General profile and socio-economic status of the respondents

The 25 respondents were categorised as follows: 17 individuals identified as belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC)Footnote ¹ category, of whom 9 were Muslims; 7 belonged to the Scheduled Caste (SC)Footnote ² category; and only 1 was identified as being from the Upper Caste. The participants, all female, ranged in age from 25 to 85 years and were uniformly married. Notably, eight respondents were widowed. Among the married women, three had disabled husbands, two had been abandoned, and three reported living with husbands who were alcoholics and abusive. A significant majority of the respondents indicated that they served as the primary earners for their families, largely due to the loss of their husbands or because their husbands were unable to work. For those with husbands in employment, the latter were primarily engaged in daily wage labour.

The financial conditions of these families were generally insufficient to meet basic necessities, including food, housing, education, and healthcare. A considerable proportion of respondents were illiterate, while others were semi-literate and had dropped out of primary education. The employers of these domestic workers were predominantly upper-caste individuals, primarily from Brahmin and Kshatriya backgrounds, with many being part of landed families, government officials, or members of the business class. The average monthly earnings for domestic workers were approximately 3,500 rupees, with wages varying between 1,500 and 6,000 rupees depending on several factors, including the type and extent of tasks performed, the number of households served, the geographic region, the social status of the employers, and the caste affiliation of the domestic workers.

Domestic workers from villages either work in Brahmin or Kshatriya landowning households or commute to nearby markets and town areas to provide services for small business proprietors, merchants, and professionals, including doctors, engineers, lawyers, teachers, and government officials. They also serve in upper-caste residential colonies. Intra-district short-distance migrations are commonly observed as individuals seek better livelihood opportunities. Many of the domestic workers interviewed in Chandauli had migrated from surrounding villages and resided in government-allotted houses. A large number of women residing in these housing complexes engage in domestic work to sustain their families. Furthermore, recent real estate developments have been acquired by upper-caste, middle-class families who subsequently recruit domestic workers from adjacent areas.

In Chandauli, four primary types of domestic workers were observed:

• • Domestic workers for landlord families: These individuals reside in the village and serve landlord families within a feudal structure. They work under highly oppressive conditions, receiving very little compensation. Most did not choose this path; instead, they were compelled to work as domestic servants due to the feudal ties they had with village landlords. While their husbands toil in the landlords’ fields, these women not only handle domestic duties but also assist in agricultural labour.

• • Commuting workers for upper-caste colonies and bureaucrats’ families: Some domestic workers opt to travel from their villages to nearby upper-caste colonies to earn a living because the income from working for landlords in the villages is insufficient to provide even two meals a day.

• • Migrants to market areas working for shopkeepers: Given the difficulties and health risks associated with travelling long distances for work, many of these women migrate to market areas. There, they find employment with upper-caste, upper-class families, while their husbands drive autorickshaws.

• • Residents in government quarters working for local upper-caste families: Some disadvantaged families take advantage of government housing schemes and reside in designated quarters. These localities often serve as a hub for finding domestic workers, who are commonly hired by upper-caste families from nearby regions.

Why are domestic workers hired in rural areas?

In urban contexts, the prevalence of dual-income households necessitates the employment of domestic workers due to the continued reluctance of men to share the double burden undertaken by women. Conversely, in rural areas, women are predominantly housewives in houses who hire domestic help, driven more by social constructs than by necessity. Men of upper-caste families in rural areas remove their women from menial domestic labour and replace them with domestic labourers to maintain their caste and class status (Kothari Reference Kothari1997). This observation invites a critical examination of the motivations behind the hiring of domestic workers in rural India, particularly among upper-caste and upper-class families.

Historically, the employment of domestic servants in Indian villages has served as an emblem of caste superiority (Mehta Reference Mehta1960; Rollins Reference Rollins1985). Domestic workers were regarded as symbols of affluence and aristocracy, perpetuating the socio-economic stratification inherent within the caste system. This feudal practice not only established a pronounced hierarchy between masters and servants but also conferred a marked sense of indignity and low status to domestic work and those who performed it. The persistent presence of domestic workers in rural areas suggests that the evolution of modern capitalism has not led to the complete dissolution of feudal practices, specifically the institutionalisation of domestic service.

Post-independence and amid modernisation, upper-caste and upper-class families in rural regions have continued the caste-symbolic tradition of employing domestic help. Given that domestic work has historically been assigned to individuals from lower castes, it is viewed as degraded labour, which families from affluent backgrounds strive to avoid. The manual, often deemed ‘dirty’, nature of these tasks contributes to the marginalisation of those performing them, as engagement with dirt is frequently regarded as the most contemptible form of labour (Mehta Reference Mehta1960; Rollins Reference Rollins1985). Therefore, the enduring feudal connotations of indignity linked to domestic labour and the employment of domestic workers as symbols of caste and class superiority facilitate their ongoing utilisation in rural locales.

Challenging the dominant narrative positing that paid domestic work arose as a response to capitalist structures, whereby women from affluent backgrounds entered the workforce and subsequently hired underprivileged women to assist with domestic chores, evidence indicates that domestic workers are also employed by non-working women. Many respondents from households in Chandauli reported that their employers were primarily housewives without formal employment. In these rural settings, the husbands of these women typically occupied white-collar positions (in semi-urban areas), engaged in small businesses (in small market areas), or held status as landlords (in villages). Thus, the practice of employing domestic workers in these households primarily serves to reinforce existing caste and class status, implying that this tradition predates capitalist influences and continues to persist.

Moreover, the employment of domestic workers is not solely intended to maintain caste and class status (Dickey Reference Dickey2000); it also reflects upper-caste perceptions of certain tasks as impure and degrading, relegating them to those from lower castes. Specific household chores, including dishwashing, sweeping, and cleaning bathrooms and toilets, are deemed lowly and are consequently assigned to domestic workers drawn from lower-caste backgrounds. Frøystad’s insightful research on master–servant dynamics within upper-caste households in Kanpur emphasises an aversion among upper-caste individuals to tasks perceived as defiling, further incentivising the employment of domestic labourers (Frøystad Reference Frøystad2003).

Respondents frequently relayed that they were employed primarily for cleaning tasks while cooking responsibilities remained with the ‘malkins’ (the mistresses of the household). Cooking, being considered a sacred and pious activity, is associated with purity, rendering the kitchen space often isolated from those tasked with managing domestic dirt. As a result, culinary duties may either be assigned to different workers or retained exclusively by the women of the household.

How are domestic workers hired in rural areas?

Research on domestic workers in India has unveiled a significant pattern of caste-based recruitment practices within this sector (Raghuram Reference Raghuram2001; Gothoskar Reference Gothoskar2013; Neetha Reference Neetha2013). This fieldwork conducted among domestic workers demonstrates that caste functions as the predominant factor influencing hiring decisions, particularly in rural contexts. Almost all interviewees from these rural areas indicated that inquiries about caste identity are the first step encountered when seeking employment as domestic workers. Several respondents recounted instances where employers would visit their residences to verify their caste status prior to finalising any hiring arrangement. Additionally, employers often rely on the opinions of neighbours regarding prospective domestic workers and frequently seek references from other existing domestic workers when considering new hires.

When they were asked if they had been questioned about their caste while pursuing employment in domestic work, respondents universally affirmed this practice. One respondent articulated this sentiment succinctly:

Caste and religion emerge as critical factors shaping employers’ preferences and perceptions of domestic workers. Many respondents reported that employers frequently express reservations concerning the hiring of individuals from two communities: Dalits and Muslims. This sentiment was especially prevalent among respondents from the most rural locales, who noted that employers often sought confirmation regarding whether prospective workers identified as HarijansFootnote ³ before agreeing to employment.

In a conversation with Reeta Verma, an OBC domestic worker from Godhana, Chandauli, she articulated the prevailing attitudes in the following exchange:

This discourse exemplifies the intersection of caste, religion, and employment practices in the domestic labour market in India, highlighting the deep-seated biases that shape these dynamics.

Why do women take up domestic work as a job? A reluctant choice and compulsion:

The phrase ‘majboori mein hum ye kaam karte hain’, which translates to ‘We do this work out of compulsion’, was a recurrent response among participants when queried about their motivations for undertaking domestic work. This response illustrates the multifaceted nature of majboori, or compulsion, which compels women to engage in domestic labour due to various interrelated factors, including limited access to land resources, inadequate employment opportunities, gendered division of labour, pervasive poverty, and insufficient social capital.

The prevailing socio-economic conditions, characterised by economic instability and socio-political powerlessness, force these women into domestic roles within upper-caste households, rendering them exceedingly vulnerable. Shriya Thakkar’s study on domestic workers in Delhi complements this understanding by highlighting the element of majboori, as articulated by respondents who describe their sense of helplessness and lack of viable alternatives in choosing domestic work (Thakkar Reference Thakkar2024).

The participants conveyed a shared sentiment: had they possessed alternative options, they would not have opted for domestic work, expressing a desire for their children to pursue different career paths. Many respondents reported that financial crises, catalysed by factors such as the untimely death of a spouse, alcohol abuse and domestic violence or abandonment by husbands, and physical disabilities of husbands, forced them into domestic employment. This underscores the undesirable nature of such work, characterised by exploitative and oppressive conditions that often elude societal recognition due to the perception of the household as a non-traditional workplace (Moras Reference Moras2008).

A considerable portion of the respondents entered the domestic work sector due to the absence of a male breadwinner in their families. Many began this job following the untimely death of their husbands, which placed them in a position of sole responsibility for their children’s welfare. Zoya Begum, a 40-year-old domestic worker, recounted,

Zoya’s experience is reflective of the plight of many marginalised women who undertake domestic work out of sheer necessity, given the dearth of alternative income-generating opportunities. She stated,

Some respondents indicated that they had explored alternative employment avenues, such as factory work, yet preferred domestic labour due to its comparatively flexible nature. Factory jobs frequently imposed rigid schedules and prolonged working hours, hindering their ability to care for their children and households. In contrast, domestic work offered a modicum of flexibility.

Shahina Parveen, age 35, articulated,

This perspective emphasises the necessity of balancing domestic responsibilities with the demands of employment, a challenge faced by many women in similar socio-economic circumstances.

Many respondents reported that their husbands had either abandoned them or struggled with alcoholism and displayed abusive behaviours, which often resulted in domestic violence. Furthermore, some women indicated that their husbands were suffering from chronic illnesses or had become disabled due to accidents, leaving these women with limited employment options. Consequently, the most readily available job, frequently the only one accessible, was domestic work. Several respondents also served as full-time caregivers for sick or disabled family members in addition to their jobs as domestic workers, leading to extreme time poverty and minimal opportunities for rest.

Seema Chaudhari, for instance, describes her husband as an auto driver who expends all his earnings on alcohol, thereby compelling her to seek work as a domestic worker. She recognised that she never aspired to engage in domestic work; if not for her financial obligations, she would not be in this position. Divya Bari, age 30, elaborated on her decision to pursue domestic work, explaining that she had explored alternative employment opportunities in small-scale industries producing pickles and bindis. However, these options proved to be more time-consuming and offered diminished financial rewards. As she stated,

Geeta Kharwar, age 35, further emphasised that her entry into domestic work stemmed solely from compulsion, asserting that she would not have chosen this line of work if other opportunities had been available. Similarly, Shweta Kanaujia, age 45, who has dedicated over 20 years to domestic work, remarked,

Neetu Jaiswal, age 45, from Pandeypur village in Chandauli, has been employed as a domestic worker since the death of her husband 15 years ago. She is the mother of three children, one of whom is a disabled daughter who is bedridden and entirely reliant on Neetu. With tears in her eyes, Neetu conveyed the difficulties she faces as the sole caregiver for her daughter while also fulfilling her role as a domestic worker, expressing that her circumstances would have been significantly improved had her husband been alive.

Research observations revealed a significant number of domestic workers engaged in this profession as a generational practice; their mothers were domestic workers, and they have continued this lineage, often alongside their own daughters. This trend illustrates the absence of socio-economic mobility within this occupation, as multiple generations remain entrapped in the same work. Due to inadequate earnings to support their children’s education, many children are compelled to engage in wage labour at an early age instead of pursuing formal education.

Most domestic workers who were interviewed either lacked formal education, were illiterate, or had attained only a primary-level education. Very few had completed secondary schooling, which severely restricted their access to better employment opportunities. Interactions with paid domestic workers corroborate the arguments presented by feminist scholars, who contend that paid domestic workers do not voluntarily choose this profession; rather, they are drawn into this workforce out of various socio-economic necessities and demonstrate a willingness to exit this occupation when better opportunities present themselves (Thakkar Reference Thakkar2024).

Domestic labour relations in rural India

Neelam Devi, a 50-year-old Dalit woman from the Chamar caste in a village in Chandauli, illustrates the prevailing conditions of domestic labour. Neelam has been working as a domestic worker in the household of a Thakur landlord for the past two years, succeeding her late mother-in-law, Kamla Devi. Kamla’s labour spanned three decades, during which she received a meagre compensation of 300 rupees per month. Despite her debilitating illness, Kamla continued to fulfil her duties until her health deteriorated completely. Neelam reported that any requests for financial assistance or advance payments led to hostility from the employer’s family, compelling her to navigate her precarious financial situation largely without support.

The living conditions of Neelam’s family were dire, characterised by a leaking roof and deteriorating infrastructure in their mud house, which is also owned by the Thakur family. Neelam articulated the denial of basic governmental benefits, asserting that the village head has consistently obstructed her family’s access to rightful government schemes. Consequently, her family is compelled to engage in domestic work and other forms of labour to secure their livelihood.

In a separate but related case, Leela Gupta, a 30-year-old widow from another village in Chandauli, shared her experience of working under a similar structure of caste-based oppression. After the loss of her husband over a decade ago, Leela initially travelled to Chandauli market for work until health issues restricted her mobility. Subsequently, she began working in the household of a Thakur landlord. Leela recounted the discrimination she faced, including the use of separate utensils designated for her use alone due to her caste status. This practice underscores the entrenched caste hierarchies that dictate social interactions and labour relations. Moreover, she reported that any demands for wage increases were met with resistance, with her wages being deducted for taking leave — a reflection of the exploitative nature of her employment.

The narrative of Lata Paswan, an 85-year-old Dalit woman, further exemplifies the harsh realities faced by domestic workers in rural India. After her husband lost his vision, Lata transitioned to domestic work, supporting herself while simultaneously providing care for her spouse. She worked for both a Thakur and a Brahmin family and received no monetary compensation from the latter; her labour was exchanged for food, clothes, and other informal benefits. Although she earned 700 rupees per month from the Thakur family, Lata revealed that she and her husband often subsisted on a single meal per day. The absence of any support from governmental programmes, despite her numerous attempts to enrol, highlights the systemic barriers faced by marginalised populations.

The same narrative unfolds in every village, revealing a pervasive pattern of caste-based servitude within the domestic work sector in Indian rural areas. Villages continue to employ domestic servants rather than domestic workers, and these individuals receive minimal compensation for their labour. Women from marginalised castes typically engage in domestic work in upper-caste households in exchange for rations and shelter. Many take on these household responsibilities because they are burdened by debt, having borrowed money from upper-caste families for emergencies such as medical expenses or their daughters’ marriages. When they are unable to repay these loans, they become bonded labourers, performing domestic tasks, working in fields, and undertaking various forms of manual labour for their employers.

These examples illustrate that, despite being in a post-colonial and independent era, feudal relations persist, with clear caste identities: employers are typically upper-caste landowners, while employees are often marginalised DalitbahujanFootnote ⁵ women. The dynamics illustrate the complex interplay of caste, gender, and economic vulnerability, revealing broader socio-economic structures that perpetuate inequality and exploitation in rural labour markets.

How do employers treat their domestic workers?

In the interviews with domestic workers, their experiences with their employers were probed at greater depth. Initially, respondents spoke positively, indicating that their employers treated them well. However, when asked further about issues like extra work requirements, weekly leave, and experiences with harsh language, their responses unveiled the exploitative labour conditions they endured. Some workers noted that their employers employed affectionate language to foster a false sense of belonging, leading them to believe they were part of the family while exploiting them for free labour. Many participants also expressed frustration over their employers’ inexplicably rude behaviour. They reported being frequently scolded and addressed in a harsh tone, likely to reinforce the social hierarchy and maintain control over them.

Talking about her experience at her workplace, Shweta Kanaujia (age 45) reported that her employers refused to grant her leave, and when she took leave for 2–3 days due to an emergency, her employer fired her. Some of her employers were very rude and scolded her in harsh tones. She had to remind them that they could treat her that way. Sharing her ordeal, Shweta said:

There is thus considerable tension between two groups of women: the employers of domestic workers and the paid domestic workers themselves (Rollins Reference Rollins1985; Thakkar Reference Thakkar2024). This tension extends beyond the concept of sisterhood, often discussed by feminist scholars. Instead of treating their domestic workers as equals, employers typically extract as much labour as possible while offering minimal wages, influenced by factors such as caste and social standing. Many respondents noted that their employers expected them to undertake additional tasks that they would likely decline if given the choice. This behaviour reflects Bridget Anderson’s argument that employers not only claim the labour of their employees but also their sense of self (Anderson Reference Anderson2000). Domestic workers expressed that while their employers claimed to regard them as part of the family, this assertion did not lead to any meaningful familial treatment or benefits. Instead, many found this sentiment to be condescending. It placed them in a position where voicing concerns about extra duties or low pay made them appear ungrateful or as though they did not share the same feelings as their employers.

This paternalistic attitude acts as a façade to obscure the exploitation of domestic workers. Many interview participants reported frequently being assigned extra, often unpaid tasks such as giving massages to family members, running errands for groceries, and chopping vegetables. These extra duties were often framed as favours in exchange for small treats or snacks, or as a loyalty test to determine their worthiness as ‘family members’.

Sara Begum (age 55) articulated her frustrations about the additional work of this kind that she was expected to complete without fair compensation:

Humiliation is frequently employed by employers as a means to reinforce a sense of servitude among their workers. Respondents reported experiencing this routine humiliation in various forms, such as being addressed in harsh tones, scolded for minor mistakes, given leftover food, wearing torn clothing, being required to sit on the floor, using separate utensils, and following peculiar rules. These acts of symbolic humiliation by upper-caste employers constitute direct assaults on the self-respect of workers, dehumanising them and making them feel inferior. This dynamic allows upper-caste employers to maintain their perceived superiority and further entrenches workers in a subservient role, resulting in compliance with little resistance (Varman, Al-Amoudi, & Skålén Reference Varman, Al-Amoudi and Skålén2023).

Reeta Verma (age 40), who worked in Rudra Apartments, Godhana, talked about her lived experience of working in a Brahmin house:

There was no apparent avenue of redress in cases where even sickness did not fetch compassion from employers. This was illustrated by the example of an employer who not only refused to grant leave but also replaced a worker no longer able to come to work due to extreme illness. Varsha Singh (age 30), who lived in Baburi, Chandauli, with her daughter and mother (her husband had left her), worked in the Sarveshwari colony, which is a Thakur colony, cooking and washing utensils. When she was approached for the first time, she was suffering from typhoid and was bedridden. When contacted again after 2 months, she was still recovering from her illness. She spoke about her employers:

The treatment meted out to domestic workers by upper-caste employers does not fall under the employer–employee relationship. It reflects a master–servant relationship that reinforces caste-based servitude (Srinivas Reference Srinivas1995; Frøystad Reference Frøystad2003).

Intersectional hierarchies in paid domestic work in rural India

One of the fundamental characteristics of the caste system is its inherent association with caste-specific occupations (Ambedkar Reference Ambedkar1936). This relationship not only reinforces the caste hierarchy but also sustains the system itself by perpetuating these distinct roles (Jodhka Reference Jodhka2015). In rural India, the organisation of domestic work is profoundly influenced by caste dynamics, whereby the division of labour is intricately structured along caste lines, thereby reinforcing the very framework of the caste system. The quotidian realities of domestic work reveal the interplay of both gender and caste hierarchies.

The caste-based constructs of purity and pollution continue to profoundly shape the organisation of domestic labour in India (Frøystad Reference Frøystad2003; Neetha Reference Neetha2013). These constructs dictate not only which women from specific caste categories are permitted to perform certain domestic tasks but also inform their choices regarding the households in which they work. The relationships between domestic workers and their employers, as well as the interactions among domestic workers themselves, are similarly regulated by these entrenched caste notions. For instance, it is common for upper-caste households to categorically refuse the employment of Dalits as cooks, while caste-Hindu domestic workers may be reluctant to engage in tasks such as cleaning toilets or working for Dalit employers (Sharma Reference Sharma2016).

A hierarchical division exists within household tasks that align with this caste-based organisation of labour. Cooks are predominantly recruited from middle-caste groups, including Guptas and Jaiswals. Neetu Jaiswal, aged 45, exclusively performed cooking and utensil cleaning duties in a Thakur household located in Rudra Apartments. Her employers had employed a separate individual for floor cleaning and explicitly stated their policy against permitting Muslims or Dalits within their residence.

Champa Gupta, aged 50 and hailing from Godhana, Chandauli, has accumulated 25 years of experience as a domestic worker. Her employers, who were of Marwari, Jain, and Tiwari backgrounds, employed her as a cook while hiring separate workers for cleaning tasks. Gupta corroborated the practice of employers inquiring about caste prior to hiring, noting their strict refusal to engage Dalits. She asserted, ‘They will not hire a ChamarFootnote ⁸ . Some may consider hiring Muslims, but not Chamars. There is a Chamar in our locality who was initially employed by someone, but she was subsequently dismissed once her caste became known’.

Domestic workers from the Dalit community are assigned cleaning tasks in accordance with the caste system (Grover et al 2018). Employers often seek to keep them away from areas they deem ‘pure’, maintaining as much distance as possible from Dalit workers within their homes (Thakkar Reference Thakkar2024). Neha Paswan, a 35-year-old Dalit domestic worker tasked with cleaning duties in the Pandit Colony of Chandauli market, was tasked with cleaning duties. She revealed that she was prohibited from entering her employers’ kitchen or the puja ghar and was not hired as a cook. Kalavati Dom, a 60-year-old Dalit woman, was employed as a sweeper at a local powerhouse, where her responsibilities included cleaning toilets and collecting waste. When asked about her potential interest in domestic work, she said:

Kalavati’s family had been engaged in the occupation of sweeping for generations, indicating a profound entrenchment within this caste-based vocation. While women from higher castes often disdain domestic work, those belonging to the lowest strata of the Dalit community frequently express a preference for domestic employment over their traditional roles, which entail cleaning toilets and handling waste. However, such opportunities remain inaccessible to them.

Domestic workers from the Dalit community continue to be perceived as untouchable in many Indian villages and rural settings. They are routinely assigned tasks associated with marginalised castes and often face prohibitions against touching various objects within their employers’ residences. In certain instances, they are restricted to specific areas, such as bathrooms and toilets (Srinivas Reference Srinivas1995). Moreover, they are typically not served food in the same utensils utilised by their employers; instead, they are reportedly provided meals in old, worn utensils, plastic bags, or their own containers, often consisting of leftover or stale food (Varman et al Reference Varman, Al-Amoudi and Skålén2023). This practice reinforces a physical and social distance, as Dalit workers are generally prohibited from sitting on their employers’ furniture and are instead expected to remain seated on the floor.

Not every household that employs domestic workers relies entirely on them for domestic tasks. Employers often prefer to cook for themselves when time constraints are not an issue, typically seeking hired help only once they attain a comfortable financial situation. Menial tasks such as cleaning toilets, washing dishes, and sweeping floors are among the least favoured jobs by upper-caste employers and are frequently delegated to domestic workers. In interviews, several respondents indicated that they primarily undertook cleaning chores. When asked whether other individuals were hired for cooking, they responded that employers usually handled the cooking themselves. Some respondents mentioned that they solely performed cooking duties. Upon inquiring about their choice to focus only on cooking, they explained that if they engaged in cleaning tasks, they would not be employed specifically as cooks; therefore, they had to choose between cooking and cleaning. This division of tasks appears to be diligently maintained by upper-caste employers and is reluctantly accepted by domestic workers.

Caste hierarchies appear to be present not only between domestic workers and their employers but also among the domestic workers themselves. Within lower-caste groups, a differentiation in tasks performed influences intra-group relations among workers. When individuals occupying slightly higher positions within the caste hierarchy receive preferential treatment from their employers and are entrusted with tasks deemed less impure, these workers may, in turn, exhibit discriminatory behaviours towards their peers from lower castes, who are engaged in more ‘impure’ occupations.

In the context of employment selection, middle-caste workers demonstrate agency by opting not to work in households of Dalits, Muslims, or other castes perceived as inferior to their own. Such decisions are frequently informed by preconceived notions rooted in social stereotypes, rather than personal interactions. For instance, Hindu domestic workers tend to express reluctance to engage with Muslim and Dalit employers, while Muslim workers typically seek employment solely within Muslim households. The practice of caste discrimination among domestic workers is largely a reflection of societal norms and attitudes absorbed from their environment. However, it is important to note that these individuals do not strictly adhere to such discriminatory practices. Interviews with workers reveal that those residing in proximity to lower-caste coworkers tend to challenge and redefine these biases. For example, Champa Gupta, a domestic worker from a rural background, articulated how her long-standing beliefs about Dalits as being inferior shifted after her relocation to a mixed locality. She had since developed meaningful relationships with her formerly marginalised counterparts. Champa recounted her experiences with caste discrimination, stating,

Similarly, when queried about her perspective on the caste system, Geeta Kharwar articulated,

This analysis underscores the complex interplay between caste dynamics, personal agency, and social transformation among domestic workers, revealing a shifting landscape influenced by both historical context and contemporary socio-political changes.