Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
LinkedIn published an article, “Chasing opportunities: Millennials’ quest for growth away from home” by Nirajita Banerjee, which looked at the current movement trends of the workforce for jobs in the country (India), and the locations of their concentrated presence. For sure, it provided good food for thought in some regards!
Surveys like the one referred to in the article are indicators of what is or what may be. However, those are truly not indicators of “preference”, but more of compulsion. The surveys inform but do not effect change.
One might as well ask where CEOs prefer to reside. HQ is wherever they choose to work, i.e, when feasible. And the plum posts tend to be located in & around HQ, especially in India.
But I doubt even CEOs, if asked, would express professional as well as personal contentment about those decisions that they make.
It is not as if the currently preferred cities fulfil the expectations and aspirations of the workforce which has migrated there or stayed put there, for better living. Otherwise, why the continued rush for emigration, even by HNWIs (High net-worth-individuals)?
I would not be surprised if for many nationals of other countries, working even in any of the major cities of India qualifies for a hardship allowance. Xanadu does not hold much charm for many if they need to remain cooped up in it all the while.
“Livability” is a crucial index. It can be improved only by good public governance and administration. Unfortunately, that’s not discussed much nowadays. It is as if we have given up hope. Or that we have concluded our expectations can be met if we run our lives with as little contact as possible with public bodies and institutions. Like two ships sailing side-by-side in the night, without touching.
That’s a pipe dream. Soaring fortunes of the private industry will not make up for the poor performance and failures of our public authorities and institutions. And the former won’t keep soaring forever without being affected by the other.
The walls are closing in for white collared professionals too, even the wealthy. The available quality of life is deteriorating, and personal wealth won’t help offset it. Being wealthy won’t make the air that we breathe when outside any better. It won’t improve the groundwater table levels where we live. Being wealthy won’t necessarily make life secure enough. Nor will it assure protection from injustice and injury due to the disregard for law by those more powerful.
It is clever of politicians to blame the educated, professional workforce for their poor participation in civic activities, and in voting. They overlook how difficult they have made it for the office worker. A typical day for any such person is 10-12 hours in office, and at least two hours for commuting to & fro. The employed have little time for themselves and their families. And it is not as if our politicians often protest in Parliament for making all voting related activities of citizens as convenient and quick as possible. And yet, the canard that the educated, professional workforce is too lazy and indifferent in fulfilling their duties of citizenship!
I will preempt what some are likely to say by stressing that mere privatisation, i.e., the handing over of parts of government functions to private, profit-seeking companies is not the solution, no matter how convenient and assuring that may seem.
It is the nature and scope of the roles and responsibilities of those functions that create the weakness. Not the nature of ownership of the concerned organisations. A private concern stepping into those shoes will soon start walking the same way as those currently wearing them.
However, I am all for assessing and monitoring the performance of governments similar to the way done for private corporations.
How much time is a newly appointed CEO granted for showing improvements in the company’s performance? How long is the CEO tolerated for blaming CEOs of the past for poor results which continue in the present? How long is a CEO allowed to sit on achievements made earlier, without delivering good performance in the present?
We are nearing the end of our general elections. All the political parties have competed in offering free handouts, and narrow community-level assurances.
Did any of our leaders, in their rallies, and yatras, provide honest evaluation of the performance of governments, and municipal corporations being run by their own parties? Which of them have given well-informed, credible commitments for making improvements in performance at all levels of government? Which leader has vowed to pass specific legislation identified as necessary for such transformation, if elected to power with an adequate majority?
Have any of our leaders expressed serious concern about the poor livability levels, for all, in our cities, towns and villages?
Do we get to communicate our expectations and suggestions clearly and loudly enough to our governments and political parties? Are there convenient channels available for us to do so? (How often do our MPs and MLAs make themselves available for their constituents to meet them?)
We have industry associations which interact closely with governments. There are community associations which get to make demands specific for their members. But, what about for others, i.e., for us?
We need to start talking about how to get governments and public authorities to work for our sake too.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.