Living in Domesti-City

There are two issues in this article that have come to light after its publication and need to be brought to the attention of readers. One, material for the case studies of migrant workers presented in the sections, “Delhi as Destination: Accounts” and “Testimonies and Experience” (pp 51-53) had been collected in 2006 by the author from a village in Simdega district of Jharkhand for the project “Gender Differences in Migration Opportunities: Implications on Educational Choices and Outcomes (2005-07)”, which was led by Nitya Rao and Janet Seeley. The material was used in the EPW paper without permission from the project leaders and without acknowledgement of the project. Two, the EPW paper is an analysis based on a primary fi eld survey carried out by the author in a village in Gumla district of Jharkhand. However, the case studies are from a village in Simdega district. This fact was not mentioned in the paper and will lead readers to wrongly believe that the case studies are from the village in Gumla district. The author and EPW apologise for these errors.

This paper examines migration for live-in domestic work from Jharkhand through a multi-method approach. Gumla district, one of the major source areas, scores very low on development indicators and witnesses high levels of female outmigration throughout the year. Looking at data on educational levels, migration processes and social relations at the village level, the confluence of factors based on tribe, gender, religion and education that perpetuates trends of migration for live-in domestic work from the region are highlighted.