Guarding the Gates: Karnataka's Approach to Job Reservation
This article discusses Karnataka's job reservation bill, presenting key arguments and contradictions from both sides while advocating for inclusive policy solutions.
The Karnataka job reservation bill draft is a populist and regressive policy steeped in cultural and economic protectionist rhetoric, claiming to create more job opportunities for locals. The proponents argue for the protection of local workers, while opponents advocate for the rights of workers from other states to seek employment where opportunities exist. Some view the bill as more about earning political brownie points and stoking the idea of cultural dominance than genuinely improving job prospects for locals.
When it comes to policies, the predominant political ideologies play a significant role. If a particular state has mostly progressive people, getting support for progressive bills is easier. However, if the state has a diverse mix of people aligning with various political ideologies—from liberals to conservatives to neoliberals and protectionists to anarchists and everything in between, it becomes about who can convince the most people, among many other factors. Public debate, which is integral to this process, allows for the exchange of ideas and the building of consensus. In such a diverse political landscape, the challenge lies in finding common ground and addressing the concerns of all groups, ensuring that policies are inclusive and representative of the population's varied interests. Karnataka has no singular ideology that represents the needs of its people. The mishmash of perspectives from across the political spectrum in this debate has been interesting. Even though I lean towards progressive values, the multifaceted nature of this debate points to valid concerns and contradictions on both sides. Here's my two cents on the matter.
I want to cover the basics first. The influx of migrants can create competition for local workers in job markets, but this issue arises primarily when there is a labour surplus. The degree of this surplus varies depending on the specific skills required and the sectors in question. Given the poor literacy, there is always an oversupply of unskilled and low-skilled workers. Migrants fill many jobs that local workers are unwilling to take. No data or surveys analyzing the skill gaps in Karnataka inform this bill – the proposal is mostly a one-size-fits-all solution.
One might wonder if selectively accepting migrants based on supply gaps in different skills and sectors would be a better approach. However, free markets are dynamic and self-correcting. This is also true for labour markets, with the supply and demand for specific jobs rising and falling all the time. The workforce adapts to this change organically. For instance, professions like typists, telephone booth operators, and bank tellers that existed years ago have disappeared today, with those workers reskilling for new roles. With such a diverse and varied workforce of migrants and locals, why focus on limiting migrants rather than leveraging all available people and letting the free markets do what they do best - optimally allocate people to jobs? Also, why isn't the government prioritizing establishing educational infrastructure to reskill or upskill local labour instead strategically? Needless to say, hiring not based on merit kills competition, creates no incentive to be competent, drags down productivity, and hurts the economy overall.
Some might get inspired by how certain countries address labour shortages by selectively taking in highly skilled migrants and using language proficiency tests for better cultural assimilation and think it makes sense to apply this idea to inter-state migration in India. However, applying this idea to inter-state migration in India is both impractical and contradictory to our constitutional principles. Gatekeeping at the state level contradicts India's foundational concept as a union. As privileged citizens of India, we don't need gates to regulate movement within the country; it is our right to move and settle where we want, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution. Moreover, states lack the infrastructure for selective measures like language tests. The majority of internal migrants play integral roles in low-skill jobs that are crucial to the economy. Any gatekeeping measures put in place can prevent them from accessing these jobs, especially if they are uneducated or lack government identification. Additionally, learning new languages as an adult can be incredibly challenging, especially when not literate.
The government's attempt to address the decline in Kannada speakers and local unemployment through a single policy is misguided. These are distinct issues that require different solutions. It may be tempting for the locals to introduce policies to make learning Kannada mandatory for employment as if it's the ultimate answer to cultural assimilation. However, it's not just migrants; local urban populations are also among those not speaking Kannada. Cultural capital is a more powerful driver of language adoption, inspiring genuine interest, whereas imposing a language by mandating it relies on fear of punishment. The entertainment industry plays a crucial role in developing cultural capital. For example, the popularity of Korean cinema, TV shows, and music has led to increased enrollment in Korean language courses worldwide. There is a need to nurture and support Kannada artists and to create an environment to celebrate and showcase Kannada through compelling and accessible mediums such as cinema, music, literature, and other cultural artefacts. This is how the cultural capital of a language is built and sustained and how cultural pride can be achieved.
Who should this bill benefit? The traditionalist and liberal narratives both claim to advocate for economically disadvantaged workers and ordinary people. However, their approaches and underlying logic differ significantly. Traditionalists speak for the local population, while liberals advocate for migrants. But aren't they both exclusionary in their approach? One group excludes based on geography, while the other does so based on merit. The concept of 'merit' is often invoked in the context of high-skill sectors such as IT, where those advocating for merit-based hiring are the most vocal in this debate. However, what does 'merit' mean for a low-skilled job where competition is based on who can do the most hours of work for the least pay?
The protectionist viewpoint is that our cities are over capacity, and the influx of migrants has drastically influenced our culture, leading to the alienation of some locals. Neither the migrants nor those who employ them take measures to integrate or assimilate them into our culture. The migrants are willing to take jobs that locals don't want or to work for lower wages, thereby driving down wages. Additionally, they drive up rents and stress the infrastructure, as housing and infrastructure are not keeping pace with the influx of people to the city. Some of these concerns are valid or at least deserve some thinking and consideration. Why is the government's instinct to hit the brakes rather than introduce policies focused on urban planning, infrastructure investment, and affordable housing as required?
On the other side of the debate, liberals support migration, the freedom to move, seeking a better quality of life, diversity, and embracing people from all walks of life. Neo-liberals believe that migration has an overall positive impact. They argue that migrants make our cities more productive and that our economies cannot grow without migrant workers. They are not concerned about migrants stealing the jobs of locals and believe it's only fair if lazy, unmotivated, and unskilled individuals are at a disadvantage. Competition is good for the economy, and free markets are self-correcting. Most economists agree that any intervention would distort the labour market and reduce productivity. They view the economics of migration as a positive-sum game. Even though migrant workers work for lower wages and often face exploitation at times, they believe that their quality of life, both here and back home, improves overall. As for the locals complaining about culture, language, and alienation, the liberal perspective would draw our attention to the rampant xenophobia. This perspective argues that the issue does not lie with the migrants but with those who are intolerant of cultures different from their own and resistant to change.
Many believe that xenophobes don't deserve anyone's empathy and are truly deplorable. However, there are different shades of xenophobia in India, and it can sometimes stem from ingrained beliefs and a lack of exposure rather than malicious intent. For instance, consider an elderly grandmother in rural India who has lived her entire life in a homogenous community with limited interaction with people from other regions or backgrounds. She may hold certain biases or prejudices simply because she has never been exposed to different cultures or ways of life. Her views are not born out of hatred but from a lifetime of living within a narrow cultural framework. While this form of xenophobia is still problematic and can contribute to broader societal divisions, it lacks the intentional malice seen in more aggressive forms.
The harmful xenophobic behaviours in a city like Bangalore manifest as random harassment from local troublemakers, hostile remarks, violence on the streets, as well as uncooperative attitudes from locals, including public/government officials. Conversely, migrants are also xenophobic and hold prejudices about locals. I'm sure most of us have experienced a situation where both groups of locals/migrants refuse to communicate in a common language like English in colleges and offices, insisting on using their native languages instead, oblivious to how it can exclude and alienate others in the group. Some of these behaviours are unhinged because these actions have no consequences. While harassment and violence can be taken to legal resolution, laws cannot protect us from general hostility and rude behaviour.
India is a complex society where differences in class, caste, language, region, and economic status can easily lead to conflicts among people. Surprisingly, the country has managed to not disintegrate into numerous territories of "us" versus "them". Indian people are highly vulnerable to rhetoric that exploits these tensions. This issue isn't limited to Karnataka or Bangalore; it exists in every state in India. Efforts to create unity in diversity have been ongoing since independence, and we still struggle to embrace this concept. Xenophobia is a concern, and uncontrolled migration amplifies these tensions. It's a regressive ideology, but it can't be ignored. Policies need to be forward-looking and consider the future implications. Simply throttling migration is a band-aid approach that pleases the xenophobes temporarily. A more sustainable and long-term oriented approach would address the root cause, such as uneven development and opportunities across different states. This could prevent people from needing to leave their homes and cultures behind to earn basic livelihood. We must implement measures to reform and address the underlying values and beliefs that trigger these tensions. A diverse country like India, founded on the principle of unity in diversity, cannot afford to resist cultural reformation. It is imperative that we embrace this idea in both policies and as citizens.
Well written.