Opinion Migrant fears in Tamil Nadu: Migration is a constitutional right, a symbol of hope and prosperity

The native population becomes envious and hostile when migrants take up jobs that locals reject and occupy the labour market often due to better skillsets than native labour. Along with skills and flexibility, the wage rate of migrants is often lesser. In a conversation with the interstate migrants in Kerala, they told one of us that “we get more wages than in our states – Assam, West Bengal and Orissa — but we never receive ‘Kerala wages’, which are much higher and offered to the local, Malayali workers”. This wage differential means that employers often prefer recruiting migrants.

The strong antipathy towards migrants starts with “sons of the soil” politics, and results in conflicts between “insiders” and “outsiders”. The constant fear of the native citizens for losing their cultural and ethnic identity and employment opportunities results in antagonism, sometimes, even violence against migrants. However, one must understand that these migratory identities are a socio-political construct, conveniently stigmatised for political advantage to please nativist groups.

Interstate migrants are selected as “scapegoats” as they are the easiest targets. Scapegoating is a psychological process that describes prejudice and discrimination as a means to express hostility arising from frustration. Say, a state has failed to provide quality education, develop essential skills and create ample employment opportunities for its native population. To hide such failure, or to provide an emotional outlet for distress among nativist groups, a scapegoat is selected to release people’s aggression. In such a situation, interstate migrants are the best substitutes as they are highly fragmented, unorganised and precarious and cannot defend themselves against violent acts. So, they are portrayed as outsiders stealing local jobs.

During the nationwide lockdown, the failure of urban governance and poor healthcare infrastructure and social security mechanisms to stranded migrants in cities was visible. This, perhaps, diverted attention from the pandemic anxiety. Consequently, migrants were stigmatised in many quarters as “carriers of infection” and “a burden on systems”. They were under suspicion, frequently humiliated and portrayed as “unwanted” in the host cities and even at their place of origin. After the pandemic, the suffering of migrants was normalised as no major steps were taken for their welfare and strengthening the social security framework.

Migrants are not only victims of physical violence but also of structural violence, entrenched and embedded in the socio-economic and political structures, rendered invisible, and manifested indirectly, with institutionalised trajectories that make them extremely vulnerable and systematically isolated. The structural violence against interstate migrants closely intersects with the politicisation of migrants and their stigmatised identities, exacerbating their risks, vulnerability and marginalisation.

Another major concern is that violence or the constant fear of it adversely affects the mental health of migrants. In the absence of family, care groups and support mechanisms, the rumours on social media, fear and panic result in enormous stress, anxiety and mental health crises.

The critical question is: How do we protect physically and mentally interstate migrants at their destinations? Promoting their unionisation, portability of entitlements and ensuring universal social security provisions at the destination state could prove fruitful. Stigmatising migrants and politics of scapegoating are psychological apparatuses used for political benefits — hence strong and committed political will and bureaucratic structures are required to reduce xenophobic and violent acts against migrants.

A serious concern to protect interstate migrants from all forms of violence must be reflected in the draft National Migrant Labour policy and its future implementation. Parallelly, one must take adequate steps to make migrants aware of their legal and civic rights by providing legal-aid and counselling services. Policy-level efforts should be taken to make urban centres more inclusive, adaptive and resilient.

We believe that there is a need for more migration surveys in states like TN to estimate inter-state migrants, similar to the Kerala model of migration surveys. The ongoing migration surveys in Odisha and Jharkhand, with which one of the authors of this article is associated, have helped in generating a more nuanced understanding of migrants and have also aided in better policy-making in both the states of origin and destination. Other origin states such as Bihar, Assam, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh could also benefit by emulating the model of both Odisha and Jharkhand and carry out large-scale migration surveys to examine the various contributions made by low-skilled migrants for the improvement of their households, economy and society.

To conclude, migration is a constitutional right in India and a symbol of hope and prosperity. Attacks on migrants, rumours, and their persistent precarity indicate that we have forgotten the migrant crisis during the pandemic. Without comprehensive and substantial steps, the meaningful inclusion of migrants is a mere dream.

Irudaya Rajan and Rajput are Chair and Senior Research Fellow, respectively, at the International Institute of Migration and Development (IIMAD), Kerala, India