The question of the human body and its right to movement
Let it be framed simply. Maybe the circumstances were muddled and confusing, but Karnataka finds itself having erred on the side of an egregious moral wrong—knowingly. And there is no honourable way out from this but to make amends forthwith. The freedom of movement, and the freedom to work, or rather
to not be forced to work, are fundamental to human dignity. Stopping all migrant trains to facilitate the revival of the construction industry? That has a 19th century sound to it.
The irony here is that it is Karnataka CM BS Yediyurappa who has blundered right into the centre of an unsavoury row: He cut his teeth in politics with huge campaigns to free bonded labour. To be sure, the BSY regime had till this point conducted itself admirably—its ceaseless battle against Covid-19 had combined administrative efficiency with human sensitivity.
Signs of the old BSY were there in the way they responded to media stories, including in the The New Indian Express, on the woes of displaced labour, and first arranged buses for internal travel, and later liaised with a reluctant Bihar and West Bengal to ensure trains for migrant labour. Indeed, the latter states were more ambivalent, pleading lack of infrastructure and readiness to absorb their returning natives.
The imperatives of resuming economic activity, at a time when the coffers are desperately empty, would also have weighed in. But the decision itself tipped the scales. In no time, words from Article 23 of the Constitution were buzzing around everywhere: “Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of bonded labour are prohibited...” From the time India went into lockdown—and, simultaneously, started seeing endless barefoot caravans on its highways—the question of the human body, its ownership and its right to movement had posed itself. It must never be forgotten in a country like India, with its age-old history of indentured labour.