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.

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?

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.

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.