshwar, the student social worker made efforts to develop a strong relationship with
the domestic workers. Here again, the student social worker found domestic workers
responding positively by bringing in new members.

The student social worker (1993-1994) said, ​“They had become our publicists. We did
not have to go door to door and tell people. It was their job to bring in new members.”

There was interaction with the employers too. It was found that they were quite humane
and were willing to see the other point of view. At Khar Danda, there was 25-30%
success in the cases taken up to get justice for domestic workers. Initial contacts made
with police in the earlier phase proved opportune as they took a sympathetic and
supportive view of the social worker’s (1993) efforts to get justice for a girl domestic
worker accused of stealing Rs.2 lakh. So in this phase, the outcome was essentially one of
building credibility for Setu among the client group.

PHASE - III (1994 – 1996​)

In this phase, Setu was working with part-time and full-time domestic workers. The name
‘Setu’ emerged towards the end of the previous phase and around the beginning of this
phase. The Director explained the meaning of the name:​ “We could be this bridge
(between employers and domestic workers) that’s why we thought of the name Setu. We
said we want to be a bridge and bring these two parties together – employer and worker-
and bring the government to notice this group which is at the base of the urban economy
which they are stamping over to reach wherever they are…”

In Phase III, from 1994-1996, there evolved a committed core group of domestic
workers. The domestic workers had increasingly begun to take responsibility for the
issue and looked upon it now as their issue. The generation of building solidarity and
organising domestic workers had proved successful and there was a positive response to
the programmes of Setu.

The opportunity provided by Maharashtra State Women's Policy announced by the

government in 1994 was seized upon as an entry point by NGOs to consider legislation
for domestic workers, through the government. Setu collaborated with like-minded
organisations working for the cause of domestic workers and a body called the
Campaign For Domestic Worker's Bill (CDWB) came into existence.

The goal of CDWB was to lobby for legislation for domestic workers. Setu was a part of
this body because they realised that if an effort was to be made towards legislation for
domestic workers, they had to become part of a network. This network was CDWB. At
each public opportunity, awareness was created by Setu workers about the domestic
workers’ issue. Setu also networked with the campaign against child labour (CACL) to
create awareness on the domestic workers’ issue.

Setu as a part of CDWB, along with other member NGOs of CDWB continued its efforts
to obtain legislation for domestic workers. A draft bill was prepared. At this time it was
realised there was a need to network with trade unions - Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh
(BMS) and Pune Molkarin Sanghatna (PMS) who had also been working on the
domestic worker's issue and had prepared two separate draft bills independently. The
Gharelu Kamagar Kriti Samiti was formed consisting of CDWB, BMS and PMS. A
common draft bill was prepared that was accepted by all parties in the network.

To put pressure on the government, a morcha of domestic workers was organised by the
GKKS in August 1996. The Labour Minister agreed to look into the matter of the draft
bill and promised to call a meeting of the Committee on Unorganised Labour. GKKS
made persistent efforts to obtain the participation of representatives of domestic workers
on this committee. By January 1997, these lobbying efforts eventually led to the
publication of a Government Resolution (G.R.) on domestic workers. The G.R. and
further efforts are covered in the next phase: Phase IV- 1997-1998.

Hence in this phase, there was networking with NGOs and trade unions, interaction with
legislative bodies, interactions with media as well as other individuals (as part of
CDWB).

There was increased media consciousness about the issue of domestic workers, which
led to greater societal awareness on the domestic workers’ issue. Setu was able to
achieve this through the collective strength of CDWB.

There was further expansion of Setu’s efforts through a new centre at Chowpatty.

ENVIRONMENT

Client group
A core group of committed domestic workers had evolved at Setu, both among
part-timers and full-timers and they were a very articulate group who were willing to
take the risks involved in pursuing the issue, which they now regarded as their own.
Through the efforts of a student social worker (1995-1996) a new centre at Chowpatty
was opened towards the end of this phase.

Due to their association with Setu, the domestic workers had meanwhile evolved into a
group, which grew more independent, conscious of their self-identity. Towards the end
of the phase they began to take responsibility for cases. The participatory approach
adopted at Setu proved successful. The domestic workers were now capable enough to
handle their own issues, to some extent; resulting in Setu employing /allowing their entry
into the organisation structure, by handing over to them some of the basic day-to-day
tasks.

In Khar Danda, as housing had become a major problem, Setu shifted its focus from the
domestic workers’ issue to housing. It was a very difficult period for the client group as
the builders had come to evict them from their homes. They did not have the energy or
the motivation to continue to focus on the domestic workers’ issue. Their response was to
request the Setu staff not to call them for both housing as well as domestic workers
meetings. It was decided at Setu, that the social worker (1993-1996, Khar Danda) would
work on the housing issue.

The Director of Setu reported them as saying: ​“We can’t come for meeting upon meting.
Right now housing is the most burning problem, how to maintain a roof over our heads.
We are with you in the domestic workers’ issue but let us secure our houses first.”
The leader chosen from domestic workers at Khar Danda, who was actively involved in
Setu’s work, described the fear that people had of the builders and how Setu and CCC
reinforced people’s confidence: ​“ ... If you are in a group, they cannot do anything.
What will they do? They will come to hit, they will come to push you… If you stand in
front of a window what can they do? They cannot kill you. If they will, they will be inside
(arrested). That is how we can scare them off. That’s how we stood up.”

The leaders’ description of how Setu helped people get their land papers under the
builders’ pressure indicates the extent of faith and credibility Setu generated amongst the
people: ​“... there was a problem. That was the time when the social workers helped me
out… how to get my papers. Not only my papers, many of them (other domestic workers)
also. It was through them (Setu) that we got our papers. They (the builders) had hidden
the papers. They wanted cash. We couldn’t afford to pay. They were paying it off. Then
we went and asked (Setu) what to do. They guided us… We went to them (the builders)
and we got the papers. That was a big thing, Setu showed us what to do. Otherwise, we
were dependent on ourselves.”

Due to their association with Setu, the domestic workers realised that they could put their
views across to the employers and that they did not need to fear the employers or losing
their jobs. The leader of the domestic worker said, ​“There is a change, yes, there are a
lot of domestic workers saying today we are not like what we were before…Today they
(the domestic workers) can reply to them (the employers). They were earlier scared to do
so. They would ask us how to reply to them. They would listen to the employers and come
home quietly. But today they can face them. Today, they have the courage that they can
face their problem. So that was what we have been teaching them. Many of them feel a
change in life. Today they can say ‘increase my pay’. But they never did that before. They
would get scared…how to ask them to ‘ increase my pay’. What will they (the employer)
say? They may throw me out of the job.”

Legislative Bodies
In 1994, the Maharashtra State Women’s Policy was proposed by the Government in
which there was a mention of women domestic workers. There was a report in the
newspapers and the government, to explain the policy, was organising meetings and
inviting NGOs.

These NGOs and Setu realised the need to come together in order to give a boost to the
efforts required for legislation on the domestic workers’ issue and formed the Campaign
for Domestic Worker’s Bill (referred to as CDWB henceforth). The CDWB prepared a
bill for the domestic workers. Later, CDWB networked with other concerned NGOs to
formulate an amalgamated draft bill for domestic workers. This association between
BMS, PMS and CDWB led to the formation of the Gharelu Kamgar Kriti Samiti. The
three draft bills of each of these bodies were amalgamated into one draft bill, which was
presented in November 1995 to the government as a private bill in the assembly.
Mr Venkappa Patki, MLC, introduced the amalgamated draft bill as a private bill in the
winter session of the Assembly in 1995. Then, in August 1996, GKKS organised a
morcha as a show of strength of domestic workers to put pressure on the government to
take action on the bill. ​GKKS mobilised domestic workers from Pune and various parts
of Mumbai city. It was truly a historic event where the presence of the PMS red flag, the
BMS saffron flag and the blue flag of the College, and the white flags of YUVA and
BHS, visibly testified to the unity prevailing amidst stakeholders of diverse ideologies.
A memorandum was presented to the Labour Minister, Mr Shabbir Sheikh, and he
assured the GKKS and its supporters that he would look into the issue of domestic
workers and the bill, and would call a meeting of the Committee on Unorganised
Labour. The GKKS sent repeated reminders to the minister, Mr Shabbir Sheikh, to
convene this committee and have a representation of the GKKS on this committee.

At the first meeting of this committee on Unorganised Labour in November 1996 only
trade union representatives were called. Hence, efforts were made by CDWB to gain an
entry into these committee meetings since CDWB members also had a grassroots base of
domestic workers.

Media
There was a newspaper report with the announcement on the Maharashtra State
Women’s Policy and there was a focus on the domestic workers’ issue. Thereafter, the
media took interest in covering the issue and demands that were made on behalf of
domestic workers by various bodies, e.g., CDWB, BMS, PMS, GKKS. That the
government was promising to protect this sector was a unique thing. It was a novelty for
the press as no one had considered domestic workers as “workers” before and now the
government was talking of workers’ rights, etc.

Setu used support of the media to cover the meeting of domestic workers with legislators
before the elections in 1995, the morcha in August 1996, the introduction of the draft bill
in the 1995 winter session and also to draw public attention to the government delay in
publishing the Government Resolution (GR). The GR. in draft form received a lot of
publicity because it was the first time the government made an effort in this direction.
The media was extremely interested in seeing whether these promises would be realised.
NGOs, domestic workers and employers were interviewed and there were a number of
articles in the newspaper. Consequently the domestic workers’ issue shifted from a
private issue to a public one. The CDWB also used the media judiciously to maintain
public sympathy and to publicise their various efforts.

NGOs
The announcement of the Maharashtra State Women’s Policy in 1994 served as an
opportunity to work towards legislation for domestic workers. The social workers of
Setu began attending meetings organised by the government to explain its policy. Other
organisations working for the cause of domestic workers were also present at these
meetings. Setu knew that as a College project they could not go very far on the
legislation front alone. Hence, a decision was taken at Setu to network with like-minded
organisations. The Director explained, ​“We knew we had our limitations as a College
project. So if this (domestic workers’ issue and legislation) had to be sustained, a wider
network like this (CDWB) was important. The first thing was to take advantage of the
women’s policy opportunity, get together to form a campaign to look specifically at
change in legislation … Determining our structure as a campaign.... and then working
as campaign workers...”

The CDWB studied other bills for workers and prepared a draft bill for domestic workers
in 1994. In January 1995, representatives of Setu and CDWB suggested that a
memorandum should be prepared on the demands of domestic workers and submitted to
MLA candidates standing for elections. Setu was to contact the press for publicity on this
move. This proved to be a good learning experience for domestic workers who were
involved in submitting the memorandum to the candidates. There was a mixed response
from the election candidates. Some election candidates were quite positive and
responsive and there were others who spoke rudely when approached and some who did
not really understand the issue; in this way it was a mixed response from the election
candidates.

To further discuss and clarify the bill, a legal literacy workshop was held in March 1995.
The next step should be a show of strength of domestic workers such as a morcha, in
order to put pressure on the government. Prior to this, the bill needed to be popularised
amongst domestic workers.

In March 1995, the CDWB framework and structure was outlined and detailed. The role
of central secretariat was given to Setu, as Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action
(YUVA) could not take it up. Setu agreed to this.

In November 1995, the CDWB responding to a need for its expansion in Maharashtra
sent its representatives to Nagpur and Amravati. They visited various organisations and
conducted meetings in order to get their support for the domestic workers’ issue. About
16 organisations in Nagpur came together and formed a CDWB sub-committee. YUVA
Nagpur was very active in the entire process and coordinated NGO efforts for the
CDWB.

In June 1996, at a CDWB meeting it was decided that they would approach sympathetic
media persons to get more media publicity on the Domestic workers Bill and domestic
workers’ issue at the time of the Assembly session and the planned morcha.

Further efforts of CDWB were as a part of GKKS. This is covered later in the section:
Networking with trade unions.

Apart from networking with NGOs on the legislation front, Setu also networked with the
Campaign Against Child Labour (CACL). The motive behind this network was that
children in domestic work are also child labourers who are exploited.
Setu got a lot of publicity through its association with CACL. The social worker
(Walkeshwar 1994-1996) said, ​“CACL was fighting for children in domestic work and
child labour. That was quite significant at that time…We became very active members of
CACL. We went for their meetings. Our students went and talked in their various forums.
We took our turn to talk about domestic workers. We were invited on panels to speak on
it. So that made us very visible…”

The outcome of networking with CACL was that other organisations and people came to
know that Setu exists on an organisational level. As a part of this forum, workers
addressed schools and colleges on child labour. There was awareness generation in the
general public as well. After speaking on child labour, Setu social workers would
eventually bring in domestic workers and try to create awareness about the explicit
situation existing in the homes of the audience. The domestic workers of Setu were also
very actively involved and at various forums, they presented the street play that they had
prepared.

Trade Unions
When the draft bill of the CDWB was formulated in 1994, it was realised that there were
three bills in existence, one of CDWB, one of BMS and one of PMS. BMS and PMS
were trade unions and had a long history of working for domestic workers’ interests.

It was decided that all the three organisations should come together and draft a common
bill for presentation to the government. The amalgamated draft bill was introduced as a
private bill in the winter session of 1995 in the state assembly, through Mr Venkappa
Patki, MLC.

By July 1996, the GKSS was formed comprising of CDWB, PMS and BMS. On 8​th
August 1996, a morcha was taken to Mantralaya under the auspices of the GKSS. It had
the strength of about 2,000 domestic workers from Mumbai and Pune and was organised
to put pressure on the government. The morcha organisers met the Labour Minister,
Mr Shabbir Sheikh, and he made a public declaration that he would look into their
demands by calling a meeting of the Committee set up for all categories of unorganised
workers in September 1996. After waiting for more than a month, the representatives of
GKSS went to meet the Labour Minister and requested that GKSS representatives should
be present whenever this committee was formed. For the first meeting of this committee
in November 1996, only trade union representatives were called. CDWB again had to
persist for an entry to these committee meetings, since they too had a grassroots base.

Other Individuals
CDWB representatives had to interact with prominent individuals to be on the advisory
board of CDWB. They were legal persons, influential bureaucrats and prominent
activists. This interaction was part of the campaign network.

Employers
Individual cases were also dealt with. Employers meetings picked up momentum and a
bridge was being built between employers and workers since Setu was also looking into
the employers’ concerns. It was realised that some employers were aware about Setu’s
role of organising domestic workers and did not feel threatened by it. They were happy to
send their domestic workers to literacy classes.

The Director of Setu described the response of the employers: ​“It was really interesting
to see that some of them knew what we were talking about organising. They said ‘many
people have told us not to send our workers to where these people are making a union.
That does not threaten us at all. We are happy that the boys are taking literacy
classes.’ ”

The social worker of the project responsible for the Walkeshwar centre had a slightly
different opinion. She said, ​“…They (employers) were very nice. They would send their
workers to the centre and they would come for the celebrations. So as long as the
workers get educated and can communicate it was okay with them. The minute we bring
them into organising they did not want that….”

This was probably a natural response for the employers as would be between any two
groups of ​oppressor and oppressed​. But a measure of Setu’s success was the way they
elicited participation of the employers for these meetings.

STRATEGY

In this phase, strategy at the macro level was not so much an individual function of Setu
or solely determined by Setu’s actions and activities. It was rather the stand Setu took
individually to the collective decisions being reached at CDWB and GKSS. This stand of
Setu at these bodies can be therefore represented as Setu’s strategy for its workers and
client group. Meanwhile, as a result of this association, Setu was affected by these
decisions as a participating member of these bodies.

Vision and Goals

The vision that legislation was necessary to protect domestic workers as well as give
them status as workers arose in the process of working with them on the issue. It,
however, did not exist in the initial vision of the organisation/project when Setu was first
established. Legislation was a goal and in 1994 when the Maharashtra State Women’s
Policy was announced Setu seized upon the opportunity to influence legislation in favour
of domestic workers.

The Director of Setu thus described the emergence of this vision : ​“We saw the position
of domestic workers vis-a-vis other unorganised workers. They had so much protection
because of legislation and domestic workers have no protection and no status of
workers... This was the common vision of the partners in the network and it was very easy
to come together and work on this…when we set it up, we just wanted to organise
workers and help them get their worker rights. As we worked again, we saw that without
this (networking) we would never get far...The goal arose first… how do we go about it.
This policy was a marvellous opportunity. The government is creating an opening for us
to enter and demand workers rights…”

Secondly, creating awareness was an objective with Setu right from the beginning. It just
expanded in scope and levels attained as the resources and support base of the
organisation increased. In this regard, the Director of Setu said, ​“Creating awareness was
with us right from the beginning. Actually, we saw that we have to make the workers
aware, the employers aware, Society in general aware and from there the policy makers.
So we had that vision (creating awareness) right from the start. It was just that as we
expanded to a wider level of functioning it became easier to approach the government. In
the beginning, it was ​creating a​ very micro-level awareness.”

Thus the vision/goals in this phase included:

1) Obtaining legislation for domestic workers
2) Creating and expanding awareness on the domestic workers’ issue.

Within this broad vision, there were sub-goals: networking with other organisations,
formation of CDWB, formation of GKKS, organising a morcha, having employers
meetings, interacting with and using media to promote the domestic workers’ issue,
communication on the domestic workers’ issue in schools and colleges, participating
actively with CACL and using their forums to speak on the domestic workers’ issue.
These events during this phase were guided in essence by the above vision/goals.

The social worker (Walkeshwar) described how the programmes were planned, which
gives an idea of how the vision was given consideration: “​From the time we launched the
project, prior planning had to be done. Meetings were planned in advance. I think that I
learnt from (the Director) that some things have to go on paper. So even when we were
doing the smallest things we used to put it on paper. And I think I appreciated that…if it
was a session you would say why you are doing this session and what you were going to
achieve, with whom and what is the medium you are using…”

According to the social worker (Walkeshwar), the outcome of this way of functioning
was that the vision would be operationalised in every programme and there was a focused
manner of working.

Objectives remained the same as in the past phase.

Approaches and Methods of Intervention

Methods of intervention in this phase were casework, group work and meetings,
interactions with employers through employers’ meetings, training programmes,
celebrations as Setu parivar, networking with other organisations and media.
The participatory approach was followed with the clients and advocacy was used on the
legislation front, which was done through networking with like-minded organisations.

The participatory approach was operationalised by the social workers. The persistent
efforts by the social worker (Walkeshwar) led to Setu getting a place in the Banganga
Municipal School. The room was a godown. It had to be cleaned, decorated, some
facilities were needed to be added such as blackboard, fan, etc. and utilities such as chalk,
dusters, brooms, etc. All this was done with the total participation of the workers with the
involvement of the social worker as well. The domestic workers and Setu would make
the necessary purchases jointly. The domestic workers would bring requirements such as
the chalks, dusters, brooms on their own. The social worker described this process of
participation as follows: ​“I think I agreed with (the Director). Both of us clearly believed
never to get into welfare. It was always participatory because we were very clear that
after 10 years we are not going to be around. Workers were very independent. We never
gave them anything. No books, no pencils, no erasers nothing. They had to get everything
on their own when we got the classroom. Their chalks, their brooms, their dusters, they
brought these themselves. Even if we brought the fan, it (the cost was divided) was 50%
from the workers 50% from Setu. It was (the workers thought) all this belongs to us and
we have paid for it so we have to take care of it. Even when it came to cleaning and
decorating the room, all of us would do it. Not they will do it or I will do it. All of us
would do it. I think that was the trust between us.”

This kind of participatory approach was conveyed to them by the everyday behaviour of
the social worker. For any issue, any programme, their opinion or views and participation
would be elicited. This process is best described in the words of social worker
(Walkeshwar): ​“It’s just how one behaves. I think that they just felt… there was no need
to tell (them). Because we never gave it (the requirements) to them, they just got it
themselves. We asked them now we need a fan so how should we do it? They would say
“hum log latey hain” and we would say “OK. Don’t bring it, we will contribute half. For
programmes they never asked us ‘what food are you giving us?’ They managed to get the
money through contributions. By and large, after 3-4 programmes they knew how to
manage their programmes. So after some time only the orientation was given for
programmes.... it didn’t happen overnight. It happened over a period of time. I think that
that was the most positive growth of the workers."

Programmes

Initiating the Chowpatty Centre

The process of starting the new centre at Chowpatty had the following components:
- Survey of workers in the Chowpatty area.
- Meeting with the domestic workers at Chowpatty where the domestic workers from
- Walkeshwar explained the objectives of Setu.
- Attending the initial meetings, inform other workers.
The main goals of the new group were to acquire literacy skills and to fight for their
rights.

The student social worker mentioned the main objectives of the new group:
● To make domestic workers literate.
● To strengthen them as a group.
● To make them aware of their rights and duties.
● To empower them.

Initially the new group was not introduced to the main agenda of Setu but gradually the
group got together and the bill was introduced to them.

The workers made the new rules and thus ensured the participation of every member to
run the centre. At their meetings in the garden, the group had formed its own rules
regarding the time to learn and discuss their matters. Since the group was big, it was
divided into sub-groups according to their level of education.

Initiation of the Worli Centre

This centre started on the initiative of a domestic worker from Walkeshwar who had
moved to Worli along with his employer. He required the Setu staff to begin a contact
centre at Worli and offered help in mobilising domestic workers at night. Accordingly a
student social worker began to initiate contacts with Worli domestic workers at night
when they met together to relax after the day’s work. Literacy classes began under the
street lights. As numbers increased the student social worker explored potential spaces in
the neighbourhood that could serve as a contact centre. Requests for space to Housing
Societies/ NGOs were flatly refused. Noticing groups of people relaxing on the lawns of
Nehru Centre, it was decided to use this space for the noon literacy class. Accordingly on
Jan 9​th ​, 1996, the Worli centre began with 30 domestic-worker students. Noticing the
seriousness of the Students, the Director of Nehru Planetarium offered the place for
classes to be conducted. Along with basic literacy, some workers enrolled and
successfully completed National Open School (NOS). Pursuing the same goal of holistic
development, other sessions in personality development, communication skills, and
leadership were organised for the workers of Worli centre.

Activities at the​ Khar Danda Centre

By the end of 1994 and the beginning 1995, the housing issue emerged very strongly.
The builders came to demolish the slums. Since most of the domestic workers at Khar
Danda were clients of Setu and were affected by this environmental situation, Setu
shifted its focus to the housing issue. The domestic workers had to face time constraints
because of their involvement in domestic work. Due to the housing issue becoming
strong, meetings were held in addition to domestic workers’ meetings. It was a pressure
on them to handle their personal and work responsibilities and face the burden of the
housing issue.
Lastly, around this time one of the social workers on the DHP had left and there was
more pressure on the housing issue simultaneously. Hence to manage the workload and
handle issues effectively, the Setu social worker (Khar Danda) shifted focus to the
housing issue. The social worker (Khar Danda) said, ​“…the three social workers of DHP
were finding it difficult to handle the entire project and I had to be part of that...Then I
was given more areas to be taken up. So I got full responsibility. I could not pay attention
to the other part-timers (domestic workers’ issue)...”

Hence in view of this feedback, it was decided that the social worker (Khar Danda)
would work on the housing issue. The Director described how this decision was taken
and what was the broader purpose behind it: ​“…We at Setu concretely decided that our
Setu worker (social worker) is going to work on the housing issue. The workers can see
you if you are there with them. They will see that you are helping them get their housing
rights. So you are present to them in what they see as their need and hopefully when that
struggle is won then you can just pick up from there and move onto this.”

Hence the Setu social worker conducted meetings, met lawyers, and did whatever was
required on the housing issue front.

Activities at the​ Walkeshwar Centre

By the time the student social worker (Walkeshwar 1993-1994) finished her fieldwork,
the recreation room at St Elizabeth’s was filled to capacity with domestic workers for the
literacy programme. Setu decided not to impose on the hospital any further. The social
worker began searching for another place for the Walkeshwar centre. After several visits
and meetings with the BMC, space was obtained in the Banganga Municipal School.
Through the efforts of the social worker (Walkeshwar) and domestic workers, the storage
room in the school was converted into a Setu centre. Setu now worked with part-timers
and full-timers.

The Literacy Programme was continued in Walkeshwar in this phase as well. In addition,
the National Open School was started. Through this scheme, the domestic workers could
move on from basic literacy to eventually studying for open school where they would
attempt the exam for Standard X. Open school was started as a programme in the
College of Social Work in 1989 from which the idea arose for Setu as well.

The Literacy Programme was the main entry point and activity for the centre. Dropouts
were the constraint for this particular programme. Setu always had a large number of
domestic workers. At one point, the rolls showed a total of 500. But there was a turnover
and domestic workers were dropping out. This was a major concern for the social worker
(Walkeshwar) and she said, ​“My greatest concern was about the dropouts. Why are they
dropping out? It was never our concern about the numbers we have… The problem was
regularity. In my mind it was; there are 500 workers; they should be coming to class.
Why are so many not coming?”
The reason she attributed to dropouts was the turnover of teacher volunteers. The literacy
programme was hence not a regular activity with the teacher present sometimes.
According to the social worker​,“… It (literacy) is one programme where I felt we really
had to struggle... in terms of having literacy volunteers. Because this was a guiding
philosophy initially at least we were not having teachers. We started only with
volunteers…”

The irregularity of inputs on literacy led to dropouts. This eventually affected their other
programmes as well such as conscientisation meetings because the entry point for
intervention with domestic workers at Walkeshwar was the literacy programme and not
conscientisation on the issue. The social worker (Walkeshwar) said, ​“That (irregularity
of literacy class) really affected a lot of our programmes. Because when there is no
volunteer there is a high level of dropouts which is again affecting the worker-education
programme (conscientisation programme)… if for five days the teacher does not attend
then it is definitely going to negatively affect the workers’ education programme. There’s
definitely going to be dropouts. The workers will also tell ten others ‘Kuch nahin hota.’
Again that means no new workers will come in. So it has a much wider effect because of
that one activity.”

Conscientisation Meetings
These are described as worker-education programmes by the social worker
(Walkeshwar). Through these meetings, workers were slowly conscientised about the
domestic workers’ issue. Initially the entry point was literacy and rapport was built
slowly. The Director of Setu describes this process, ​“When there was deeper rapport
then we began to enter deeper waters …We began to look at their work situation and
assess their consciousness of what do they feel about it?”

Once the conscientisation process started, the workers chose whether to respond or not.
This affected some domestic workers adversely and they responded by dropping out. It
was decided that those who did not want to be organised would not be forced to. They
could just come and study. According to the Director, ​“… they still have that (attitude)
‘hum to ladenge’ and all that. But we try not to push it. Because some people come to the
centre and when they hear this talk (of leadership) they stop coming to the centre.. saying
that ‘it’s not the way to study; we want to come here only to study.’ So we finally resolved
that saying ‘both are there, there is a possibility of study… if you want to only study and
go its fine. If you want to organise this is a place for you to organise. This is your centre.
You want to simply come here, come. You want to share your problems, you can do that
too.’ ”

When the workers did respond to the conscientisation efforts, a holistic development of
the workers was sought. The gaps in the workers’ self-confidence and personality were
addressed. Then through conscientisation meetings, other sessions would emerge to build
up the domestic workers’ personality, to address their poor self-image and lack of
confidence.
Employers Meetings:
The employers’ meetings were started wherever possible. The purpose behind these
meetings was to discuss the perspective of the employers. The employers’ perception of
Setu’s activities and of their domestic workers was probed at these employers’ meetings
of Setu. Setu workers tried to see the changes in the workers.

The feedback from the employers was that they were aware of what Setu was doing, they
were informed that Setu was forming a union and they did not feel threatened at all. They
were happy that the boys were being educated.

They had noticed a change in the boys due to their association with Setu. The Director of
Setu narrated the feedback of an employer ​“They have all begun talking back. Before
they were very quiet; now they are giving ‘ulta jawab.’ ”

Setu workers found this feedback very useful. While reinforcing the self-assertive
behaviour of the domestic workers they explained to them that it was also necessary to
approach the employer and present their demands at a favourable time and in a proper
manner. The Setu Director described this process:​“We were building heavily on that (this
self-assertion of their rights) to generate a self-image. We were saying speak up for
yourself. Articulate what you have to say. They were practising all that and not in the
best possible way. So the employer would say ‘Nahin class main janahi nahin.’ We told
the boys that when they time the demand is important. If the employer has just come in
tired and you say ‘Pagar badhana hai’… She has got some tension on her mind or she
says don’t go class today. .. So they would say ‘Nahin hamko jaana hi hai, nahine to
kaam chod ke jayega.’ Or for a little extra work they would say ‘yeh to mera kaam nahin
hai.’ ”

Thus the feedback from the environment was used for inputs in the worker-education
programmes. Sessions on communication skills were then organised for the domestic
workers.

Due to these employers’ meetings, the Director and workers of Setu began to realise that
sometimes problems arise because of workers adopting hard-line positions. So it became
part of the job to bring workers out of their stereotypes and make the domestic workers
realise that ​employer behaviour is often influenced by worker behaviour.

Production of a Street Play by Domestic Workers

Domestic workers got together and prepared the basic idea for a street play. The social
worker then contacted an expert from Xavier’s Institute of Communication. The expert
helped the domestic workers with it by bringing it into an appropriate form. The domestic
workers would perform this play at every public forum/opportunity.

Cultural Celebrations
Cultural celebrations for festivals such as Diwali, 15​th​ August, medical camps, yearly
camps. were important in bringing the Setu family together. They helped to instil among
the domestic workers a sense of belongingness to the organisation and they were also a
method by which the domestic worker grew in terms of taking responsibility for various
activities and organising the show.

The purpose of these celebrations would be trying to understand the significance behind
various functions, e.g., 15​th​ August - Fifty years of independence. What does it mean to
the client as a domestic worker? How should they as clients celebrate? It was a
mechanism to instil in them a sense of patriotism and give them an identity, as a part of a
nation. This identity was crucial for them since they otherwise did not have the identity of
a worker.

At these meets, the domestic workers’ opinions of how the function should be organised,
whether it should be done at all, were also incorporated. According to the social worker
(Walkeshwar), ​“We would give the rationale. Then ask them what kind of a programme
would they prefer. Then we would ask them if they had the time to rehearse. If they
agreed then we would ask them whom we should invite and who would do the invitation
cards. They would write invitation cards. For programmes they would get the money for
food through contributions. They never asked us what food we were going to give them.”

Casework:
The Project dealt with cases of domestic workers who were clients of Setu. But later on,
as the organisation began to get a name and Setu had some credibility, outside cases
started coming to Setu. To continue with this process of image building these outside
cases were also taken up.

The case of Sangeeta Khamker – Burns victim

This case was identified by student social workers living in the vicinity. Sangeeta
suffered burns on 14​th​ April 1994. She was admitted to KEM hospital. The people present
at the time of admission were Dr (Mrs) Mathur (employer), Ankur (son of Dr Mathur),
Mrs Hande (neighbour of the Mathurs), Dr (Mrs Bhattacharya (neighbour), Mr
Bhattacharya’s driver, Mr Bhattacharya’s domestic worker – Aruna, Mr Dhumal –
plumber.

Sangeeta was working as a domestic worker with Dr Mathur. She was placed to work
there by her distant uncle, Pandurang Khamker, who works with KEM hospital. Her
statement on 14​th​ April 1994 mentioned that while picking up hot water her clothes
caught fire and she got burnt. Mrs Mathur was present on the scene. On the night of the
14​th​ the girl started saying that Mrs Mathur poured kerosene over her and set her alight.
The police were informed on 14​th​ April and a FIR was lodged on 16​th​ April. Mrs Mathur
took anticipatory bail of Rs. 20,000. On 16​th​ April, Sangeeta again changed her statement.
It started with: ​“She is sorry for the statement against Dr Mathur and they were very kind
to her. "

The police refused to record the statement because they felt that the girl was pressurised.
A panel of doctors and a psychiatrist were also present when the statement was taken.
This statement was tape-recorded. It is in the records of KEM Hospital, with the
signatures of ACM and Sangeeta’s relatives.

The case was then handed over to the CID. Sangeeta was consistent in her statement that
Mrs Mathur had burnt her. She expired on 17​th​ May 1994. Dr (Mrs) Mathur had resumed
her duties in KEM hospital soon after.

Setu’s intervention: The case was brought to Setu by student social workers residing in
Dr Mathur’s building. There was a file on this case in Setu's records. Visits regarding this
case were made to KEM hospital where the girl was hospitalised. Her medical records
(Photocopies) were in the file. There was a letter (photocopies) from a medical student to
Dr Vaz, Head of Department, Forensic Medicine apologising about a call written to Dr
Vaz by him. It stated that Dr Vaz had not noted the call and that the case was urgent
(Sangeeta’s case). He had apologised giving the above picture because of some
misinterpretation in the wards. The dean of KEM wrote to Dr Umesh Pai Ag. A.D. that
the autopsy be arranged elsewhere since there was a ​“series of allegations by people
regarding cause of burns.”

There are two written statements (Photocopies) of Sangeeta. The first one is that Sangeeta
knew of Dr (Mrs) Mathur’s extra marital affair and so she burnt her. The second one says
she is sorry for falsely implicating the Mathurs who are very nice people and have been
nice to her.

There are records of KEM regarding handing over the body for autopsy to the coroner’s
court. A copy of the coroner’s autopsy is available.

The staff and Director of Setu worked with the Sakhya staff on this case and made a
home visit to the Mathurs. The Mathurs’ version of events and their reactions were
obtained. There are letters made out by Suvarna Khamker, cousin of Sangeeta, to the
police (Nirikshak), CID branch. A two-page statement of facts written by Suvarna as to
how the events unfolded, and a personal account of the hospitals response to her cousin’s
case are also in the file.

A letter from Setu was sent with Suvarna Khamker with her request for Dr (Mrs)
Mathur’s bail application copy and number.

Apart from Setu this organisation also attracted the attention of other NGOs like Sakhya,
Samarthan and Swadhar who collaborated with Setu in this case.

Dr (Mrs) Mathur made an appeal to the ​“feminist organisations, requesting them to stop
maligning and harassing her.’’​ She wrote that the reason behind Sangeeta’s changing
her statement was that doctors in the Department of Microbiology had pressurised
Sangeeta, as they wanted to embarrass Dr (Mrs) Mathur and deny her a promotion. She
mentioned the staff members who were against her: non medical lecturers who had been
trying in the past to prevent her promotion unsuccessfully by filing writ petitions in the
high court of Mumbai.

There was a copy of the writ petition, which said that petitioners who possessed a degree
of [Link]. Microbiology should be appointed and promoted to the post of reader although
they were non-medical persons.

A presentation was made by the social worker (Walkeshwar) at a meeting of women’s

organisations.

Letters from Setu were given to the Joint Commissioner of police on 19​th​ May 1994 at a
meeting at which social worker (Setu) and the girl’s relatives were present. The details of
the case were explained to him and he was requested that investigations be done
impartially; and he agreed. Swadhar’s descriptive account of events is also present in the
file.

On 19​th​ May, Setu staff met the standing committee of BMC, which comprises of
corporators of different political parties, who raise questions at the standing committee.
The details of the case were presented to them and they promised to raise the issue during
the meeting of the standing committee.

Setu wrote a letter to Mr Sharad Kale, Commissioner BMC, regarding the suspension of
Dr (Mrs) Mathur, KEM hospital, in view of imposition of Section 302 on her till the
inquiry is completed. A similar letter was written to Mr M.N. Singh, DCP, CID
requesting him to revoke the bail granted to Dr (Mrs) Mathur, KEM hospital, in view of
imposition of Section 302, till the inquiry was conducted in the matter.

The Department of Molecular Biology wrote to the Secretary, Maharashtra Public

Service Commission. They requested the Secretary not to concur with the appointment of
Dr (Mrs) Mathur as Reader in Microbiology since the matter was subjudice in view of the
writ petition filed by them. They also wrote a similar letter to the Mayor, BMC, and to
the Municipal Secretary, Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation.

At a meeting on 30​th​ May 1994, organised by women’s groups, the entire case was
presented by the social worker (Walkeshwar). Mrs Meena Deval, a friend of Dr (Mrs)
Mathur, brought the above-mentioned appeal written by Dr (Mrs) Mathur. In the meeting
it was decided to write to:
a) National Women’s Commission
b) Commissioner of Police.
Accordingly a letter was drafted. Four organisations - Setu, Sakhya, Swadhar and
Samarthan were given the responsibility of a) contacting the lawyer b) follow-up of case

Finally there is an account of the social workers about the case, the day-to-day events as
they unfolded, the various persons they met who were involved with the case. There is no
summary of how the case eventually turned out or where Setu’s efforts finally ended.
Networking with Other NGOs
When the opportunity to work towards legislation for domestic workers arose in the form
of the Maharashtra State Women’s Policy in 1994, Setu’s social workers began attending
meetings in which the government was trying to explain its policy. At these meetings,
there were also other organisations which were working for the cause of domestic
workers.

The social worker (Khar Danda) explained the reasons behind lobbying for legislation
and networking with other organisations: ​“Setu is working only in a small part of
Mumbai. On the basis of that part we cannot ask the government to do it (pass the bill). It
would be better if you have more strength… therefore there was a need to network.”

There were many other organisations working for domestic workers, which came
together to discuss other bills that existed for the domestic workers. They studied two
existing bills - Houseworkers (conditions of service bill) 1990 formulated by Domestic
Workers Society, New Delhi, and the bill drafted by Women’s Voice, Bangalore.

The first bill: Houseworkers’ Bill was found quite complete, hence a Marathi translation
of it has been made by YUVA. This Houseworkers’ Bill was prepared in 1987, under the
guidance of Mr P.M. Bakshi, a member of the Law Commission. It includes various
definitions of terms used in the draft bill. It prohibits the employment of children. It
mentions various conditions of service such as: working hours, holidays and leave, wages
for overtime work, rest intervals and how they should be spread over in the day, wages
for part-timers, living conditions, compensation to be paid on termination of service (if
service is terminated without valid reasons), letters of appointment, application of certain
laws - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Payment of Wages Act,
1936; Equal Remuneration Act, 1976; Weekly Holidays Act ,1942; appointment of chief
inspectors and inspectors and their powers, penalties and procedures to punish erring
employers. The State government would make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act
through the official gazette. There is also a Performa of a letter of appointment of a
domestic worker.

In September 1994, YUVA organised a meeting attended by eight organisations,

including Setu. At this meeting, a body called Campaign for Domestic Workers Bill
(CDWB) was formed. It was decided that the central secretariat would be YUVA and the
member organisations would be Setu, Bombay House Workers Solidarity, Forum Against
Oppression of Women. It was also decided to redraft the bill; the lawyers group consisted
of Mini Mathew, Fr Felix and Ms Sujata Gothuskar.

With these efforts, “Domestic Workers (Conditions of Service Bill) 1994” was drafted. It
was formulated:
1. To cover all disputes relating to domestic workers.
2. To recognise the workers as being within the fold of the working class
3. To improve the conditions of domestic workers.
4. To give them access to courts.

It extended to the whole of Maharashtra. It would become an act when the State
government announced through the official gazette, the date of its coming into force. This
act would come into force within six months of passing the bill into law.

It defined domestic worker, child, housework, employer, registering body (a body

appointed under the Act which registers domestic workers, year (240 working days),
working hours to be 10 hours/day or sixty per week, for overtime work a worker would
be paid twice the ordinary rate of wages. The Act specified that work shall not extend
continuously for more than five hours. (After which she shall rest for one hour. The
period of work for a domestic worker each day shall be fixed.) Besides this there will be
personal free time for three continuous hours, night rest of eight continuous hours.
The other specifications were:
♦ Periods of rest of domestic workers should not exceed greater than twelve hours
spread out in such a way to cover the day.
♦ One holiday/week - for this holiday she should be paid full wages.
♦ Part-time domestic workers should have their weekly holiday from the several
employers on the same day only. After one year of service with the employer,
domestic workers shall be entitled to 30 days’ leave with wages, and 10 days’ paid
sick leave.
♦ Minimum rates of pay shall be calculated by hours of work or price rate. Living
conditions suitable to human habitation with adequate privacy, security and hygiene,
decent bathing and toilet facilities should be provided.
♦ If a domestic worker has been employed for more than three months and less than a
year then 14 days’ notice in writing is to be given or else wages in lieu of such notice.
If a domestic worker has been in employ for more than a year, then 30 days notice in
writing shall be given or else wages in lieu of such a notice. For one year of work
they will get a months’ wage as bonus.
♦ For more than a year of work, 15 days’ compensation for each year of work is to be
paid in case of termination of work.
♦ The employer is obliged to issue letters of appointment and maintain registers.
♦ The state government would appoint Inspectors and Chief inspectors from NGOs.
These shall be public servants of the Government of India. An Advisory board may
be appointed consisting of social welfare workers/representatives to assist the Chief
Inspector and Inspector.
♦ The domestic worker shall open a postal / bank account with / without help from the
employer wherein the employer deposits 10% of each months’ wage. This 10% is
over and above wages paid by the Act.
♦ A fine of Rs.5,000/- shall be levied if offences are committed under this Act by
employers. Disputes will be tried in the Labour Court.

CDWB meetings were held after September 1994. In January 1995 CDWB and Setu
representatives suggested that a memorandum be prepared on the demands of domestic
workers and submitted to candidates standing for elections. Setu was to contact the press
for publicity on this move. This proved to be a good learning experience for domestic
workers who were involved in submitting the memorandum. There were both positive
and negative responses from election candidates.

To further discuss and clarify the bill, a Legal Literacy Workshop was held in March
1995. The resource person was advocate Colin Gonsalves. In his opinion the bill was well
drafted and loopholes were minimised. He felt the next step should be a show of strength
of domestic workers such as a morcha, in order to put pressure on the government; he
also suggested that the bill be popularised among domestic workers prior to any show of
strength.

In March 1995, the CDWB framework and structure was outlined and detailed. The role
of central secretariat was given to Setu, as YUVA could not take it up. In April 1995,
when further discussions were held on CDWB structure, it was decided that the Extended
Co-ordination Committee would consist of workers’ representatives, two domestic
workers from each organisation and local group; interested NGOs and workers
representatives such as BECC, JNN, YMCA, Pragati Kendra, Women’s Desk, Mukta,
Gharelu Kamgar Sanghatna, and PMS. Constituent groups would include trade unions
such as Trade Union solidarity, IFTU, CPI, BMS, PMS. These were to be contacted. The
Co-ordination Committee would consist of YUVA, BHS, Setu, Forum against
Oppression of Women (FAOW).

Institutions such as Snehasadan, Justice and Peace Commission, Women’s Desk,

Satyashodhak, Mahila Ayog, Samarthan, Annapurna, Federation of Community Centres,
Lawyers Collective, and Human Rights Lawyers Network were to be contacted.
Individuals such as Justice Suresh, Mr Khairnar, Mr Tinaikar, Mr J.B.D’Souza, Prof.
Ramchandra, Mr Julus Ribeiro, Ms. Olinda Periera, Mr Swami Agniwesh, Smt. Ela Bhat
were contacted to serve as the advisory committee.

In November 1995, the CDWB responding to the need to expand the CDWB in
Maharashtra, sent its representatives to Nagpur and Amarvati, visited various
organisations and conducted meetings in order to get their support for the domestic
workers’ issue. Efforts were made to contact Mr Manohar Joshi to organise a morcha,
giving details about domestic workers’ issue.

About 16 organisations in Nagpur came together and formed the CDWB sub-committee;
YUVA Nagpur was very active in the entire process and coordinated NGO efforts for the
CDWB.

In June 1996, at a CDWB meeting it was discussed that sympathetic media persons
should be approached to get more media publicity on the Domestic Workers Bill and
domestic workers’ issue at the time of the Assembly session and morcha. Further efforts
of CDWB were as a part of GKKS.
Apart from networking with NGOs on the legislation front, Setu also networked
with Campaign Against Child Labour (CACL). The decision was taken when the
Director was approached to attend a meeting and she sent the social worker
(Walkeshwar) for the meeting. The motive behind this networking was that
children in domestic work are also child labourers who are exploited. Setu got a
lot of publicity through this association with CACL. The social worker
(Walkeshwar) mentioned.

The outcome of networking with CACL was that other organisations and people came to
know that Setu exists on an organisational level. There was awareness generation in the
general public as well, as a part of this forum went to schools and colleges to speak about
child labour and domestic workers as part of child labourer.

Lobbying with Legislative Bodies

Setu and like-​minded ​organisations​ formed the Campaign for Domestic Workers’ Bill
(CDWB) and networked with trade various like BMS and PMS to formulate an
amalgamated draft bill of the three draft bills of the CDWB, BMS and PMS for domestic
workers. This association between BMS, PMS and CDWB resulted in the GKKS.

The amalgamated draft bill was introduced as a private bill in the Assembly’s winter
session of 1995 through Mr Venkappa Patki, MLC. Then in August 1996, the GKKS.
organised a morcha as a show of strength of domestic workers to put pressure on the
government. A memorandum was presented to the Labour Minister, Mr Shabbir Sheikh
and he assured the gathering that he would look into the issue of domestic workers and
the bill, and would call a meeting of the committee on unorganised labour.

The GKKS sent repeated reminders to Mr Shabbir Sheikh to convene this committee and
for representation on this committee. The first meeting was arranged in November 1996
and only trade union representatives were invited. Later, efforts were made by CDWB to
gain an entry into these committee meetings since CDWB members had a grassroots
base of domestic workers. In all this interaction of lobbying with legislative bodies
during this phase, Setu chose to pool its strength with that of other organisations in
CDWB. As a body, CDWB realised the importance of networking with trade unions and
coming together to form the GKKS.

Funding Strategies
Whenever any programmes or functions were held, the social workers would ask
the domestic workers for their suggestions for food or decorations and other
arrangements. The domestic workers would make contributions and collect the
amount required.

Deviation in Plans
In Khar Danda, due to the increased tension regarding the housing issue, Setu’s
focus shifted from domestic workers to housing. It was a difficult period for the
client group as the builders had come to evict them from their homes. Their
response was to request the Setu staff not to call them for housing and domestic
workers meetings as well, because they could not attend too many meetings. Setu
responded to the needs of the community and it was decided that the social
worker (Khar Danda) would work on the housing issue.

The Setu social worker (Khar Danda) tried to handle this deviation in the programme by
mostly focusing on the housing issue. However, if any issue came up on the domestic
workers front such as cases, etc., it was taken up through domestic workers’ meetings but
these were not frequent. The Setu social worker (Khar Danda) also tried to handle the
domestic workers’ issue and tried to keep it going by instructing the two community
leaders. But she was not able to give them sufficient guidance and as a result most of the
activities for domestic workers came to a standstill.

When the project staff was asked if work on the domestic workers’ issue would have
continued if it had been taken up in this phase both the Director and social worker
answered in the negative. They could not focus on anything other than the housing issue.
The Director of Setu said, ​“We would have done it for our satisfaction. We would have
strained their resources, their energy level and I don’t feel they would have been with us
at all.”

STRUCTURE

Organisational Structure: PHASE III (1994 –1996)

The organisational structure of Setu in this phase has been graphically represented below

SETU
Roles and Responsibilities
One social worker, a BSW, was responsible for the part-time domestic workers at Khar
Danda. The other social worker, a MSW, worked with the full-timers at the centres at
Walkeshwar and Chowpatty. She had the responsibility of lobbying and networking.

There was already a social worker for part-timers. Khar Danda intervention had
consolidated and there was a lot of growth among the domestic workers, in the sense that
amongst the domestic workers there evolved a collective consciousness, a firm foothold
had been obtained and a very committed core group in the grass roots had evolved. The
focus, however, completely shifted from the domestic workers’ issue as the housing issue
became prominent in 1994 and the social worker (Khar Danda) had to respond and shift
her focus accordingly.

The process of workers development progressed in 1994- 1996. The workers prepared a
street play and had public performances, talked to people about the bill, made efforts to
start a new centre by arranging meetings at night to call domestic workers to the Worli
centre. They began to enter organisational functioning as well.

There were many demands on the social worker in terms of work at the centres in
Walkeshwar, Chowpatty and the Campaign, etc. This core group of workers took over the
roles and responsibilities at the centres; they became leaders and would inform the social
worker (Walkeshwar) about what had happened and what was required.

Allocation of responsibilities was at a very broad level - the Director regarded her role as
a co-ordinator, a facilitator who put things together. ​The Director of Setu said she did not
want many social workers and it was just two social workers and herself, though many
times during this phase she did feel there was need of another worker. She explained,
“Since we were in the experimental stage, we did not want too many workers; and funds
were also not much at that stage. Secondly we felt this has to be a workers movement.
The fewer social workers we have the more the domestic workers will take
responsibility. …”
It was therefore a concrete strategy that was employed in the structure of the organisation
as well, to employ only two social workers though the work was expanding. The reasons
for this were that the Setu staff wanted the domestic workers to take on responsibility – it
being a participatory approach. They wanted domestic workers to handle responsibility
for cases between domestic worker and employer, to address their own problems, call
their own meetings and determine what they wanted to do, thereby reducing their
dependence on Setu social workers.

The Director mentioned that despite the increase in campaign-work responsibilities the
number of staff was the same. At the time she felt that they should take on another
worker as it was getting too difficult to manage the work. They then started using the two
leaders of the domestic workers in Khar Danda who assisted in the mobilising work.

Division of Tasks
Division of responsibilities was done according to academic qualifications and capability.
Tasks were automatically separate and there was hence no division required since broad
responsibilities were also separate.

According to the social worker at Walkeshwar, there was a certain hierarchy in allocating
responsibilities. This allocation was also based upon the capabilities of each worker. She
was an MSW, responsible for the Walkeshwar centre and later on the centre at
Chowpatty. Her tasks included the work for the campaign and networking, co-ordinating
all activities, report writing and administrative functions. She was given the responsibility
of campaign work because of her interest and fluency in English, Marathi and Hindi.

The social worker at Khar Danda, a BSW, was very good at community work. She was
responsible for the domestic workers’ issue in the community at Khar Danda. As a
student social worker she had proved her capabilities as a community worker. The
Director described her as excellent and very committed.

According to the social worker at Khar Danda, there was certainly a hierarchy because
everyone did not have the same abilities. But apparently this hierarchy was never felt
much in the process of functioning. The communication channels with the Director were
very open. Also this hierarchy mentioned by the social worker at Walkeshwar did not
create any ill feeling between the two social workers at their level.

Extent of Hierarchy
The two social workers initially reported individually to the Director and later on in staff
meetings to the Director. The structure was therefore basically flat. When networking
was being done in Maharashtra, then both the workers had to go touring after allocation
and distribution of the work and they got back to report on their progress, at the meetings.

Extent of Formalisation
The Director and social worker at Walkeshwar would have informal meetings every two
or three days. If the Director had something to discuss she would go to the office and
meet the worker or leave a message at the workers’ desk. If the social worker wanted to
clarify any matter she would go and meet the Director.

Meetings that were held once a month with the social worker at Khar Danda in the earlier
phase were now held once a week in the College. This change occurred about six months
after the social worker at Walkeshwar joined Setu, by the end of 1994. These staff
meetings were in response to the two wings of Setu – part-time and full-time domestic
workers; to handle additional responsibilities imposed by lobbying and networking done
by Setu; to present the students with a co-ordinated front.

The social worker (Khar Danda) explained – ​“The staff meetings were also to share what
was happening in Setu, at Khar Danda, at Walkeshwar. There was a need for us to come
together and divide our tasks as a response to that (Campaign work)…”​ Earlier, the
social worker (Khar Danda) was mostly at DHP and CCC. With these regular weekly
staff meetings she had to come to College. According to her, this helped her to reorient
her focus and feel more of a part of Setu than of DHP.

Also, there were group conferences where the Director, social workers and student social
workers would all be present and plan for the week. They thus knew what was happening
with the project as a whole and the common goal of the project.

The social workers had to submit a report each month. The social worker at Khar Danda
was quite open to the idea of writing reports. However, the social worker at Walkeshwar
was handling administrative tasks, report writing for the organisation, writing cases and
programmes, etc., so she was not so inclined to submit personal activity reports as well.
The Director also stopped insisting about reports after a while since she found her a
committed and skilled worker.

During this phase, people volunteered as teachers. They were usually employers of
domestic workers. The irregularity of volunteers was an impediment to the literacy
programme at Walkeshwar, the other conscientisation and worker-development
programmes of Setu. The domestic workers would tell other clients that there was
nothing happening at the agency and this led to further dropouts.

The College of Social Work placed student social workers at Setu during this phase. One
student social worker was instrumental in starting the Chowpatty centre. Another student
social worker began efforts towards the end of this phase to start a centre at Worli. With
the efforts of a domestic worker and Setu social worker, the domestic workers were
mobilised and a centre was started at the gardens at Nehru Centre.

Student social workers at Khar Danda also kept the issue of domestic workers alive
though the focus had shifted to housing by taking up cases of domestic workers when
required.
During this phase, domestic workers both at Khar Danda and Walkeshwar started on the
lower rung of the organisational structure and the tasks of mobilising efforts, keeping a
check on the daily requirements of the centre, handling their own cases etc. were handed
over to them. In Khar Danda, two women leaders who had shown initiative were
employed by Setu for a small monthly stipend. In Walkeshwar, the growth of the
domestic workers was also immense and since the social worker there was having too
many demands on her time she willingly handed over some responsibilities to the
domestic workers. This was a real phase of growth and development for the Setu
domestic workers.

PROCESS

Decision Making
With regard to decision-making and level of guidance, the Director took major decisions
and encouraged the social workers to take basic decisions independently.

Some of the decisions that were not delegated by the Director to the staff were: to start
Setu as a project distinct from DHP, to start a full-timers wing, to be a part of the
campaign network, to associate with trade unions, to accept the central secretarial role of
the CDWB, to pursue lobbying and advocacy with the government single-mindedly, and
relentlessly till the government gave in and finally passed the GR and the legislation. The
Director said that these were some of the decisions she felt she had to tenaciously hold on
to and would not compromise.

In view of the feedback from domestic workers, it was decided that the social worker at
Khar Danda was going to concentrate efforts on the housing issue. The Director felt that
if the domestic workers were aware that the social worker is constantly there with them
assisting them to achieve their housing rights, when that struggle is won, one can just
move on to the next issue.

The social worker at Walkeshwar was of the opinion that the interaction/guidance from
the Director was mutual and respectful. She did not have any problems with the Director.
The nature of direction given to the social worker involved the Director asking the social
worker the rationale behind a particular programme. She would suggest that more time
should be spent on a certain area. The social worker would present what according to her
was the field reality and thus the work was channelled. The social worker felt ​“it was
more of that kind (channelling the work) and I think she also felt I was capable. So I was
left to do the work and I appreciated it... to take certain decisions and to learn from the
mistakes. I think that much freedom was there...”

The social worker at Khar Danda also corroborated the fact that the Director gave broad-
level guidance and she would not tell the social worker what had to be done. Outcomes
and issues were tackled through discussion. She had to merely inform what was
happening and the Director would suggest certain activities or tasks. The Director felt she
was capable and she trusted her to carry out the tasks. Decisions were made in the group
and the Director would not enforce any of them. The worker felt confident of her
capabilities and this she felt was enhanced because the Director gave her a lot of freedom.

Communication Patterns and Information Flow​:

The Director regarded the communication flow as circular. She explained that her role
was not that of a Director but a kind of co-ordinator, as someone who is just pulling it all
together.

The social worker at Walkeshwar communicated to the Director directly about what was
happening day-to-day at the grassroots level. Sometimes the social worker would seek
the Directors’ views /perspective on certain cases she had to deal with. She said that she
would seek her opinion because sometimes some cases needed a lot of skill and were
very active.

Later on with campaign work, it was campaign level reporting. But the social worker at
Walkeshwar felt that very small level reporting was quite unnecessary. Sometimes the
Director would crosscheck with the social worker about what one of the students had
said. The Director would on her part communicate to the social worker if there were
some policy decisions.

The social worker also shared that after the first year of guiding student social
workers there was some confusion about the areas to be guided by the Director
and the social worker. This was sorted out and the social worker was found
capable enough to guide the students, with the Directors’ co-ordination.

The social worker at Khar Danda revealed that communication was about broad level
activities and groups. The Director was aware of organisations that had programme that
would be of interest to the social worker. The Director delegated her, for instance, for a
course on marriage and law. The Director encouraged the social worker to interact with
other organisations in the field of social work and learn from their approach as well.

Recruitment
The social workers had been placed with the project as students and thus the Director was
aware of their commitment and capability. She said, ​“They were there as students placed
with the issue of domestic workers. They showed interest and enthusiasm and so when
they finished as students they were asked if they would stay on. Both readily agreed and
that was a contributing factor to Setu’s growth. They had the whole background of Setu.
They showed commitment and competence, so it made sense to have their involvement
rather than having someone totally unfamiliar to this issue..”

The social worker at Khar Danda reinforced the above observation, ​“I think the Director
selected me because she has seen my work. She has seen my capabilities.”
The social worker at Walkeshwar felt that there were no guidelines for recruitment since
the Director had not hired anyone till the time she had resigned. Also, she was burdened
with the work of three people, which was very exhausting for her personally. She said the
Director wanted to get the right people, who had a vision of working with domestic
workers. She did not take people who did not have commitment. Also, the Director
wanted Setu to be a people’s movement. Hence even when the work was expanding she
did not hire anyone.

It was therefore a concrete organisation strategy, which was employed in the structure of
the organisation as well, to employ only two social workers though the work was
expanding. The Setu staff wanted the domestic workers to take on responsibility – it
being a participatory approach. They wanted domestic workers to be responsible for
cases between domestic worker and employer, to deal with and address their own
problems, call their own meetings and determine what they wanted to do themselves with
less dependence on Setu social workers

The Director also found this issue led to tension between her and the social worker at
Walkeshwar. She said that the social worker at one point mentioned that they needed
another worker. She told her to look out for one and if she knew of anyone she could
inform her. It caused a little strain at that time as the social worker was having too much
to deal with.

When asked about how the tension got resolved, the Director said that the issue did not
get resolved until the social worker submitted her resignation. It was then that they had to
get appoint a replacement.

This issue was a source of great tension and burnout for the social worker. She said she
would get lax and did not take much interest. According to her, one cannot do things
perpetually. She sometimes allowed things to happen and felt that at times one thus got a
little careless. She also felt that it was humanly impossible to carry out all the tasks and
there was hence both physical and mental strain.

The social worker in Khar Danda and Worli mentioned that within two years of the social
worker leaving the job, the response of the people decreased, as there was no one to relate
to. She was of the opinion that it is important that people’s faith is maintained. The
Director too felt that it was a mistake not to appoint anyone immediately after the social
worker at Walkeshwar resigned.

The researcher felt the lack of a recruitment policy was one reason for the decline in
Setu’s growth after 1996. It was necessary that the organisation keep committed students
in view, who would have been able to continue the extremely good work done by the two
social workers (1993-1996) of the project. They needed to be aware that all workers
might not be as committed as the first two social workers of Setu. However, if they had
sufficient exposure and perspective on the issue, trying them out would not have led to
gaps in the growth process of Setu. The organisation could have progressed instead of
having a makeshift arrangement and a partial standstill, which could have led to the
erosion of domestic workers’ faith in the organisation. Secondly, it meant that the new
social workers who came in had to restart the process of rapport building and mobilising
domestic workers, to an extent, all over gain. The momentum provided by the social
workers (1994-1996) was in essence, somewhat lost. And again the choice exercised by
the organisation in selecting the best worker of the lot was reduced, as the organisation
had to hire somebody as urgently as possible.

The heavy workload of the social worker at Walkeshwar must have had an impact on her
capacity and performance, which led to deterioration in the overall performance and
output of work. Eventually, it is also not the work getting done or not which is so crucial
but the depreciation in human capacity of functioning and level of personal interest,
which proves expensive for the organisation. Inputs into human resources are a must for
every organisation and social-work organisations in particular. This is because in the
social-work situation, demands on a person are emotionally, physically and
administratively higher, which are only offset by personal satisfaction from work and
seeing the dedicated effort bringing positive results. Even financial remuneration in the
field of social work is less and therefore not a criterion for encouragement of the workers.

Planning Monitoring and Evaluation

According to the Director planning is an essential part of ​any programme.​ They definitely
had to plan to demonstrate to the students the process of work. The Director explained the
process of planning with an illustration of how planning was done for the expansion of
campaign network in other parts of Maharashtra. Both the social workers together
decided the areas in Maharashtra that they would visit, whom they would visit and on
which day. They also planned the training programmes to be conducted. It was obvious
that these visits were planned carefully.

There was also individual programme planning such as celebrating Independence Day. It
would be clarified at the organisational level in the staff meetings, then with student
social workers and eventually with the domestic workers. Initially they would make
necessary clarifications at the organisational level and later with the students regarding
the objectives of the programme, the need, the involvement of the domestic workers, etc.,
If it was a major programme or decisions had to be made, the student social workers/
social workers would ask the opinion of the domestic workers regarding how they would
like to celebrate the programme or their opinion on the issue. The suggestions of the
domestic workers would be taken up at the following meeting of Setu staff or at group
conferences and it would be seen how these suggestions could be incorporated into
planning and organising a programme or moving ahead on a particular issue. They would
then allocate tasks among the student social workers. The social workers (Khar Danda
and Walkeshwar) would likewise elicit participation from the domestic workers and
distribute responsibility for various activities. Through these processes at Setu, the more
outspoken of the domestic workers emerged as leaders and they eventually began to
actively participate in the work of the organisation.
The social worker described the process at the Khar Danda centre citing the programme
for Independence Day as an example. The social worker was asked what happens if they
don’t want to have a particular programme/ celebration. She replied that they then would
ask the domestic workers what they wanted to do and what would be their contribution,
what should be bought. They would ask for volunteers who would buy what was
required. The programme committee would then be set up and people had to volunteer
for the various tasks. The domestic workers were told that the significance of 15​th​ August
was not only freedom but also responsibility.

Thus through a process of eliciting the participation of domestic workers at every point,
the programmes were organised and important messages were given through these
programmes such as “15​th​ August is not only about freedom but also responsibility.”
Through this whole process, leaders emerged who were willing to participate actively and
take responsibility. As their individual growth increased, they became more able to enter
organisational functioning and take responsibility for the issue. The Director mentioned
that they had not chosen the leaders. During the meetings, some of the domestic workers
were more outspoken and interested, were daring, courageous and prepared to take risks
and give the time required. These were just natural leaders that emerged and they just
had to reinforce that leadership by giving them opportunities to meet, attend training
programmes and return to report to the group.

With regard to the centre at Walkeshwar, the Director said that apart from literacy, Setu
wanted a holistic development for the workers. They discussed the gaps they felt existed
and the sessions needed for the workers. The workers lacked self-confidence and had a
poor self- image. The sessions thus had to address this aspect and the building up of their
personality.

Regarding the personal level of planning done by the social workers, it was realised that
everything that was to be done would be planned; the expected outcome would be
considered for the planning of the sessions. According to the social worker at Khar
Danda, meetings too were planned. They considered planning to be with a particular
objective depending on the outcome they wanted.

The social worker at Walkeshwar said that planning was done from the time they
launched the project. Meetings were planned in advance. She felt she had learnt that
listing things was beneficial. She had learnt this from the Director. If it were a session
one should say why it was being done and what was to be achieved, with whom would
the activity be carried out and the medium to be used. This became a natural process and
she personally practised this in all aspects. She was emphatic in her response that it
helped to keep a focus and was a guiding factor.

There was ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the programmes along with the student
social workers at group conferences and prior to which, evaluations would be done
among the Setu staff. There was no formal evaluation process, it was introduced after
1999, but through students and among the staff there was quite a bit of monitoring. Feed-
back was also elicited from the domestic workers regarding their opinions and views on
what was happening.

According to the Director, ​“Once a programme was over we had to evaluate it. Did it
achieve the objective, how far, why not? What can we do better next time? The same
exercise was done with the domestic workers. What did you think of this exercise? Could
we do something else next time? What is your idea?”

The social worker (Khar Danda) also referred to the Students Group Conference as a
mechanism used for monitoring where there were evaluations of the work done.

The social worker (Walkeshwar) referred to two levels of evaluation one at the level of
domestic workers; the other at the staff level, probably including student social workers
as well.

Lastly, there were biannual evaluations about six months apart. At this point, they would
assess what had happened and the tasks to be delegated to the student social workers
when they came in for the new year/ term.

Conflict Management; Power Relationships; Group Dynamics

There were no open conflicts in this phase. Sometimes there would be minor
tension/strain in the working relationship. Both the social workers, in response to a direct
question as to whether there was any conflict in this phase, answered in the negative.
Each one had clearly-demarcated responsibilities and was essentially working in
isolation. The social worker (Khar Danda) gave the reason for the absence of conflict as,
“Actually everyone is aware about what are the objectives and need, even the student; we
need not talk about all the issues. If they find anything they clarify with their social
workers. Within the staff also there was no conflict because each one was clear about
their own goal.”

The Director described two areas of tension:​“... if at all there was it would be that I was
not giving enough time to the social workers. The students were always there and I could
not give them (the social workers) enough time and guidance. Even though they never
said so. I sometimes could feel that they were thinking ‘ma’am is taking us almost for
granted, the students their needs are considered first.’ ”

The Director resolved this issue by rescheduling staff meetings for every Thursday
morning. On Thursday afternoons group conferences were held with the students and the
staff. She also scheduled meetings for holidays when they would do the planning.

The second issue that the Director felt caused a strain was: ​“At one point I could find the
social worker saying that we need to have another worker. I would tell her that I agree
with you but you look out and see who that other worker could be... And bring it to my
notice… so that caused a strain at that time. She was having to handle too much.”
Responding to how that issue got resolved, the Director replied that it did not and the
social worker eventually said that she was resigning within two months. At this point the
Director was forced to appoint someone. This was a paraprofessional (1996-1997), until a
social worker, an MSW, (1997-1998), joined the organisation and was at Walkeshwar.

The social worker (Walkeshwar), speaking about staffing philosophy, the demands that
campaign work put on the staff and how that was dealt with, reflected on the tension she
had felt handling the pressure of work. She remarked: ​“There wasn’t any philosophy as
such (for staff recruitment). By the time I had left the Director had not hired anybody.
And I was doing the work of three people alone. So it was for me emotionally and
physically very exhausting. Once or twice I would not go at all (to the centres). So some
areas used to suffer. I would not deny that. They do suffer. It was humanly impossible.
There was physical strain, mental strain... At one time I was totally burnt out. With the
work sometimes you get lax. Let it happen. Don’t take interest. You can’t do things
perpetually… Perfectly… I used to see this is happening so let it happen. You get a little
careless also...”

Motivation and Commitment, Staff Development and Socialisation of Staff

The Director described the phase 1994-1996 as one of lot of ups and downs. She said,
“This was a time of great activity, great exhilaration, great expectation and yet great
frustration. Things seemed within reach. Everything seemed so easily attainable and yet
so much of a struggle and the struggle just dragged on. So by the end of 1996, it was like
we were getting nowhere”​ (on the housing issue and the legislation front).

Her morale was maintained since in both the housing and domestic workers’ issue,
(Walkeshwar), there was a core group of workers who also shared the vision of the
organisation and were not willing to compromise. They were willing to pay the price.

There was no job description given to the two social workers appointed. They were told
that as professional social workers, they had to continue the work they had started as
students.

The social worker (Walkeshwar) was the only one who had as a student asked for a
placement with domestic workers because she wanted to see how the issue turned out.
She shared that her motivation was high as a student and never really declined, ever. This
she said was because things were constantly happening. They (as students) were also very
young and felt they were going to change the world. According to her, as a group the
motivation of Setu staff was very high. They were very enthusiastic and their morale was
always very high. She also shared that she faced frustrations as if they were challenges
and learning- experiences. She says, ​“I was facing frustrations and yet there was
excitement. For me every day was a new challenge... we had to talk to the union leaders
and that for me was quite a learning experience.”

The social worker (Khar Danda) revealed that the Director never told her the basics of
routine tasks. Broad directions were given. Any issue was discussed and sorted out. She
felt independent and did not fear taking decisions. She was of the opinion that the
Director also found her capable. This she felt was the reason for her selection as a
professional social worker. The Director had seen her work and capabilities. As a student,
she was very good in her work as well.

The social worker (Khar Danda) was of the opinion that part-timers were more difficult
to work with, in terms of eliciting a response. Often when the response was not
encouraging, it would need patience and courage and was a frustrating period. She
mentioned, ​“… you may arrange for something and women may not come (because they
have other family responsibilities and time-constraints due to the part-time nature of
work). So you are unsure of the turnout. You need a lot of patience and you need
courage...”

Both the social workers shared that when things were not going smoothly or as planned,
the Director played a very supportive role. When it really counted, this approach was a
crucial factor for them to persevere despite their frustration.

The social worker (Walkeshwar) said, ​“Even if we failed she (Director) did not make an
issue about it. She took a positive attitude and said ‘Ok. It happens sometimes.’ You also
need negative feedback when you are doing something wrong. But when you are not
doing so well then you need support because in this work there is a high level of
burnout...”

The social worker at Khar Danda was appreciative of the Director’s response. She
expressed, ​“Yes many times I felt discouraged and I used to share with the Director. But
she didn’t say ‘How did it happen?’… Then it would have become difficult for me. But
she accepted that this is a problem. It gave me confidence. She gave me encouragement…
which gave me courage...”

The social worker at Walkeshwar felt encouraged as the Director regularly visited the
field and took an active interest in her work. She felt that that fact was quite enough to
keep up her motivation and commitment. She said​, “I was committed. I could see the
commitment in her (Director) and her enthusiasm. I think that is one very basic factors
that your Director comes to the field and shows interest in your work. I think that is
enough to keep you motivated.”

Performance Appraisal
Performance appraisal in this phase was six- monthly. The Director would write her
evaluation and the social workers would also write their interpretation separately. It
would be mutually discussed and would go on record. There were monthly reports, which
the social workers had to write as well. Performance appraisal was not linked to
incentive.

The Director’s appraisal of the social workers in this phase was that they were extremely
motivated, ​competent​ and committed. With their joining, Setu stabilised very much as a
project. They were very much into the whole concept of Setu. They had a vision of what
Setu could and should be; they were such workers who did not need to be told the details,
who, if just given the broad guidelines could work on from there.

PERFORMANCE

Output
The participation and involvement of the domestic workers in the centre’s activities was
encouraged. The staff would elicit their opinion, views or participation on any issue or
any programme. As a result, eventually there was a very high degree of participation
from the domestic workers’ side as is seen later on by the entry of the workers into the
structure of the organisation to manage some of the basic activities.

Due to the association of domestic workers with Setu, the boys had become more
confident and assertive. The employers had noticed this change in the boys and attributed
it to their association with Setu.

The domestic workers got together and prepared the basic idea for the street play. The
social worker contacted a communication expert from Xavier’s Institute of
Communication. The expert helped the domestic workers in making the necessary
modifications. The domestic workers would perform this play at every public
forum/opportunity.

In this phase, Setu gained a lot of credibility and recognition through its work. The
College of Social Work got a lot of recognition from the public and the government
through Setu’s efforts, Setu being a project of the College. In terms of credibility, a lot of
support and response was being generated among the domestic workers.

As a part of the College of Social Work, Setu was able to command a respect in calling
the campaign partners to the negotiating table. It was also a major outcome that Setu was
a part of the campaign network and could associate with the BMS and PMS (both the
trade unions of rightist and leftist leaning formed the GKKS). Within Setu, the decision
was taken to go along with the CDWB, a move of the campaign network.

There was societal awareness created in this phase with media reporting on the bill, the
morcha, and signature campaign of the domestic workers to the candidates standing for
assembly elections. The judicious use of the media by the CDWB, of which Setu was a
part, led to increased awareness on the domestic workers’ issue. Setu also on its part
networked with CACL, to speak on various forums and create awareness. The domestic
workers were also involved in this awareness drive. Their dedication with the issue was
manifested in the performance of the street play, which they had prepared in
collaboration with XIC.
Domestic workers took up their issue themselves. They entered the organisational
structure, mobilised other domestic workers, created awareness on the bill, had meetings
at night in an effort to set up the Worli centre, handled their own cases and assisted each
other. At Khar Danda and Walkeshwar, there was a core group of 25-30 domestic
workers who had become dedicated to the issue. At Khar Danda the “natural” leaders
entered the organisation structure formally, as they were now paid a stipend. One of them
was deputed to a national conference to speak on Setu’s achievements. The domestic
workers’ growth was immense when they got an opportunity to meet corporators and
legislators standing for elections. They were able to gain some understanding of what the
struggle entailed.

In response to the query regarding the effect of Setu’s deviation in plan on its work and
programmes, the staff of Setu felt that though they did not have any tangible results in
this period, they gained intangibly as they had the trust of the client group because Setu
had stood by them through the housing struggle.

The social worker (Khar Danda) said that the client group was satisfied with the
immediate help given, that there was work on the issue of housing and the progress was
visible. On the other hand there was no visible progress on the domestic workers’ issue
and the impact of the work would be seen in the future.

According to the Director, the women felt that Setu was interested in their needs. They
developed interest in Setu since they found Setu credible. They felt that Setu was with
them and they could count on Setu’s workers. They were however not ready to devote
energy for the struggle on legislation for domestic workers.

The researcher felt the lack of a recruitment policy was one reason for the decline in
Setu’s growth after 1996. It was necessary that the organisation keep committed students
in view, who would have been able to continue the extremely good work done by the two
social workers (1993-1996) of the project. They needed to be aware that all workers
might not be as committed as the first two social workers of Setu. However, if they had
sufficient exposure and perspective on the issue, trying them out would not have led to
gaps in the growth process of Setu. The organisation could have progressed instead of
having a makeshift arrangement and a partial standstill, which could have led to the
erosion of domestic workers’ faith in the organisation. Secondly, it meant that the new
social workers who came in had to restart the process of rapport building and mobilising
domestic workers, to an extent, all over gain. The momentum provided by the social
workers (1994-1996) was in essence, somewhat lost. And again the choice exercised by
the organisation in selecting the best worker of the lot was reduced, as the organisation
had to hire somebody as urgently as possible.
PHASE - IV (January 1997 – September 1998)

Domestic workers were in contact with Setu in Khar Danda, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty and
Worli. The two social workers that had been with the organisation from 1993-1996 were
not available to carry out the work. The social worker at Walkeshwar had resigned and
the social worker at Khar Danda was on maternity leave. A paraprofessional had to be
employed in a hurry. The Director explained the situation: ​“ I was again looking for
someone … we could have anyone but I said you can’t take anyone. People coming in
and out also affects the whole issue, as I saw in Danda. Literally, there was nobody. I
prefer to have nobody rather than anybody …”

In spite of these constraints, Setu continued its basic activities with the paraprofessional
(1996-1997) and student social workers, till two professional social workers, a MSW and
a BSW joined in 1997.

During this phase, YUVA took over the responsibility of the central secretariat of CDWB
from Setu. As a campaign partner, Setu protested against the police move to get
employers to register details of domestic workers working with them. At Setu, a stand
was taken that this was a move that impinged on the fundamental human rights of the
domestic workers. The Director explained that since efforts on the bill had got stalled
this move gave CDWB an opportunity to do something concrete on the advocacy front
and maintain its purpose. Meanwhile, the bill had got stalled and the government
committee on unorganised labour, in which CDWB had no deliberate voice, came up
with the idea of the GR. The GR was ready in May 1997. Setu began to communicate to
the domestic workers how it was not to be passed up. It was at least a foothold, which
with efforts would lead to further action in the future. If this foothold were given up, it
would be back to square one. The GKKS had by then been dissolved.

Meanwhile, at Khar Danda, the social worker (1993-1996) had gone on leave. The new
social worker (1997-1998, Khar Danda) described her difficulties: ​“Because of the two
years’ gap, I again had to go to the people (to mobilise them). I had to again gain their
confidence. That is a very tough job. We can’t play games with them …we are there for a
short time then after some time we stop…that (community mobilisation) was the main
work because of which I had to employ different strategies. I started the savings scheme
because people would say nothing happens here. Their faith had gone completely…”

Many of the activities of the social worker (1997-1998) were aimed at reviving and
creating a contact with the people again.

Also, since there was a police move to register details of domestic workers and media
reports of domestic workers attacking senior-citizen employers, Setu realised that this
was tarnishing the image of domestic workers as a group. It was proving a setback to the
efforts to obtain legislative protection for domestic workers. In response to this
environmental threat, Setu initiated discussions with domestic workers in order to evolve
a code of conduct for both employers and domestic workers. Though defensive at the
beginning, eventually domestic workers saw the rationale behind the code of conduct and
realised that it would protect their interests as Setu’s clients. It was a move to give Setu
more credibility in society, as an organisation that was interested in the holistic
development of domestic workers and prevention of their exploitation. It was also a
responsibility, and it could not condone wrongdoings of domestic workers.

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

Client group
Domestic workers were in contact with Setu in Khar Danda, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty and
Worli. It was a period of frustration for the domestic workers who had hoped that the
1996 morcha would help them get their demands. Their expectations, which had been
aroused in the process of organising the morcha and creating public awareness about the
domestic workers’ issue, were not fulfilled. 1994-1996 was a period that saw an increase
in the domestic workers’ involvement with the organisation and personal growth due to
the efforts of social workers. After 1996, there was no professional social worker at any
of these four centres, though a para-professional was employed and there were student
social workers. The performance and commitment elicited from the client group in the
previous phase declined.

The centre at Khar Danda was revived by the social worker in June 1997. The new social
worker (1997-1998) at Khar Danda slowly regained the trust of the people, which had
declined in the absence of a social worker (she had gone on maternity leave). The new
social worker also continued the activities of the Worli centre with the assistance of the
student social workers.

Similarly, activities continued at Walkeshwar and Chowpatty with the para-professional

and student social workers. Eventually a professional social worker (1997-1998),
Walkeshwar, Chowpatty and campaign) was employed.

In this phase, the client group felt that the GR was nothing compared to what had been
discussed and promised. Setu had to convince the domestic workers that the draft GR
was not a sell-out. Rather, if it came into existence it would be possible to at least
undertake further efforts. It was necessary to accept the draft GR in order to gain a
foothold, in return for the efforts put in so far. It would be equivalent to being back to
square one after so much effort if the GR was not accepted.

Setu stood by the domestic workers, when the Police Commissioner called upon
employers to register details at the police station of their domestic workers. Setu took the
stand that this move was improper and impinged on the basic human rights of the
domestic workers – their fundamental rights as a citizen. Later, when press reports of
domestic workers attacking elderly persons increased, Setu initiated discussions with
domestic workers on a code of conduct for both employers and domestic workers. The
domestic workers were initially a bit defensive about this but then they realised that a
code of conduct would protect their interests as domestic workers as well in the following
ways:

1) There was a code of conduct for the employers as well.

2) It would lead to an eventual public perception that domestic workers are reliable.
3) It would generate more sympathy for their cause.
4) It would prevent their entire group from being labelled when certain domestic
workers did indulge in criminal acts.

Domestic workers were taken to the meetings with the government committee on
unorganised labour to show them how the legislative process works and indirectly
facilitate their growth. The Director said, ​“... on one occasion we took domestic workers
to the meeting so that they could hear what the government was saying. They had no
courage to speak (at the meeting) but at least they heard the whole process and were a
part of it.”

Legislative Bodies
Setu participated as a campaign-network partner in the meetings of the commission on
unorganised labour, held by the government. The CDWB was allowed to attend these
meetings in January 1997, with the persistent efforts of the CDWB to gain entry into the
committee. However, CDWB had no deliberate voice.

In May 1997, through their efforts the GR was ready. It was officially presented to the
chief minister in June 1997 and the labour minister, Mr Shabbir Sheikh, promised the
announcement of the GR on 15​th​ August 1997. Promises were made and no progress was
visible until at a meeting of the committee with CDWB, the labour minister agreed to
announce it in January 1998. However, there was still no announcement and meetings
were held for it to be announced at the monsoon session in August 1998, but nothing
happened. A second morcha was planned and then the government announced the draft
GR in September 1998.

A month was given for objections to be raised but as it was Diwali it was delayed by two
months. The government committee said that they required time to read all suggestions
and write the report which would be presented to the labour minister. The government
argued that the demands were unrealistic and would backfire against domestic workers in
society. But CDWB maintained their stand that the GR was nothing exceptional and the
government should keep its promise.

According to the Director of Setu the government was hesitating, because it did not want
to antagonise the middle-class voters, as this was the group most likely to be affected by
the GR.

There was chaos for the winter session on account of the issue of the Sri Krishna Report
and there was no discussion on the GR. The Campaign representatives met the labour
minister along with Mr Venkappa Patki, MLC. At this meeting assurances were given
regarding the GR. However, due to political uncertainty by the end of 1998, the
Assembly did not pursue the GR. Lobbying efforts continue with the new government to
officially publish the GR and provide benefits to domestic workers.

On 29​th​ January 2000, a press conference was held to mention that the GR would be
published. On August 10​th​ 2000 the GR was finally officially published.

Other NGOs
The CDWB, which comprised Setu, YUVA, BHS and other organisations, persisted with
the committee on unorganised labour till they got an entry into the meetings. At these
meetings, they contributed their views and feedback from the domestic workers.

The CDWB continued its efforts though the government would delay. Another issue on
which CDWB networked was the issue of the police demanding that employers should
register with the police the details of the domestic workers in their employ. This, the
CDWB felt, was a move, which made out domestic workers to be potential criminals and
was impinging on their human rights.

At a meeting of CDWB on 18​th​ July 1998, the main agenda was to obtain a critical
analysis of the government report on domestic workers that was scheduled to be officially
released on 15​th​ August 1998.

The Mathadi Workers Board scenario was discussed to draw a parallel to the domestic
workers situation and it was realised that in the case of mathadi workers, it was possible
for social security since the workers are numerous and organised.

At the meeting, Smt Sujata Gothuskar, a ​feminist ​legal activist, gave broad outlines of the
report. The Social security that was being proposed was a weekly holiday, 15 days’
annual paid leave, medical benefits of Rs. 100/- per year, 10% annual wage increment
and old-age pension. The scheme was in the form of conventions. The Labour Welfare
Board was to register employers and workers. Each one had to pay Rs. 20/-. There was
no mention of non-registration in the report. It was proposed to include domestic workers
in the Minimum Wages Act and a minimum wage to be fixed.

The implications arising from this report were considered and were to be discussed with a
lawyer:

1) Domestic workers will decrease, as employers will try to bypass the law. To cover
this point, a provision could be included that domestic workers may not be
dismissed because of this recommendation.
2) It was suggested that a provision be made for housing-societies to undertake
registration.
3) Government should be made to feel the pressure of the 4% vote bank of domestic
workers.
 4) This report should be explained to the two parties - employers and domestic
workers to build up progress.

The draft GR 1095/76311/(667)/Worker –12 was published on 7​th​ September 1998 and
CDWB, under Setu’s coordinatorship again, had submitted a letter to the Labour
Commissioner (number) Commerce Centre, Tardeo, giving the CDWB’s reactions to the
recommendations in the proposed GR.

The suggestions were as under:

1) The benefits proposed by the GR should cover both categories of domestic
workers – part-time and full-time.
2) Child labour was definitely prevalent in domestic work. The GR should declare
this occupation hazardous for children and prohibit employment of children as
domestic workers.
3) Time specification for payment of gratuity should be withdrawn as it could be
misused as a loophole. The payment of gratuity could be implemented
retrospectively.
4) CDWB recommended formalisation of the employer-domestic worker
relationship, although its nature is personal and informal.
5) CDWB members should be included in the proposed minimum wages committee.
6) The Regional /Vigilance Committees which are implementing bodies should
include representatives of employees, employers, labour-department machinery as
well as concerned NGOs and trade unions working for the cause of domestic
workers.

Other Organisations
The Economics department of SNDT college started to interface with Setu. Their
students began to study the work condition of domestic workers. The need was felt to
obtain an employers’ perception of domestic workers. Accordingly, SNDT students
conducted a survey among employers to examine their attitudes regarding their workers
and their problems, if any. A summary of these perceptions and problems were presented
to the domestic workers, who in turn presented their problems with employers. In the
presence of two SNDT faculty representing employers, a code of conduct was formulated
for both employers and workers. This was subsequently discussed in various meetings of
employers and domestic workers. Setu considers this mutual acceptance of a code of
conduct to be a major bridge–building achievement.

The Police
The police introduced a move that all employers must provide details of the domestic
workers in their employ to the police. The stand at Setu was that :​“we would not allow
this to happen. It was like reinforcing the stereotype that domestic workers are
criminals.” ​ Setu in association with CDWB took a very active part in meeting the Police
Commissioner and asked that this kind of instruction to the police station be withdrawn.
The Police Commissioner did not withdraw this entirely but he said that it would not be
obligatory; whoever wanted to provide the details should provide them to the police.

Other Bodies – Housing Societies

This interaction was basically through domestic workers. They gave feed-back from the
environmental situation that housing societies were asking for details of domestic
workers. Setu also observed that there had been a lot of cases of crimes against senior
citizens committed allegedly by domestic workers. So Setu thought it was wise to allow
at least the Secretaries of the housing societies to take these details. Setu felt that this
move would protect both the worker and employer indirectly because there is a written
document of the employer–employee relationship. Setu, however, insisted that this
identification should be done only by housing societies.

Bureaucracy
On 18​th​ November 1997, the Director of Setu sent a letter to Shri R.G. Patil, assistant
commissioner of labour, Thane requesting NGO representation at the committee for
unorganised labour on behalf of the CDWB.

On 4​th​ May 1998, a meeting was convened by Mr R.G. Patil, Assistant Labour
Commissioner of Thane with CDWB. It was held at the request of CDWB. The agenda
was to review the progress made by the consultative committee constituted by the State
Government, to enact a comprehensive legislation for domestic workers, as committed by
the State Government in response to a question raised in the Vidhan Parishad during the
budget session of March 1998.

The assistant labour commissioner (ALC) informed the CDWB that an exhaustive survey
of 3,000 domestic workers had been undertaken in the state. Dr Dutta from the Tata
Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) was authorised to analyse the data and furnish a report
on the same. The report was likely to be completed by the last week of May 1998. He
further informed the CDWB that the consultative committee, after much deliberation had
reached a consensus that the state government should consider the release of the
Government Resolution (G.R.).

On 28​th​ of May 1998, a meeting of the consultative committee for domestic workers was
convened by Mr R.G. Patil, assistant labour commissioner, Thane region. The Labour
minister, Mr Shabbir Sheikh, presided over this meeting. The agenda was to appraise the
consultative committee of the report of the survey of 3,000 domestic workers in Mumbai
and to reach a consensus among the committee members regarding the social security
benefits to be extended to domestic workers through a proposed GR.

The report revealed that all the domestic workers were largely rural immigrants living in
urban areas, the maximum number of people were in the age group of 25-35 years, by
and large illiterate, and a majority had 4-6 members in their family. The average
household income was Rs.50-1,000/-. Several domestic workers had been working with
the same employer for 15 years. The average working hours for a majority of domestic
workers extended from 10-12 hours per day.

Based on these findings, the social-security indicators for the GR drawn were:
1) Paid weekly leave
2) Paid annual leave of 15 days /quarterly leave of 3 days or 15 days extra salary per
year.
3) Entitlement to bonus after one year with the same employer equivalent to the
Diwali bonus.
4) A service pay of 15 days per year after 5 years of service with same employer.
5) Medical reimbursement of Rs. 100 per annum.
6) Annual leave travel allowance.
7) Inclusion of domestic workers in the scheduled list of employment in the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Appointment of a separate committee for fixation of
minimum wages for full-time and part-time workers.
8) The constitution of a Vigilance Committee (V.C.) at zonal levels (East west
control) of the Welfare Commission for the implementation of GR. The V.C. to
meet periodically for grievance redressal and also take the responsibility for
registration of domestic workers and employers.

The draft GR 1095/76311/(667)/Worker –12 was published on 7​th​ September 1998 and
CDWB, with Setu as coordinator again, submitted a letter to the labour commissioner
giving the CDWB’s reactions to the recommendations in the proposed GR.

Setu was the coordinator of the CDWB by November 1997, since there was a social
worker (1997 – Walkeshwar, Campaign, Chowpatty) by then. The representation of
CDWB at meetings of the committee for unorganised labour was allowed and CDWB
was able to contribute to these discussions though they had no deliberate voice. Setu as
coordinator of CDWB, had the responsibility of calling together campaign NGOs for the
meetings of the committee. This committee on unorganised labour became the forum for
achieving the GR. The Director, Setu stated, ​“.. they were not at all in favour of a
legislation. We said the next best thing was to have a GR like the ILO convention.... We
were actively involved in the drawing up of these conventions, attended meetings,
contributed to discussions and so on."

Media
The interest of the media in the domestic workers’ issue was sustained in this phase.
There was coverage of the stalling of the draft GR. According to the Director of Setu,
“GR in draft form invited a lot of attention because it was all being said by the
government for the first time… The media was extremely interested whether these
promises would be realised. The media was interviewing NGOs, domestic workers and
employers. All this led to a lot of articles in the press…”

The CDWB did not want continuous coverage from the press, as it was felt that people
would tire of hearing of the issue. Public interest generated favourably would then be
lost. The media elicited CDWB’s response. Setu felt that: ​“This gave us a chance to
discuss these issues publicly. We used the media very cautiously.”

Funding Agencies
Setu has a single sponsor – an educational organisation in Japan called SSND. It funds
projects concerned with educating under-privileged persons/groups in developing
countries. For programmes of Setu, student social workers try to raise funds locally by
approaching individual donors, companies. The staff of Setu encourages the domestic
workers to make some contribution, however small, to elicit their participation.

STRATEGY

In this phase, there was not much of a change in the goals. CDWB, of which Setu was a
part, evolved into a forum for protecting the interests of domestic workers. It reacted to
the move by the police for employers to register details of domestic workers and due to
the intervention of CDWB, this was not made compulsory for the employers.

The process of evolving a code of conduct for the domestic workers and employers was
initiated in this phase. This was done because of newspaper reports of domestic workers
assaulting senior citizens. At Setu, it was felt that due to such incidents all domestic
workers were categorised as ‘bad’ and efforts for legislation for domestic workers get
hampered and thus evolved the idea of a code of conduct.

The outcome of the efforts of the previous phase was seen in this phase. These were:
1) The domestic workers’ issue reaching the societal level. The polity of the state
had to respond with positive action on a question raised by opposition parties on
the Domestic Workers Bill.
2) The formation of a committee on unorganised labour, which became a forum for
achieving the GR. Official GR was a major outcome of all efforts of all parties
and groups involved with the domestic workers’ issue.

Both these outcomes represented watershed developments, which arose from the
environment. This was the phase for Setu within which an effective response had to be
given which led to these watershed developments. It was a phase which showed a marked
change in the environment, and this change had to be responded to.

The watershed development was that the domestic workers’ issue was now a public issue.
On the part of the government the relevant GR had been issued. Now came the more
difficult period of ensuring whether the contents of the GR would be a reality or would
this be another exercise on paper alone.

The end of this fourth phase is an artificial end, created for the purpose of generating a
cut-off point for collecting data. Phase IV was a consolidation phase due to the turnover
of social workers and one social worker going on leave towards the end of the previous
phase. Setu responded to the watershed developments of this phase by inducting more
social workers, keeping one social worker solely for campaign and employing a
paraprofessional to assist him; expanding the reach of Setu through the city of Mumbai,
and trying to reach other language groups among domestic workers.

Internally, Setu also started the exercise of formal and goal oriented planning by
introducing training programmes for its staff. These changes were effected in order to
build up a certain momentum towards achieving the GR, to reach even larger groups of
employers and convince them of the basic compassion behind these demands of the GR.
These dual efforts to reach more domestic workers and employers and get a support base
amongst the heterogeneous groups of domestic workers were to prevent government
delay on the GR and take the process forward of registering domestic workers and
employers and move towards making the GR a reality.

As a part of CDWB, Setu was party to the decision to form a sort of activist wing of
CDWB – a task force against child labour. This task force was also formed after the
fourth phase. It was felt that the public was more sympathetic to the cause of children.
Hence using the example provided by the torture and tragic deaths of three child domestic
workers in the city and consequent media focus again on the domestic workers’ issue, the
task force against child labour was formed. The task force tried to sensationalise the three
incidents in order to bring about public awareness, not only against domestic child labour
but also eventually against the exploitation of domestic workers. Through this awareness
creation exercise, it was thought action would be easier on the issue.

Vision and Goals

The vision for this phase did not differ much from that of the previous phase. The efforts
to get legislation passed for the domestic workers resulted in the draft GR being
published officially. The emphasis in Setu according to the Director was: ​“To pursue
single-mindedly this lobbying and advocacy with the government, till the government
gives in and finally passes the GR or finally the legislation. So these were some of the
decisions I had to tenaciously hold on to…”

The goals at organisational level were going ahead with the expansion at centres. There
was a new centre at Worli; the Chowpatty centre had to be consolidated; Khar Danda had
to be revived. The goal was also to continue with Setu working as best as possible in the
absence of social workers, with the assistance of domestic workers, student social
workers and a paraprofessional. When the social workers were appointed they had to
consolidate and regain the lost momentum and build rapport with the domestic workers.

Approaches and Methods of Intervention

The participatory approach continued in this phase and methods used were casework,
home visits, group meetings with domestic workers, advocacy, employers’ meetings, and
community organisation.
The social worker (1997- , Walkeshwar, Chowpatty, CDWB) said, ​“They feel Setu means
domestic workers. At every programme we say ‘this is not my programme; this is your
programme; if you are not taking any interest, then you are not going to do that
programme’. Today I’m here (as social worker); tomorrow I may not be there and then
you have to see to the work.’ So they were able to work on their own.”

The social worker (1997-1998, Khar, Worli) gave an instance of savings schemes, which
fully illustrated how this approach was exercised: ​“I called the man (resource person
from post office) and gave them (domestic workers) all the information. I did a lot. Then I
left the decision to the people whether they wanted their money back or put it in this
scheme…Yes, it was totally their decision (to invest in savings scheme). On my part I just
gave the information, whatever was required…”

Programmes
The student social workers started the school awareness programmes in August 1998.
They would go to different schools and domestic workers would perform their street play
on the plight of domestic workers to elicit the school’s participation and empathy for the
domestic workers’ issue.

● At Khar Danda:
There were various activities/responsibilities, which had to be looked into.
The previous social worker (1993-1996) had gone on leave and there was no social
worker at Khar Danda. Hence many of the social workers’ (1997-1998) activities
were aimed at reviving and creating a contact with people again.

The social worker (1997-1998) found that the people had lost faith in Setu. She had to
take them into confidence and make them understand that there was no social worker
and reassure them that henceforth there would be continuity. She would interact with
them to reassure them when she went into the community or when domestic workers
attended the meetings for conscientisation.

The social worker (1997-1998) explained that in these two years efforts had been
made to maintain contact through student social workers. They would take up cases
of domestic workers; however, the people were not satisfied since they were aware
that student social workers were there for the purpose of their training and would go
away after a year. Hence, people did not feel the reassurance, though a sort of link
was maintained with the domestic workers’ issue at Khar Danda.

1. Casework
Though the housing issue continued, occasionally, there were cases of harassment of
domestic workers at Khar Danda. The social worker (1997-1998) dealt with these
cases.

2. Community Organisation:
 Due to the gap of nearly two years, during which there was no social worker at Khar
Danda, the social worker (1997-1998,) had to renew contact in the community. She
would initially visit the community and meet domestic workers and ask them their
problems, inform them about the existence of Setu and that she had taken over from
the earlier social worker (1993-1996). The social worker (1997-1998) revealed that
she had to face a lot of frustration when she was trying to mobilise people and it was
unsure whether domestic workers would respond to the meetings.

3. The Domestic Workers Meetings

The social worker (1997-1998) described these meetings as ‘jagruti’ meetings. She
was involved in mobilising women domestic workers for these meetings. She found
the domestic workers fluctuating in their response to these meetings. According to
her, they did come back to Setu. However, due to their having to do part-time jobs,
sometimes the attendance was poor. After working in several houses they were tired.

The meetings were conducted on the domestic workers’ issue, or issues that came up
such as rationing and alcoholism. The social worker felt it was important to address
the needs of the people to sustain their belief in Setu.

4. Savings Schemes
Prior to a social worker being appointed at Khar Danda, a student social worker was
placed by Setu at Khar Danda. This student collected money from the people and
decided to introduce the savings scheme. She went to the post office and insurance
office and collected information on schemes that would be applicable to this target
group. She made a study of all these schemes and found that the best benefits were
available from the post office scheme for five years. The social worker invited an
official from the post office to explain the scheme to the domestic workers.

As domestic workers had very meagre savings, it was felt that through this scheme
they could slowly collect money, which would be of use to them as a lump-sum
amount when they needed it.

5. Home Visits
The social worker would go to Khar for four days a week and do home visits. She
would visit various areas such as Old Madhalapada, New Madhalapada, Bandh area.
She would find out their problems, and if they were any, she would elicit their
participation for the domestic workers’ meetings. The home visit was used as another
method to increase the participation of domestic workers at the centre and their
involvement in the domestic workers’ issue.

● At Worli

1. National Open School and Literacy Classes

The literacy programme was the entry point with the full-time domestic workers who
would come to the Worli centre. The social worker (1997-1998, Khar Danda) had to
 work with the full-timers at Worli. However, most of the responsibilities of this
centre were managed by the student social workers.

The social worker (1997-1998, Khar, Worli) helped the National Open School (NOS)
student domestic workers to prepare for the exams since they had never gone to
school and did not know how to write an exam. She made them practice till they were
able to answer their papers in the allotted time. The six student domestic workers at
Worli passed the NOS exam at the first attempt.

The social worker (1997-1998, Khar, Worli) describes her satisfaction with the above
outcome : ​“I felt very happy … I felt I worked with commitment and I got the fruit of
that. There was no direct benefit but I got the intrinsic benefit of satisfaction.”

● At Walkeshwar and Chowpatty

1. Literacy and NOS

The mainstay of both these centres was these two programmes, through which slowly
conscientisation was done. The social worker (Walkeshwar, 1997) worked with
students for the Open School examination. Students who did not know how to read or
write, were doing the NOS- Standard - X level exam. The social worker looked at
such outcomes as an opportunity for economic development. He described the
process of literacy as a tool for awareness and gaining a strength and power of its
own: ​“If they are neglected then everybody is going to cheat them, the employer too.
Now they get cheated but they are asking questions ‘why is this happening?’ Why are
they being neglected? If they work for so much time then… there is that power now.
Unless it is there you cannot have any economic development…because of literacy. It
is an awareness that is getting created. Now they can protect their own interests.”

2. Casework and Home Visits

Casework and particularly home visits were being used as methods of focused
intervention if any domestic workers were having any problems. The social worker
(1997, Walkeshwar, CDWB, Chowpatty) revealed that these interactions had led to a
mutual relationship being built between Setu and employers, although there were also
other employers who adopted an arrogant attitude. Sometimes, for specific problems,
domestic workers needed one–to-one counselling as well.

3. Group Meetings/Domestic Workers Meetings

These continued during this phase as well, which probably unified Setu. The decision
such as opposing the police move of registering details of domestic workers was
taken at such meetings.

4. Campaign for Domestic Workers Bill (CDWB) Networking

 This was the main responsibility of the social worker (1997- Walkeshwar,
Chowpatty). As a partner in CDWB, Setu also had the responsibility of campaign
work. The social worker (1997, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty, CDWB) described that
along with other CDWB partners, Setu would try to approach opposition legislators
and get the question on Domestic Workers Bill introduced in the Legislative
Assembly; information on the cause of domestic workers would be given to the
legislators. All these efforts of CDWB resulted in a question being raised on the
Domestic Workers Bill by Mr Venkappa Patki in the Opposition in the Assembly.
The government was forced to respond positively and promised securities for
domestic workers by 15​th​ August 1998.

The social worker (1997, CDWB) explained that these securities for domestic
workers were languishing because of: 1) lack of political will and 2) the mammoth
task of registering domestic workers and employers that would have to be undertaken
for the purpose. With the second point, the Labour Welfare Department, which is
looking into the matter of domestic workers, has declared that they do not have
adequate manpower for this work.

5. Savings Scheme
The savings scheme was started by a student social worker. The purpose was to help
the domestic workers to save some money, which would be useful to them in times of
need. Earlier, when they would need money, they would approach moneylenders
who would charge very high interest rates.

The domestic workers kept as much money as they were able to collect. Though
initially the social worker was responsible, the domestic workers soon took charge of
maintaining the records. Older members of the organisation help to keep the records
since the Setu staff knows them. This is how the trust factor is maintained among the
domestic workers themselves and the saving scheme operates even on days when the
social worker is not present.

Student social workers were given responsibilities in the various programmes. This
was evident from records kept of the group conferences of students. The Director of
Setu, staff and students participated in the group conferences. The student social
worker took up responsibilities such as filling up the forms for NOS, Independence
Day celebrations, organising inputs on HIV/AIDS, and organising a camp for
domestic workers. The objectives of the camp were personality development,
organisation building, to strengthen unity among domestic workers, Teachers Day
celebrations, programme for Gandhi Jayanti, and organising sports-day programmes.

6. Monthly Melawas
A growth in initial awareness among social workers was evident in the organising of
the monthly ‘Melawas’. This event organised every 1​st​ Saturday afternoon at the
Walkeshwar centre, attracted numerous domestic workers of the neighbourhood. This
idea grew out of the workers’ realisation that it was imperative to widen their action
 base. On the nights preceding the ‘melawa’ domestic workers would mobilise
workers from surrounding buildings, inviting them to the event. It soon became a
common platform where workers would meet to socialise for a while and quickly
move into serious discussion of issues facing them, briefly that of pressuring
government to enact protective legislation for them. Workers began to experience
greater solidarity and their collective strength through these monthly meetings.

Deviation in programme planning​:

Due to campaign work, the social worker (1997-, CDWB, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty)
would often have to make changes in plans and visits at the centre level and attend to
campaign responsibilities since all papers were with him, as Setu was secretariat of
CDWB. Besides this there were the activities at the two centres to be dealt with and the
social worker found he was unable to give adequate time to one centre. He however kept
a practice of maintaining contact with the centres over the phone and managing with the
help of domestic-worker leaders. These problems were overcome to some extent by the
organisation inducting a paraprofessional who was given responsibilities of assisting the
social worker (Walkeshwar and Chowpatty) at one of the centres so that the social worker
could focus solely on campaign work.

STRUCTURE

Organisational Structure: PHASE IV – (1997-1998)

Organisational Structure: the organisational structure of Setu in this phase has been
graphically represented below:

SETU
Division of Tasks
During this phase, two social workers were employed. The Director of Setu was the
same. One social worker (Khar Danda, Worli) continued until 1998. She had the
responsibility of mobilising part-time domestic workers at Khar Danda and of continuing
the work of the previous workers (1993-1996) at Khar Danda. In addition, she had to
look after the centre activities at Worli in collaboration with the student social workers.

The other social worker was given the responsibility of the Campaign, Walkeshwar and
Chowpatty centres. He took over from a paraprofessional who had been employed for a
year (1996-1997).

Prior to the appointment of these two social workers, the work of Setu continued with
efforts of the student social workers and leaders among domestic workers and a
paraprofessional employed during 1996-1997.

The student social workers in Khar Danda would deal with domestic workers cases. The
Director, staff and students participated in the group conferences. From the records of the
group conferences of the students during this period, it is evident that the student social
workers organised various cultural programmes and camps: Programmes for Gandhi
Jayanti, Independence Day, Teachers Day, Christmas, Sports Day, an overnight camp,
locating a place for the Worli centre, efforts to ease the tension between the domestic
workers’ group at Walkeshwar and Chowpatty, issuing of ID cards, filling up forms for
NOS, organising inputs on HIV/AIDS.

The domestic workers were also involved in the organisation setup. The leaders would
manage the centre in the social worker’s absence. The social worker (1997- CDWB,
Chowpatty, Walkeshwar) shared that leaders were chosen by the domestic workers
themselves. They wrote the names on chits and the leaders were selected by majority
vote.

During this phase (1997-September 1998), meetings of the Director with the social
worker (Khar Danda) were held once a week, on a one–to-one basis. Staff meetings were
held once or twice a month, or more frequently according to need. There were also
weekly group conferences with the students.
The Director commented during this phase she had to do the basic planning and decision
making which she did not have to do in the earlier phase from 1993-1996. The social
workers during that phase would be able to distinguish the details of the task from the
broad outlines. In this phase, her guidance was required and hence her entry into the day
–to-day functioning was more pronounced.

Due to the demands of campaign work on the social worker (1997- Walkeshwar,
Chowpatty and CDWB) some of the activities at the centre could not be carried out. In
1998, with the feedback of the former social worker (1994-1996, CDWB, Walkeshwar,
Chowpatty) a paraprofessional was inducted to enable the social worker (CDWB,
Walkeshwar, Chowpatty) to focus on the campaign work.

Extent of Hierarchy
The structure in this phase was also horizontal. Roles and responsibilities were divided
among the social workers. The Director perceived her role as a coordinator with the
responsibility of pulling all the activities together. She felt that if a hierarchical structure
did exist, it should not, as that was not her intention.

PROCESS

Decision Making:
The Director commented that she found that during this phase she had to do the basic
planning and decision making which was not so in the earlier phase from 1993-1996. The
social workers in the earlier phase were able to identify the details of the task from the
broad outlines. In this phase, her guidance was required and hence her entry into the day
to day functioning was more pronounced. She commented on this aspect: ​“… they were
workers (1993-1996) who could work independently and, at the slightest indication could
spell out the details of the task on their own...Regarding this phase (1997-1998) if I say
do this, it is done but that means I spend that much more time on small things. And then
initiative is not shown…”

The Director described a change in the decision-making process, which began around
1997-1998. Earlier each worker reported to the Director, but now they reported to the
group at Setu because Setu had grown large in terms of expansion of centres, etc., and it
was not possible to keep in touch on a one-on-one basis. It was necessary to keep the
focus and prevent everyone from working in a very individualistic way. Also through
this move the Director tried to maintain the closeness and team spirit of functioning
which was prevalent in the previous phase (1993-1996). She describes this entire
process:​“...clearly identifying each one’s tasks and a mutual kind of accountability where
everyone will share what they have done at their centre. This has changed. Before it was
mainly reporting to me.. Now it is… this was my task. What are the problems? How can
others help me overcome these responsibilities? So it is more of the group assuming
responsibilities, the group confirming each other… Now that we have spread to many
different centres there are many things that I don’t know. Also at the same time we need
to prevent everyone from functioning in a very individualistic kind of way. Earlier we
were a team; we were just three of us and very close. We have to keep that same team
spirit now, reporting in the team helps to build it.”

This approach which began around 1997-1998, has become a regular approach at the
present meetings of staff. The social worker (1997- CDWB, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty)
explained that they discussed the programmes they had and planned accordingly, they
would then distribute the roles and responsibilities to avert any problems. If anyone did
not carry out their responsibilities properly then the others would help them. According to
her at these meetings decisions were not enforced; the team would discuss thoroughly
and then arrive at a decision. It was because of this healthy discussion that they were able
to work. If she did anything wrong in any programme then her colleagues would give her
the feedback and she would accept it.

The social worker (1997- Walkeshwar, Chowpatty, CDWB) said that responsibilities
were allocated according to the abilities of each staff member. Members would help each
other willingly. The social worker (1997-1998, Khar Danda, Worli) also reinforced the
fact that decisions were taken in the group and then implemented. She would discuss with
the other social worker (1997- CDWB) the responsibilities for any programme and the
tasks to be delegated to the students. She would also have discussions with the Director.
She would mostly be in the field at Khar and so she was aware of the environmental
situation and could thus plan accordingly. This was a common feature with the previous
social worker (1993-1996) at Khar, and due to the distance, there was less but a more
focused contact with the college and the Director.

Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Planning and monitoring was through students group conferences once a week, staff
meetings once or twice a month or as frequently as was needed and monthly reporting on
a formal basis by each staff member.

Evaluations were biannual. The student social workers would evaluate their work, the
agency and give suggestions. There was a performance appraisal of the staff once a year.
The social worker (1997-1998, Khar, Worli) shared that at meetings, based on the
environmental needs, there was prior planning for any major activity. Decisions would be
taken in a group and then the staff would implement them. The students were also
involved in the planning at group conferences because it was necessary to give them such
experience. Among the staff there would be discussions before any programme regarding
the role and responsibilities of each one. Tasks would be allocated for the students too.
There were evaluations of work/programmes, conducted with student social workers and
with the Director.
The social worker (1997-, CDWB, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty) revealed that apart from
staff and student social worker evaluation there was also an evaluation by the domestic
workers, who would talk about what they liked or did not like about any aspect of the
programme or work done, and the gaps if any social worker or domestic worker had
missed out on something. Changes were made according to this feedback.

Communication Pattern and Information Flow

The Director felt that in this phase too, the information flow was circular. The social
workers would give inputs regarding anything in the field, some ideas that had occurred
to them, or any feedback that they had. The social worker (1997-1998, Khar Danda,
Worli) explained that she would appraise the Director regarding field-level decisions
since she was in direct contact with the field. She would communicate to the Director
about the programmes conducted and the people’s response. The Director’s
communication would be mostly about campaign work. Most of the communication
would be verbally through meetings, written monthly reports from the social workers to
the Director and annual evaluations.

Conflict Management, Group Dynamics

The Director felt that group dynamics among the staff remained at their level and did not
reach her. Sometimes when social workers were becoming casual and slack, she found
she had to pull them up and she could sense the workers were not too pleased about this.

The social worker (1997-1998, Khar, Worli) explained that since responsibilities were
allocated there was no real conflict. Everyone knew that these responsibilities were being
carried out and what they had to do. The social worker would insist on the Director
giving her more responsibilities and she felt that the Director looked more into the
student social workers’ needs. However, she clarified that this was not really a conflict
though she felt that she should get more opportunities.

As there was no social worker at Khar Danda, the social worker (1997-1998, Khar and
Worli) told the Director that people would lose faith in the organisation. The Director
admitted that it had been a mistake not to appoint a social worker immediately after the
social worker (1993-1996, Khar Danda) resigned. This interaction indicates that the
Director had provided the scope for such upward feedback in the working relationship.

The social worker (1997- CDWB, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty) felt that as roles and
responsibilities were mutually decided at meetings, there was no conflict.

Recruitment
The social worker (1997-1998, Khar, Worli) had been placed as a BSW student in the
Khar Danda slum area. She would conduct the meetings of domestic workers and was
thus aware of the domestic workers’ issue. The social worker (1997- CDWB,
Walkeshwar, Chowpatty) had been a MSW student in the College of Social Work. He
knew what Setu was about and was quite aware about the domestic workers’ issue. Thus
both the social workers had were familiar with the project.
The Director knew that the social worker (1997- CDWB, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty)
would continue working with the project. She had earlier not employed anyone because
she did not want anyone to merely fill the gap and secondly, she had been a witness to the
damage to a project at CCC and even at DHP because of the high turnover of social
workers.

Staff Development and Socialisation of Staff

The social worker (1997-1998, Khar, Worli) was informed by the Director that she would
be working mostly for the part-time domestic workers and had a few responsibilities with
the full-time workers at Worli. She was asked by the Director to continue the work done
by the previous social worker (1993-1996) such as conducting meetings with domestic
workers, motivating and mobilising them and with more emphasis given to the
part-timers. With the full-time domestic workers she was given the responsibility of their
literacy programme.

The social worker (1997- CDWB, Walkeshwar, Chowpatty) had to handle campaign
work in addition to the activities at the two centres. He was of the opinion that the
students who were placed with Setu, such as himself, or were working there, were aware
of Setu and there was no time for an orientation. He further felt it was a learning process
as well since there were various situations, some arising unexpectedly and the social
worker had to learn to cope. He felt that through the above learning process a social
worker gets socialised into the role. Since decisions made in the group were not forced
upon anyone and there was a healthy discussion prior to decisions, it was possible to
work with motivation and commitment.

The social worker (1997-1998, Worli, Khar) wanted to gain more experience from her
work as she wanted to apply for the MSW course the following year. When she worked
with students for NOS and all of them cleared the examination at the first attempt, she
felt satisfied that her efforts had been rewarded. She often felt frustrated with the
response of part-time domestic workers to the meetings. When she discussed this with the
Director, she said that the Director did not criticise her but instead tried to bolster her
confidence and keep up her motivation. The Director told her that this would happen and
no matter how much she tried, the people would give her the same response. They had to
be prepared for a change in response.

Personnel Appraisal
During this phase, personnel appraisal was done once a year. The social worker and
Director wrote separate appraisals and they would share them in the group. The social
worker and Director would retain an individual copy, and a copy was maintained for the
records. This system was started since project heads took a joint decision that annual
increments would not be automatic but linked to performance. If a person was not
performing up to par, then the increment withheld and if such a performance still
continued then a memo was to be given. The increment was Rs. 250/- year.
The Director evaluated the social workers of this phase and felt they needed more input
on the basic functioning. They were unable to spell out the details given in the broad
outline, as was the case with the earlier social workers (1993-1996). This meant greater
demands on her time, which she had to spend in directing them to carry out certain tasks.
She felt that the workers required more ingenuity and creativity when the mundane
routine tasks became a rut. According to her, ​“You can have literacy classes but you have
to see how you can introduce new activities, design a new curriculum; you can do so
many things. If you just get stuck to the literacy guide… it can become boring. The
workers (1997-1998) needed a lot of ‘Why don’t you do this or try this?” ​ The Director
felt that more alacrity, prompt follow-up and a certain shrewdness – ‘what can I get
through this process for Setu?’ - was required while dealing with campaign work.
According to her, because of this approach the hold on the pulse of campaign work
tended to slacken which had to be increased.

PERFORMANCE

Output
The Director felt that in this phase there could have been more efficiency in dealing with
campaign work. There were already delays on the part of the government; sometimes
campaign partners did not cooperate as would be expected of them, hence a quicker
response was needed on the part of Setu in following-up issues, etc.

The GR in official form was the outcome of all the lobbying and networking efforts in the
previous phase and between 1997-1998. However, due to the delay by the government
and the slow pace of campaign partners, things had slackened. Despite the GR being
official, the Director was not satisfied with the progress of affairs to date on the GR front.

During this phase, there was a lot of awareness generated by the media again and the
domestic workers’ issue came into the limelight. The issue moved from being private to
becoming a public one.

The CDWB worked as a forum against injustice to domestic workers when it protested
against the police registration of domestic workers and in which they were partly
successful. The CDWB branched into forming the task force, which is a recent
occurrence – a much more activist body protesting against child domestic labour and
injustices done to children in domestic work.

In March 1998, when the opposition in the State Assembly raised questions on the
domestic workers’ issue, it was a major outcome. It meant that the domestic workers’
issue was truly a public one and it was now a consideration for the state polity and
decision making body – the legislative assembly.
Setu saw that the issue had to be brought into focus and justice had to be done, for which
a certain momentum had to be built from below. Setu expanded its reach and tried to
reach out to other communities involved in domestic work. It tried to reach newer
employer groups and build an interaction with them.

The domestic workers participated as leaders in the organisational structure. They would
to some extent manage the activities of the centre such as the savings scheme. Their
individual growth was clearly visible as they displayed a confidence in taking up new
responsibilities. It is really a credit to the personal growth of the domestic workers that
with their help, when there was no social worker for nearly a year (1996-1997) the
centres could still continue functioning at a basic level. The NOS programme found
student domestic workers, who had become literate through literacy programme, passing
the exam at their first attempt. It was a major milestone in their growth and a quantum
leap in their awareness level.

Through the school awareness programme conducted by the student social workers, the
process of creating awareness on the domestic workers’ issue reached new levels.

The social worker (Walkeshwar,1997) viewed students for the Open School, as an
outcome of Setu’s efforts. Students, who did not know how to read or write, were
appearing for Standard- X level exam. He considered such outcomes as an opportunity
for economic development.