Low-income migrant workers are the first victims of domicile job quotas, which experts say is a populist approach to garner votes but overlooks the cascading impact such policies would have on livelihoods and state economies
Anuja
File image. Pic credit: Tanmoy Bhaduri
It took the Congress party-led Karnataka government less than 48 hours and a severe industry backlash to first clear and later withdraw a draft bill in July aimed at reserving jobs for locals. It mandated employers to appoint local candidates in 50% of management positions and 70% in non-management positions.
However, in times of competing sub-nationalism, Karnataka is not the first state to do so.
There are several examples of state governments across the political spectrum attempting to introduce such moves. More recently, this includes state governments led by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Haryana in 2020, YSR Congress in Andhra Pradesh in 2019 and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) in Jharkhand in 2021 – all of whom brought bills to reserve jobs for locals in the private sector.
Migration experts have often argued about how the ‘real victims’ of nativist labour laws are low income migrant workers. Studies also show that migrants often bear the brunt of such nativist policy approaches.
In most cases, such moves are ultra-vires of the constitution and are either met with severe resistance by private firms or face legal challenges. Article 19 (1) of the Constitution deals with the freedom to 'move freely', to 'reside and settle' as well as 'to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business'. Last year, a division bench of Punjab and Haryana high court quashed a jobs-for-locals reservation on the grounds that it put unreasonable restrictions regarding the right to move freely and right to reside and settle under the Constitution as also violative of freedom to practice any profession.
Despite this, political parties and state governments continue to propose such labour policies. Experts say acute unemployment and the hope to reap political dividends through a populist approach are some of the key reasons behind floating such policies.
In this explainer, we will look at what the Karnataka government had proposed, what are the examples of other states in the past that brought such policies, how it could impact the migrant workforce and why migrant workers continue to be out of political limelight.
What does the Karnataka proposal say?
In July, Karnataka’s cabinet passed a draft bill titled The Karnataka State Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries, Factories and Other Establishments Bill, 2024. While proposals by other states in the past focused mostly on the residency factor, Karnataka’s bill also includes a language element.
It defines a ‘local candidate’ as anyone born in the state, domiciled for at least 15 years and who can read, write, and speak Kannada. A Kannada language proficiency test is prescribed for those who do not possess a secondary school certificate.
Soon after the government announced its decision, there was outrage from industry representatives and private firms calling the move short-sighted and against the grain of the Constitution. Chief minister Siddaramaiah ended up deleting a tweet to clarify on the state government’s position and amidst all the hectic developments, the bill was withheld until ‘further consultations’.
File image. Pic credit: Tanmoy Bhaduri
If the proposal gets restored in the future, it is likely to have a huge impact on the large migrant workforce in the state. Karnataka had 28.9 lakh migrant workers, according to the 2011 census. This figure – for Karnataka and also for the rest of the country - is expected to have increased substantially over the past decade aligned with the country’s population’s growth, the unequal impact of mounting climate distress in rural parts and more employment opportunities in urban centres.
A more recent estimate said that Karnataka’s capital city Bengaluru is home to about 42 lakh migrant labourers which is slightly less than half its population. The Economic Survey 2016-17 included Bengaluru district in the list of districts with high mobility or high net in-migration.
What have other states done in the past?
Andhra Pradesh: In 2019, YSRCP led government passed the The Andhra Pradesh Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries/Factories Act, 2019 to reserve 75% jobs for locals in industries, factories and even projects under public private partnerships. Employers were also mandated to furnish a quarterly report of such appointments.
Within a year, the legislation ran into legal trouble and the state High Court observed that quota for locals in private jobs may be unconstitutional and sought a reply from the government. The case is yet to be decided. A 2021 news report said that lack of adequately trained local candidates was among the key reasons that its implementation took off to a slow start.
Jharkhand: In 2021, JMM led government announced 75% reservation in private sector jobs with a salary of up to Rs. 40,000 for locals. Apart from establishments, the bill includes anyone employing more than ten people under its ambit. The bill also called for a designated online portal to register workers and accounted for penalties in case of contraventions.
Haryana: In 2020, the BJP-led state government introduced and passed the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Bill, 2020. It sought to reserve 75% of new jobs in private sector for local candidates below a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and imposed penalties in case of contraventions.
In 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the law on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. In sharp remarks, the court had then said that that the Haryana government by introducing the policy of ‘son of the soils’ wanted to create reservation in the private sector which was an infringement of constitutional rights of the employees and citizens.
In 2022, the apex court said it was willing to examine the validity of the Haryana law even as it observed that similar laws were being challenged at high courts in Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh.
Why do states bring such policies?
Several political parties in the past have appealed to the ‘son of the soil’ narrative and accused migrants coming from other states of ‘stealing’ local jobs. This in turn often leads to incumbents offering preferential treatment to locals when it comes to education and jobs within their state.
However, despite several legal and constitutional challenges faced by domicile reservation job policies in the past, states continue to attempt bringing such measures, especially those with high in-migration. For instance, several political parties including now incumbent Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham (DMK) in the run up to Tamil Nadu state assembly elections of 2021 promised reservations in jobs for locals.
After the Karnataka controversy broke in July, opposition parties in Tamil Nadu stepped up the political heat and demanded that the DMK government should fulfil its pre-poll promise soon.
Anupam Manur, who teaches economic reasoning and macroeconomics at The Takshashila Institution in Bengaluru, said that whenever there is acute unemployment problem in India, the resultant protest often takes place in the form of demand for reservation. India’s youth account for nearly 83% of unemployed workforce, said an ILO (International Labour Organisation) report from earlier this year which the government has objected to.
“We don’t demand more jobs but a share of jobs and one particular demand for reservation is through domicile. We are not creating enough jobs – when you have paucity there will always be some kind of protectionist measures to tackle it,” Manur told The Migration Story.
He added that the immediate fallouts of such policies include a dip in business and investor confidence as well as increase in compliance cost. “This will eventually mean that you will have less people employed. Jobs will decline further and then states will have to double down even more,” he said, explaining how this would only hamper overall economic growth.
How do such policies impact migrant workforce?
Domestic migrants are largely classified in two categories – the more prevalent intra-state (moving within the state) and inter-state (moving from one state to another). Job reservations based on domicile directly impact those belonging to the latter.
Spatial inequality leads to people migrating in search of work outside of their state. This is also in the backdrop of how the gap between the rich and poor states is large and has increased over the years. Majority of inter-state migrants come from economically under-developed states, an analysis said.
Pushpendra (he uses one name), former professor and chairperson at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Patna centre said that domicile related job reservations are ‘retrogressive’ not just for migrants who come from other states but also for locals as it impacts overall economic activity.
“This is a very complicated and controversial issue. There are several factors at play like what kind of skills are required for a particular job, is it possible to build such skills in the local population and whether the local population is interested in those jobs or not,” Pushpendra told The Migration Story.
“Historically, some interstate migration patterns have emerged and there is also some rationale behind it like movement from less to a more developed state or even between two less developed states. These are realities of our mobility patterns which cannot be wished away,” he added.
Internal mobility is a ‘critical component’ of economic growth and development, a 2017 research paper said, adding that such a mobility helps in reallocation of labour to more productive opportunities across different sectors and regions.
According to Manur, policies that reserve jobs for locals greatly reduces the option for migration and creates a hostile environment for job seekers. “If increasingly more states do it, it will impact local remittances that are sent to source states. In most cases, when migrant workers return to their home states for the lack of opportunities, they engage in agriculture or other low productive jobs which has adverse effect,” he added.
Why migrants do not get political spotlight?
A report by a parliamentary committee on labour in 2021 had observed that inter-state migrant labour is ‘exploitative’ and the system of recruitment lends itself to ‘various abuses’. Circular migrants contribute roughly 10% to India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and form the backbone of its informal economy.
However, despite being a large workforce that forms the backbone of India’s informal economy, domestic migrant workers largely remain out of political spotlight because many are estimated to not vote at their work places. Hence, political parties do not see enough incentive in reaching out to them.
The Election Commission (EC) too took a note of migration-based disenfranchisement. “Inability to vote due to internal migration (domestic migrants) is one of the prominent reasons to be addressed to improve voter turnout and ensure participative elections,” the EC said in a 2022 press note on remote voting, a discussion that is currently in cold storage.
A 2018 study had shown that internal migrants suffer from unequal political representation and the estimated bias exceeds in magnitude that is associated with religion, gender or occupation level. ‘Migrants are politically marginalized in cities of the developing world, participating in destination-area elections less than do local-born residents,’ this study said. Socioeconomic links to origin regions, bureaucratic obstacles and ‘ostracism by anti-migrant politicians’ were some of the key reasons behind it.
In the context of policies like job reservation for locals, Pushpendra said that political parties cannot do away with the requirement of migrant workers and doing so will be at their own peril.
“Policies like these will prove detrimental. No state can have all sets of skill and expertise of their own. And if they do have it, their local people are more likely to migrate outside in the country or abroad in search of even better opportunities,” he said.
Anuja is an independent journalist based in Delhi and writes on the intersection of policy and politics.
コメント