The recent decision of Madhya Pradesh Govt’s decision to reserve all state jobs for the sons of the soil is a retrograde step, which would set a dangerous precedent if implemented. If all states adopt this criterion, certainly it would lead to social disharmony and national disintegration. This rhetoric may work politically particularly during elections, and Mr. Chouhan must be shoring up some goodwill before the by-elections take place. But his priority should have been accommodating the reverse migrants in their home state. It was also reported in the press that the ruling party is facing indifferent prospects in the impending by-polls in the state. These by-polls will elect 24 MLAs, which are crucial for the party to retain power. If one recalls, ahead of last year Assembly Elections CM Fadnavis of Maharashtra, brought in this policy of sons of the soil, in jobs&educational institutions. This policy is gaining ground among states for short-term political gains, but does this pay the dividends is a mute question, and there is no definitive answer to that. Evidence on the ground suggests that it doesn’t necessarily yield positive results. If it did, Mr. Fadnavis would have continued, in place of Uddhav. Many will also question Chouhan, whether it’s legally tenable, as experts say it is violative of Art 15&16 of the constitution. Again the economy can’t run in water-tight compartments with the labour force walled off from each other. We can not be competitive in the world if we pursue such policies.

It’s indeed ironical that the ruling party which has enthusiastically extended domicile rights for land as well as jobs to non-locals and central employees in J&K, so far safeguarded as special rights and privileges under Art 370 &35A, is seen following the exact opposite policy in another state, why these double standards? It will no doubt set a dangerous precedent in these increasingly socially divisive times, that will not serve our economy well either.

In this day and age of internet and easy mobility, geographical boundaries are blurred and meaningless. Flourishing businesses are conducted irrespective of region, identity, country, or even continent. In such a scenario, excluding a jog seeker only because he is not a domicile of the state is patently discriminatory. Of course,  only the judiciary can decide whether it contravenes the law, and even for job seekers, the move denies them equality of opportunity.