The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in Bihar announced on July 8 that the 35 per cent quota in government jobs for women, instituted in 2016, would be applicable only to natives of Bihar—those domiciled there. To be eligible for this status, a person should have been a resident of the state for at least three years, own a house or land, or, in the case of women, most relevant here, be married to a resident. Possession of a voter ID card is desirable. Alongside, the government, helmed by Nitish Kumar of the Janata Dal (United), also announced the formation of a commission to help generate jobs for the youth. Before examining the substantive issues, a word about the timing. First, the decision was announced the day before the mass action organised by the Opposition against the revision of the election rolls in Bihar, which critics say could lead to the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters. Second, it comes months before the assembly elections to be held later this year. The move is, thus, being seen as an attempt to shore up the chief minister’s popularity with women voters, which has, of late, been fraying at the edges. The announcement is of a piece with the near trebling in social security payments—from Rs 400 to Rs 1,100 a month—to the elderly, persons with disabilities, and widows, which was cleared on June 21. It’s also meant to stem the huge disillusionment of jobless young people.
Populism is a substantive issue here. The idea, propagated by the technocratically minded, that ‘good economics’ and ‘bad politics’ exist antithetically in silos does not square with the workings of a democratic system. Economic policies are always formulated within the frame of political compulsions. This allows different classes of people, or social and regional constituencies, to exert some influence over crucial arenas of governance and ensures that various groups of people get some kind of economic support from the state. Inevitably, those in power roll out programmes for various constituencies, especially before elections, and those in opposition criticise the government. This is a kind of shadow-boxing that can safely be ignored because it is formulaic. The Bihar government’s turn to welfare measures is unexceptionable. What is not so easily defensible is the domicile requirement. Reserving jobs for people on this basis promotes fissiparous tendencies and could set one category of Indian citizens against others, creating a regionally exclusionary way of thinking. If every state were to thus restrict job opportunities and discriminate between people, untold harm could be caused to the cause of national integration. Animosities of all kinds, stirred up by the political class, are rife in any case. Economic mobility would also be severely constrained. If welfare measures are ‘good populism’, encouraging regionalism is surely of the bad variety.
