AI generated image One Sunday morning, I watched a neighbour rushing around his apartment in mild panic. His wife had gone to attend a family function for just three days. Suddenly, breakfast had become a challenge, medicines for his ageing mother were forgotten, school assignments remained unsigned, and the laundry basket resembled a small mountain. With a sheepish smile, he confessed, “I never realised how many things she handles.” His experience is hardly unique. Most families function so smoothly that we rarely pause to ask a few uncomfortable questions. Who keeps the invisible wheels turning? Who would manage the meals, schedules, emotional crises, school meetings, medical appointments, budgeting, caregiving, and countless unnoticed tasks that stitch together the fabric of family life? More importantly, what would be the economic cost of replacing every one of those functions? Nation Builders It is in this context, the recent verdict of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh, is more than a legal pronouncement, and invites a larger conversation. Describing homemakers as “nation builders,” the Court has directed that the loss of domestic care in motor accident compensation cases be assigned a minimum value of Rs.30,000 per month, subject to revision every three years. Significantly, this amount is separate from other heads of compensation and recognises the distinct value of unpaid caregiving. Why is work considered valuable only when a salary slip accompanies it? Why do national accounts meticulously record the production of goods but often ignore the production of human capability? Can an economy truly measure its wealth while overlooking the labour that nurtures its future workforce? Modern economies resemble magnificent skyscrapers. People admire the shining exterior, but seldom notice the foundation veiled beneath the earth. Homemakers are those foundations. For generations, domestic work has occupied a strange blind spot, and have been viewed merely as family obligations rather than productive activity. Yet the household itself depends on this labour. The Supreme Court rightly observed the irony of describing a homemaker as a “dependent” when the entire family is often dependent upon the homemaker. Drawing upon earlier judgments and even the Supreme Court’s 2023 Handbook on combating gender stereotypes, the Bench preferred the term “homemaker” over “housewife” as the latter often carries the outdated assumption that women who remain at home contribute little economically. “Homemaker” recognises the enormous unpaid labour and monetary savings generated within households. Economists have long recognised this truth. Nobel laureate Gary Becker described households as productive units that create human capital. Doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs and public servants do not emerge fully formed. They are moulded over years through discipline, affection, sacrifice and care. The first classroom is usually the home, and the homemaker its chief educator. Studies estimate that women's unpaid caregiving contributes between 15 and 17 per cent of India's GDP. Yet much of this labour remains absent from conventional economic statistics. It is rather like admiring the fruit of a tree while refusing to acknowledge its roots. Beyond Numbers Of course, the contribution of a homemaker cannot truly be measured in rupees and paise. Can affection be monetised? Can emotional support during illness be assigned a market price? Can the countless acts of kindness that sustain family life be translated into accounting entries? Probably not. Yet courts dealing with compensation claims must assign some pecuniary value. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged that no figure can adequately compensate for the loss of domestic care. The prescribed amount of Rs.30,000 per month is therefore a symbolic minimum, a stand-in rather than a perfect valuation. The judgment arose from a tragic accident in Haryana dating back to 2001, but its implications stretch far beyond one family. It marks another milestone in the evolving judicial recognition of unpaid labour, building upon earlier decisions such as Lata Wadhwa, Arun Kumar Agrawal, Kirti, and the 2024 ruling which held that a homemaker's deemed income should not be lower than minimum wages. Perhaps the greatest contribution of this judgment lies in its symbolism. Nation-building does not occur only in Parliament, corporate boardrooms or laboratories. It also unfolds in kitchens, at dining tables and during late-night conversations between anxious parents and growing children. A family resembles an orchestra. The audience applauds the performers under the spotlight, but someone must tune the instruments and coordinate the music. Homemakers have long performed this role quietly, without applause and often without acknowledgement. After all, nations are built not merely by those who earn a living, but equally by those who shape the lives of those who do. (The writer is a retired banker and author. Views personal.)
Comments