This post owes its existence to a conversation with a friend about a year ago about what duties states in the “Indian Union” owe to persons from other states. I remember bitterly disagreeing yet, simultaneously, finding myself increasingly confused as the political basis for the “Indian Union,” aka Republic of India. I have in mind the following problem: What makes it the case that the State of Maharashtra (not that it did, but certain political figures surely did) is wrong to say that persons from other parts of India should not take jobs in Maharashtra? You might think that the answer to that question is simple. You would say, the Constitution constitutes India as a Republic, guarantees freedom of movement and freedom of trade and business. More, importantly, it will lead to dangerous divisiveness in the country. I think, however, that it is not so simple. And not just because one may impugn the arguments above.
Think of the following case: Let us say the State of Karnataka decides, in its wisdom (I am unaware whether it is the case, but my point would be illustrated either way. Think of the following as a difficult hypothetical to tease out your intuitions) to have Kannada as a mandatory language for students all the way till Class XII i.e. that all subjects will be taught primarily in Kannada. Now, Ms. Dasgupta, from West Bengal, has found an exciting new job at a call centre in Bangalore. To her dismay, she finds that all the schools that follow the CBSE and ICSE and ISC exam boards are too expensive for her to enroll her 15 year-old son, Sonu, in. Per force, her only option would be to get Sonu enrolled in a state board school. The only problem being that Kannada is the only mode of instruction, and Sonu, being from West Bengal, only knows Bengali and passable English. Although there is no ‘formal barrier’ for Ms. Dasgupta to move to Bangalore, she is, in effect, precluded from moving because her son will be unable to understand anything in class and will not pass the exams, and this will affect his future. The state provides no tuition for beginners in Kannada and private tuition would again prove too expensive.
Do your intuitions differ in the case of Raj Thackeray calling a prohibition on persons from other parts of India to work in Maharashtra (read Bombay), and the case of the State of Karnataka having the liberty to prescribe a medium of education for students taking board exams under the state board?
Perhaps I have described the Karnataka example in terms that make it very easy to empathize with Ms. Dasgupta and her son. So let me put forth the most important counter-argument to that feeling of empathy. Indian states were, for the most part, organized on grounds of language. Indian states, therefore, have the freedom and more importantly, the duty to preserve the culture, and to promote the interests, of people residing there by virtue of what language they speak.
So now, what sort of duty does Karnataka owe to Ms. Dasgupta? I will be bombarded with “constitutional answers” to the question. Those are to be welcomed, but let me say (controversially) again, that simply because you can base your solution on the text or law of the Constitution does not make that solution necessarily correct (morally speaking that is; but legally, of course, it might be).
What makes this case so different (if it is) from the Maharashtra example? I tend to believe that the State of Karnataka has the full right to endorse and promote the use of Kannada as the sole medium of instruction. But I also believe, ceteris paribus, that it has the duty to ensure that no one else from any other part of the country is denied the right to work there. The state, in my view, has no right to discriminate between people on grounds of where they are from, even if cloaked in terms of language. If our intuitions and reason in the Maharashtra case tell us so, then it must give us the same answer in the Karnataka case.
I am all for the promotion of regional languages and culture. But any state that imposes substantive barriers on movement of persons, must provide, in the Karnataka case for example, an alternative education route for Sonu.
But let me put one more twist in the tale, another counter argument! Is it feasible? What if you had to provide for ALL the languages that Indians speak? If you accept this argument, then you must accept, although not as conclusive, but at least as weighty, an alternative argument that Raj Thackeray might make – Bombay simply does not have the resources to support everyone who chooses to come and make a living in Maharashtra (for him, Bombay) (we must assume, of course that it is factually true). Jobs are scarce, and they should go to Maharashtrians.
I am leaning toward one side (that states should not discriminate between people), but am still not convinced of either position. Are you?
Pingback: Gimme One Reason to Stay Here | Critical Twenties | The Newz+
Prasan, this is tangential, but would you say there is a moral distinction between a situation where a lady goes hungry for one evening because she has no money, and one where she goes hungry because goondas prevent her from going to grocery storesand restaurants?
I think there are distinct moral issues at play. But they are both wrong. And it is sad, that in India we only concentrate on holding states responsible for the latter, and not the former. At least in the media.
Prasan-
You say that you don’t want legal or constitutional answers, but I think you have framed a legal/constitutional question (rather than a purely moral question). If I understand you correctly, you ask why a ‘state’ cannot pose barriers to free movement of people (very broadly understood).
That question has no extra legal or extra constitional answer. The ‘state’ you refer to has such an obligation of non-discrimination (direct in the case of Maharashtra and indirect in the case of Karnataka) if an donly if it is a sub-national “state” – like states of the Indian Union or states of the United States of America. “States” in the international context have no such onligation and we are also morally fine with that. For instance, no would reasonably argue that Russia should create facilities for speakers of all Indian languages to settle and work there. We even tolerate direct discrimination like a import tarrifs/employment restrictions on foreigners.
Why do we accept this in the case of international states? It is precisely because these states have not signed up to a constitution saying they will be part of a union. I think therefore the only answer has to be legal/consitutional.
There are people called open borders folks who advocate no restrictions on the movement of people across countries (though they make exceptions on national security). This is not the same as saying that national governments should take special measures to welcome newcomers, just that they should not get in the way.
OK, here’s an argument for you: If Ms. Dasgupta’s awesome job does not pay enough for her to afford Kannada tuitions or CBSE or ICSE school for Sonu then she must not take up the job.
What I am trying to say is that instead of treating Ms. Dasgupta and Sonu as separate entities, we can combine them, simply because one cannot move without the other. Now, all the states do allow ICSE & CBSE board schools to exist, so Ms. Dasgupta should take up a job in Bangalore only if the salary is good enough.
In this case, I’d say the state has done it’s job by allowing the people to come in and go as they please. Now, it’s the market forces which decide who comes in and who does not. Mr. Thackeray has no right to interfere.
PS: This also counters your argument Is it feasible? The market will decide.
In Mumbai, there was clearly enough opportunities for people to come in to the city and work, if there weren’t then they would have also left as easily as they had come.
There are two interesting comments.
1. Subramanian – I don’t think I denied anywhere in my post that the obligations of states *pre-exist* the Constitution. I think that the fact that the Indian Union exists, and that states “signed up” to the Indian Union (as you might know, certain states did not. At least, willingly) constitutes a relevant *background* from which we ought to judge obligations. For example, if you sign a contract with a seller due to which she is to deliver to you a motorcycle, and you are to pay certain monies in return constitutes a background such that it is your *moral* obligation to pay so, even though it is *also) your legal obligation to do so. So certain *facts* become morally relevant, and those may or may not be legal facts. What should legally happen is only partially the point (and I chose to ignore it).
2. Akshat – It is strange that you allow the market to determine that it is *ok* to deny someone a job. Why do you think she should be disallowed the opportunity to take that job? I think you have reiterated the problematic state of affairs. The fact that she is unable to take the job, is precisely what I thought was morally problematic. Why should she take the job *only* if the salary is good enough? Isn’t that her choice? Isn’t it unfair to burden her with extra costs simply because she chooses place X over place Y?
It is *ok* for the market to determine whether she is able to take up that job or not. We don’t have the choice to do whatever we want.
For example, I want to kill the next man I meet on the street just because I have the choice. But I also know if I do kill him, I will be punished. Hence, in that situation I really don’t have a choice.
That’s the same for Ms Dasgupta, she wants to take that job in Bangalore just because she has the choice. But if she does take the job, she knows that the salary will not be enough for Sonu to get tuitions in kannada. Hence, in that situation she does not really have a choice.
There is surely a distinction between killing and getting a job. Isn’t not having the “choice” a problem? So while it is not in the former, it is in the latter.