Internal Migrants and Voting Participation Constraints: A Study in Delhi

Introduction

India experiences significant movement of people for various reasons within the national boundary. These movements, both within and between states, also have greater association with regional disparity. Due to the regional disparities in terms of economic and social development, people migrate to other regions to access the emerging opportunities (De Haas, 2010). The place from where one migrates or moves out is considered as source and the place where one moves in is characterized as “destination”, and the people who migrate are considered as migrants. De Haan (1999, p. 3) and Chirwa (1997, p. 663) asserted that “poverty and absence of opportunities are the major reasons for the out-migration”. However, the era of liberalization, privatization and globalization has increased the opportunities in every sector that directly or indirectly encourage the movement of people from one place to another. People largely coming from the backward states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Jharkhand are migrating in increasing numbers to Delhi, Punjab, Gujarat, Mumbai, Kolkata, Tamil Nadu, Hyderabad and Kerala. Today, Indians are moving in far larger numbers in search of better opportunities, education, livelihoods or with the hope of achieving a better future.

The Census of 2011 revealed that over 50 million had migrated within India for economic purposes and nearly 3.7 million people had moved out from their native place towards major urban centres for higher education (Tumbe, 2018). Most of those who migrate for economic purposes work in the informal sector, largely as rickshaw pullers, manual labourers, construction workers or at manufacturing sites. They are often seasonal migrants who begin to migrate for work during the lean months in agricultural calendar and return. As a result, their movement is considered as temporary. The 2017 Economic Survey of India estimated that this figure may cross over 100 million if the limitations of the census were taken into consideration (Government of India [GOI], 2017). By using the origin–destination monthly railway data for the period of 2011–2016, this survey also estimated an average of nine million people migrate within the country for work-related reasons in a year. Large number of students moved out from their native places towards major urban centres for graduation or higher degrees. Delhi, Karnataka and Maharashtra are the major destinations for migrating students, opting for higher education, coming from origin states such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh (Chandrasekhar & Sharma, 2014). Apart from these, urban centres, such as Kota, Delhi, Allahabad etc., which house large number of private coaching centres also attract students who migrate particularly for preparation of various government jobs or entrance exams of numerous courses or institutions, etc. However, there are no available records of how many students migrate to these cities for this purpose. Migrant workers and students constitute a large section of internal migrants, who are either moving or often stay away from their native places even at the time of election. This poses severe questions about the future of our democracy and the political consent of these internal migrants in Indian electoral system. Does the movement of large chunk of internal migrants undermine the electoral system and Indian democracy at large? How does the Election Commission of India (ECI) ensure the participation of these internal migrants in the election?

Approximately 35 per cent of the population did not come out to vote in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Apart from the various reasons for low turnout, it is also true that most of these people were either moving or not present in their constituency at the time of elections. This article is not proposing any model or set of recommendations to achieve 100 per cent turnout in any election of the country; it simply attempts to point out that spatial distance has restrained a huge section of Indian mass from participating in the democratic electoral system at large.

Methodology and Field Settings

This study was conducted in Delhi National Capital Region using qualitative methods of in-depth interviews of migrants and observation in the field. This approach helped to capture and understand the multifaceted problems that undermine the spirit of electoral process at large (Denscombe, 2007). Interviews included questions related to respondents’ understanding about elections, how they engage in the participatory democracy and how they want to ensure their participation in the electoral process.

A total of 50 internal migrants were interviewed for this study, comprising of 30 seasonal migrants and 20 students. Data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, 30 seasonal migrants working in the informal sector were interviewed. In the second phase, 10 migrant students from University of Delhi and 10 migrant students residing in the coaching hubs near Delhi University, that is, Mukherjee Nagar, were interviewed. This study has limited itself to the students belonging to University of Delhi as well as those residing in Mukherjee Nagar for the preparation of government jobs or any other competitions. However, University of Delhi and Mukherjee Nagar present the true proportion of the universe of the study. Purposive sampling was applied in both phases to gather relevant information with respect to the objectives of study. The names of participants have been changed to maintain the confidentiality and protect their identity. The data collection was carried out during the period of 1 April 2019 to 31 May 2019.

Democracy and Indian Electoral Framework

Democracy is a universally accepted institutional arrangements to govern a state or society. In simple words, democracy means “rule by the people”. It refers to a system where power and authority eventually lies in the hand of people, in contrast to a regime where decisions are imposed and exercised without the consent of the people (Cunningham, 2002). It is the consent of people that legitimizes a regime or a system to be democratic. The question that arises then is how can this consent be given to the system? Democratic system connects this question with the participation of people in decision-making, which affects their day-to-day life.

Based on people’s participation, democracies can be categorized in two forms—(a) direct democracy and (b) indirect democracy. The direct form of democracy is derived from the classical Athenian model, where people collectively take major decisions on all matters of governance often through mass meetings (Arblaster, 1994). There is a high degree of participation of citizen in direct democracy. Today, the practice of referendum, in case of Britain on the Brexit issue, or any initiative or call depicts the essence of direct democracy exercised in the contemporary world. Indirect democracy on the other hand is also known as representative form of government, wherein decisions on all matters of governance are taken by the representatives who are elected through the election (Arblaster, 1994). Election is a process where people choose their representatives at regular intervals. It allows people to keep an eye on the action of their representatives and control the misuse of power vested in the system. All citizens above 18 years of age, who constitute the political community, participate in the election. It is based on the idea that every individual is equally important for taking collective decisions that shape their lives. Hence, consent of all people is essential for the functioning of a strong democracy.

India, after independence, adopted a representative form of democracy that guarantees all its citizens the right of suffrage. It is based on the principle of “one person one vote”, that is, no ones’ opinion or choice is more valuable than the other. The right of suffrage is a legal right in India that allows every individual, irrespective of their caste, gender, religion, colour or any other previous subjugation, to cast their vote. In this regard, India established the ECI, an autonomous constitutional body, on 25 January 1950 to administer the election process all over the country. ECI recognizes certain conditions for citizens to become voters. Every citizen of India, who is at the age of 18 years or above, is eligible to be enrolled for participating in the voting of an election in the country. However, each person is bound to cast his/her vote from a particular area or constituency, based on their domicile. It means one can only cast his/her vote from the place of residence and not from anywhere else. ECI categorizes the voters/electors in three groups—(a) general electors, (b) oversees electors (NRIs) and, (c) service electors. General electors are those Indians who are registered at polling booth of their constituency as an ordinary citizen; oversees electors (NRIs) are those Indians who reside outside of India but have not acquired the citizenship of any other country; and service electors comprise those Indians who are working outside of India for Government of India (Election Commission of India [ECI], 2018). It is evident that internal migrants come under the category of General electors. They are expected to cast their vote at the polling booth of their constituency at the time of election. This is where the issue of internal migrants’ right of suffrage becomes important to the basic premise of democracy.

Realities of Voting Among Migrant Workers

It has been witnessed that politicians, film celebrities, cricketers, industrialists, entrepreneurs and many others cast their vote and pose with the inked fingers on various social media platforms to express their participation in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. While Birju, a daily wage worker, on the eve of 6th phase of 2019 election, starts his day as usual in the search of work by visiting the labour chowk at Jhangirpuri, Delhi. He hails from Gajipur district of Uttar Pradesh and is well aware of the election process. He said,

‘Election is celebrated as festival in our village. People often sit in the groups, based on caste, or vested interests, talk day and night about what is to be done this time. What issues need to be addressed to the politicians or representatives of several political parties during their visit to our village? There are many more never ending demands that remain alive for the next election’s discussion. People often meet and visit other folk’s places or even try to associate with those people to whom they have not interacted for a long time. Everything seems to be good. Rations that often used to be received less in quantity and late, are distributed on time during the time of election. The whole village community is invited from time to time by the Sarpanch or the Mukhiya (politically strong people), in the name of puja or sometimes celebrating birthday of any family members or any other special day. Free lunch or dinner or sometimes both meals are arranged to lure the vote of the villagers as a whole. Separate arrangements are also made for people who drink. As the time of voting come closer, the real picture comes into play. People once again get divided as they were before the election and cast their vote as per their affiliation.’

In response to the questions regarding the executing of voting rights, he stated:

‘Being in Delhi, I am not going to vote this time. It’s really difficult for me to visit my village only for voting. As, I earn around ₹200–300 per day. If I think of casting my vote, then I have to take leave from my work and abandon the wages that I am earning per day. Apart from this, I also have to spend the money on travelling to visit my hometown. Additionally, I have to buy new things as gifts for everyone in my family, as they all expect gifts upon my visit to home. It all comes at a great cost.’

Nadeem, a rickshaw puller who hails from Saharsa district of Bihar, pulls his rickshaw in the Guru Tegh Bahadur (GTB) Nagar metro station localities. He plans to make four or five extra rounds from a normal day in order to earn more on the day of voting. He sees voting day as an additional Sunday in the week. He is aware of the on-going election process. In response to question about his participation in the election, he told:

‘I am aware of Kejriwal party (Aam Aadmi Party), Bhartiya Janta Party, mahaghatbandhan (colition of Samajhwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party) and everyone. I know to whom I have to vote? But I also have to feed my stomach. Casting my vote will not raise my family. I am keen to participate in the election but I don’t want to bear the cost of travelling to my village only for voting. It almost takes one and half day to reach my village from Delhi. If I go, I will not come back soon. I have to meet my relatives as is expected on my visit to village. I cannot afford this just for voting. However, there are few migrants who went to cast their vote in a group at their local constituency. The cost of travelling back and forth as well as the security of their jobs are taken care by their sardar (head of the group). As sardar has close association with the political people of the village and they usually manage everything. But such incidence is rare.’

Pankaj is a well-informed construction worker, who hails from Dumka district of Jharkhand. In the course of conversation, he responded to the question about the change of place of voting that

‘Here, I don’t know their languages. Even posters, wallpapers or hoarding of election campaigns are meaningless to me. As I am illiterate, I don’t even understand anything. I have no idea about the local issues. Thus, I am not interested to vote here. I am more comfortable among my families and community people and feel free in voting at my hometown.’

When migrants were asked whether they liked to change the place of voting from their native place to Delhi in order to participate in the elections, like Birju and Nadeem, most of them emphasized the same point, they argue:

‘After working for eight to ten hours a day, we don’t have time to talk about the local problems. We are here to make money, so we work as much as possible. We also have to talk to our family members, guide the daily household work at home, cook our meals and, prepare ourselves for tomorrow. Even if we discuss, nobody cares about our views. Thus, we don’t want to engage in politics here nor have desire to shift the place of voting.’

They, however, added that they desired to attain legal documents required to access the benefits of social securities provided at the place of destination. This is one of the reasons that attracts few migrants to own more than one voter identity card or other relevant identity proof.

Realities of Voting Among Students

15 million new voters coming from the age group of 18–19 years were expected to participate in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections (Firstpost, 2019). However, Manisha, 19 years old, who moved from Meerut district of Uttar Pradesh to Delhi to pursue her graduation in Social Work from University of Delhi, stated that she is not going to participate in the process of voting. She stated

‘Personally I am very excited to participate in the election but I am having my semester exam and during this time, it’s impossible for me to visit my native place just to cast my vote. Even if I think once, I couldn’t make it as my parents will not allow me to do so during the exam time or even if had it been a regular working days. So I am planning to use this day as additional holiday and complete my remaining works. There are lots of activities going around in college along with classes. So it hardly seems appropriate for me to abandon all these things and participate in the ongoing election.’

In the conversation, Alok, 21 years old, a third year student of Ramjas College who shifted to Delhi from Ramgarh district of Jharkhand for his graduation, highlighted that

‘There are limited number of seats in the hostel of University of Delhi, which fails to accommodate all outstation students. Due to this, most of our monthly expenses goes on paying unwanted room rent, unregulated electricity bills, high gas cylinder price or sometimes commissions for room or flat. I have to pay every step in Delhi. In all these situations, I go to my native place once or twice in a year, and festivals seems to be a much more appropriate reason for going home. Also, travelling will entail additional costs, the money could instead be used for other needs, as students we tread on very thin line when it comes to monetary issues and Delhi is quite expensive. It is not that I don’t understand the meaning of responsible citizenry, I do and even more so being a student of political science but it is really impractical.’

Students often get ignored as a voter due to their limitations and it has led to the situation where issues related to students are not prioritized as it should be. On the other hand, Vivek, 26 years old, who hails from Alauli village in Khagaria district of Bihar, but presently residing in Mukherjee Nagar and preparing for the government job, is keen to participate in the on-going elections, but due to his UPSC preliminary exam on 2 June 2019, he could not participate in the election. He expressed

‘When I was pursuing my graduation in Patna University, I voted in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections as well as in the 2015 Vidhan Sabha elections. Then, it was not a problem for me. It took only 4hrs–5hrs to reach Khagaria from Patna. One can commute either by bus or train at a nominal fare. But now I am living in Delhi and it almost takes two or three days to go back and forth. It is very hectic and tiring. Now the situation is different. Even if I thinks once, I could not make it because of my priorities to get a government job soon and support my family financially.’

While responding to the question of changing the place of voting from his native place to Delhi, in order to participate in the elections, Mohit and other students responded to this question similarly. He asserted

‘If I plan to shift the place of voting, I may participate in upcoming elections. But it’s really a tiring and time consuming work. Possibly, I will cast my vote for once or maximum two elections as today I am in Delhi for pursuing my master’s degree and I don’t know where I am going to be after two or three years. I will go to any place where I will get a better opportunity. Therefore, I don’t want to shift the place of voting.’

There are many stories similar to Mohit’s, like that of Ajay, Alok or Vivek who live in the streets of Mukherjee Nagar, Gopalpur, Nehru Vihar, Vijay Nagar in University hostels, across Delhi. Their experiences are different but they all have one thing in common, that they often do not get a chance to participate in voting process.

Discussion and Conclusion

Around 72,000 NRIs registered to vote in 2019 general elections (as reported by Akash Gulankar in News18.com on 19 March 2019). This is commendable effort on the part of the ECI to ensure the maximum participation of oversees voters in the Indian democracy. But at the same time, a large chunk of internal migrants have been unable to execute their voting rights due to various socio-economic and institutional limitations under which they earn their livelihoods or struggle for better opportunities. Though the constitution of India guarantees right to move freely to all citizens, but the voting right of migrant workers goes unused due to the very nature of their work that traps them at the destinations (in this case in Delhi), where they work. Most of these migrant workers work at low daily wages in the informal sector. They continuously work under pressure of losing their job or daily wages upon taking leave. Though they express their interest in casting their vote, their socio-economic realities prevent them from casting their votes. The economic concerns and the cost of losing a day’s wage constrain the decision of migrant workers to visit their native places for executing their voting rights. The narratives of seasonal migrants clearly highlight the fact that apart from sending remittances; they are also under the pressure of buying gifts for their family members or to meet their relatives. This involves an additional cost as their families or relatives expect from migrants upon their visit from cities. Such gifts, which otherwise carry the notion of status to the families in the villages, are seen as an extra economic burden for migrants that discourage them from travelling to their homes during elections. The various socio-economic conditions of migrants act as hindrances due to their spatial mobility, even when related to casting their votes.

In the case of students, it can be inferred from their views that parents expect, as a student, one must divorce from any other considerations and happenings around them except for their studies. Due to their financial dependence on parents, students do not have much to say or hesitate to voice their opinion in front of their parents. The decisions of students to migrate and their selection of destinations are influenced by the suggestions of siblings or relatives, choice of universities, colleges and courses as well as socio-economic conditions of their families. As a result, visiting home for voting by and large considered as a sign of immaturity or an idealistic fool by the parents or relatives. Such attitudes and considerations undermine electoral significance and democratic process. This perception among parents mainly emerge due to the belief that they see voting vis-à-vis education in terms of opportunity cost; the benefits of latter far outweigh the former. The benefit of a democracy is not perceived by the parents as catering to their immediate needs in terms of supporting their child’s education and securing a bright future for them. This misalignment of perception, among students and parents, needs further exploration. This idea, without any consideration of modern education, resonates in Indian society.

Internal migrants are assumed to visit their constituency and cast their vote at the local polling booths during elections. However, the narratives of migrant workers or students reflected in this study show that it is very difficult for them to get engaged in the process of voting even in the best of situations. This highlights the negligence of government that overlooks the voting rights of internal migrants, which intentionally or unintentionally result in their abstention from participating in the democratic electoral process, which is their constitutional right.

The absence of large number of internal migrants from their native places or registered voting centres raises a very serious question on the spirit of participatory democracy where each vote counts. One may transfer his/her place of voting, but their votes are not mobile across regions. The meaning of democracy is not about just the functioning of election; its essence lies in the participation of citizens. In this context, for practising the ideals of democracy, we need to develop efficient institutional structure, which secures spirit for democratic politics. An election is one of the key methods to keep citizens’ faith alive that they are the ones who govern politics through electoral participation. The Election Commission must show greater commitment to maintain citizens’ participation in a democracy, especially given their constraints in voting. It should develop mechanisms so that every citizen can participate in the process of elections, including internal migrants. In order to make Indian democracy more participatory, the Government of India should frame polices that must address the issues of voting rights of internal migrants.