Comment

Migrant Labour

Migrant labour is now an integral part of ‘growth engine’ both domestically and globally. Then migrant labour is also a source of communal tension and rabid parochialism in certain areas where locals feel threatened from changing demographic pattern and declining job opportunities. If today Assam is rocked by sectarian and communal violence it is because migrants who were brought by the British to reclaim virgin soil and man tea gardens, are literally outnumbering the locals in certain regions leading to hate politics and its adverse consequences. Bal Thackeray of Shiv Sena originally started his hate campaign against the South Indians as in his view Mumbai was quickly losing Marathi identity because of large-scale influx from southern states. Then the Thackerys found it convenient to target the muslims—the other India in their perception—to keep their political enterprise moving, albeit at the initial stage their political ambition was limited. Having failed to make a major breakthrough in power game, Bal  Thackeray’s nephew Raj Thackeray found a scapegoat in migrant labour from Bihar. In truth he has been systematically conducting a hate campaign against the Biharis, toiling in hazardous work and living in ghettos. Whether he could come to power solely relying on parochialism is a different matter. But he has certainly earned some political mileage through his hate speech getting wide coverage from the media across the country.

In Europe old colonial powers call it white man’s burden while ultra-rightist political forces thrive on hate campaign and naked racism. Given the nature of globalisation as it is today, their economies too are dependent on migrant labour from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Middle East—the showcase of petro-dollar miracle—cannot be thought of without South Asian migrant labour.

Migrants everywhere are employed in difficult and low-paid jobs on temporary basis. They cannot expect social security and protection from labour laws though they toil for the progress of the society. And employers irrespective of their religions and provincial identity are not averse to the idea of engaging migrants in large numbers because they see in them a docile labour force, always apprehending the prospects of eviction. Raj Thackeray’s inflammatory and derogatory speech may sharpen contradiction between locals and migrants but business magnates would continue to prefer migrant labour in certain sectors of industrial and business activities.

For one thing it is the migrant agricultural labour from Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh that energised Punjab’s green revolution. By the early 1980s nearly 7 lakh seasonal migrant labourers from Bihar, eastern Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and certain other states, were travelling to rural Punjab, during the peak season of labour demand. Steadily local farmers considered themselves as ‘managers’ of agriculture, in sharp contrast to pre-green revolution days. Their importance in Punjab’s agricultural bonanza increased as jat sikh farmers migrated in large numbers to Canada, USA, Italy and North Africa for better and more lucrative pastures. Also, the rural dalits of Punjab—the traditional wage labour in agrarian economy—shifted to non-agricultural occupations. So migrant labour flows in continually at the time of paddy transplantation in mid-June and during harvesting in October. Since migrant labour is cheaper than paddy transplanting machines, such mechanisation is not popular among Punjab farmers or ‘managers’.

Of late the supply of migrant labour from labour surplus states has declined, thanks to Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. With agriculture improving in Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh, wage rates and employment opportunities too have increased. No doubt new industrial centres with far better wages are attracting migrant labour. So the Thackerays cannot stop this economic migration to their state. But they can certainly foment communal tension and parochialism.

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 10, Sep 16 -22 2012