WARNING: This article contains disturbing violence to grammar and language

Here’s what happened on Sunday, September 17. Subodh Varma published a report in The Times of India, with some dramatic numbers. Since then, the online version of his story has received many comments that compensate for lack of linguistic virtuosity with vitriol and bile.

The story, ‘Fewer Working Women in India than in Nepal’ (goo.gl/4ytB iQ), cites a recent study by the World Bank written by economist Luis Andres and four co-authors. It tries to answer a puzzle. Measured by GDP, India’s economy has grown over the last 20 years, but the employment of women has shrunk.

What’s Cooking?

This is contrary to the experience of almost every other country. In the US, China, Japan and Europe, economic growth is accompanied by more women in the workforce. Here, women’s employment has fallen off a cliff during growth.

Around 10 years ago, 43% of Indian women found work. Today, this number, covering women in cities and villages, has dropped sharply to 27.4%. Women’s unemployment is more miserable only in Pakistan, where less than 25% of women work. The Arab nations, with only 23% of women in the workforce, are worst off.

In contrast, nearly 80% of women in Nepal have jobs, as do 64% of their Chinese sorority, 57.4% in Bangladesh and 56.3% in the US. In 2013, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) ranked India a miserable 121 among the 131 countries in terms of numbers of women in the workplace. Andres and Co quote Jawaharlal Nehru, “I have been convinced that a nation’s progress is intimately connected with the status of its women.” By that count, India’s ‘progress’ is in reverse gear.

Most women interviewed after the story miss the dignity of having one’s own income. Some stopped working after marriage due to the pressure of raising a family, some due to (very real) concerns over women’s safety, others due to social taboos.

To this, one M Shenoy has commented, “I wonder how they made the comparison between Nepal and India?… I bet the journalists could not interpret the report correctly and cherry-picked some numbers….” Shenoy should have looked up the World Bank report online before jumping to conclusions.

The numbers are beyond reproach, drawn mostly from data thrown up by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), which performs the largest sampling exercise in the whole world. Economists have come up with several reasons that could affect the decision of women to drop out of the workforce. One explanation, supported by data on school enrolment, argues that as women spend more years in education, their participation in the workforce falls.

Longer hours in class equal less time tending to cattle or working as sales reps. This gives us some hope. Better educated women will find jobs that require more skills and pay more, soon. But this hope is dashed by numbers that say female joblessness is increasing at every level of education.

Nearly 12% of illiterate rural women have left work, as have 8% of those who have studied beyond school. Urban numbers for the same levels have fallen 5% and 6.5%.

It’s in Our Jeans

Some argue as households become more prosperous, they tend to withdraw women from the workforce. Call it the Purdah of Prosperity. Anecdotally, this is true across much of north, central and western India.

Numbers don’t support the prosperity-purdah story. Across Dalit and upper caste, rural and urban, the richest and poorest 10% of Indians, women’s employment has fallen. Marriage causes a fall in working women, but unmarried women are also increasingly jobless.

So, MH from Bengaluru has written, “This report is a piece of journalistic trash.” Well, the story reports the main conclusion of the study: the total number of new jobs has inched up a measly 1.2% per year through 2011-15, compared to 2%-plus jobs created annually during 2001-11.

As new jobs become scarce, men elbow women aside in the scramble to grab those openings. Most men can afford to work most of the time. Women have to spare time to rear families, manage households and livestock.

But there’s another factor, illustrated by Sandeep’s comment, “all indian women are lazy. wants free life… watching TV and doing nothing and few who goes to work would do same at job place.”

It is misogyny, a loathing for women who are independent and can make their own choices. Well, centuries ago, the Manusmriti saw women as chattel. Which is as clear as it is unfortunate that such views on women have not changed that much in circa 2017 India.