Logical Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 34

The Karnataka Bill is a symptom of a larger problem

The Karnataka Reservation Bill has been panned almost universally and also generated so much controversy that the State government was forced to pause it and announce review. The State’s Local Candidates in the Industries, Factories and Other Establishments Bill, 2024, as it is called, mandates 50% of jobs in non-management cadres and 5% across non-management segments, respectively.

The Bill, as currently drafted, may be too sweeping. But the controversy may need to be viewed as an urgent pointer towards addressing chronic issues — including jobless growth, persisting unemployment, fast-expanding disparities and regional socio-economic chasms — if required before knee-jerk crisis.

The downside of inequitable growth

The basic distinction of the India’s model has been that the continuing benefit of the fast pace of high headline growth is so concentrated that huge pockets of growth model created imbalances. India’s productivity-growth dynamics stand in contrast with successful examples from East Asia, where the productivity growth fuelled large-scale employment creation. In India, this has not happened. Instead, the same sectors that fuel productivity growth — finance, IT, high-end manufacturing and others — have created prosperity but not matching job growth. Other sectors such as agriculture have been stagnant in terms of productivity and unable to absorb the rising labour force.

Thus, while headline growth numbers were strong, these did not translate into high job creation. The consequent pressure on jobs, especially among the young and aspirants for upward mobility, has created a fertile ground for populism, both within States and across India.

While these global patterns are significant, the situation in India is different and more complicated. The context and the grievances therefore of immediate origin that right to work of Kannadigas within the fragmented mix of development, regional imbalances and limited job absorption.

At the same time, the impetus for local reservation is fuelled by the State political leadership’s compulsion to give demonstrable evidence of responsiveness to questions and insecurities. The Bill, as a recurring theme in States across India, aggravates and perpetuates labour market distortion, and State economics.

Issue of accountability

One must not underestimate the question of accountability and political responsibility. The larger point is that States cannot run from, nor can India run away from the basic fact. Instead, all regions require a shared, fair, and sustainable growth model that spreads jobs, wealth, and prosperity in an equitable and graded index of balance across States and regions. This can happen only if India’s major State-scale inequities are resolved.

Merely imposing populist job quotas does not help in addressing the root cause. It may, in fact, distort the basic principle of federalism and competition among States, whereby States with better infrastructure, policies and investment climate attract businesses, and thus create more jobs.

The strong need for rectification of these systemic inequities — India’s chronic issues of jobless growth, unemployment, and socioeconomic disparities — not only takes away jobs from local workers but also depresses local wages.

In perspective

There is no question that all States benefit economically and culturally from being part of the larger Indian Union that thus shares responsibility for the entirety of the country and its people. However, the issues at hand is too serious for simplistic rhetoric, political expediency or even outrage. Instead, the way forward requires more responsible discourse.

First, there must be a real national debate, involving our political class, corporate sector, civil society and urgently addressing India’s job crisis. The long-term employment dynamics, or declining or replacement labour, are exacerbating unemployment outcomes.

Second, the current skilling and production linked incentive frameworks, aimed at a high-tech, manufacturing-oriented India, should be evaluated for their real effectiveness. Similarly, the issue of declining public spending in education and healthcare in India is indicative of an asymmetric growth dynamic, further exacerbating inequities.

Third, the challenge of India’s demographic dividend is also central to this debate. The political class must demonstrate more seriousness and sense of development across the States. This would involve addressing imbalances across regions, making job growth more broad-based, and ensuring that more investments are pushed into areas that need them most.

Fourth, there is an urgent need for political leadership across parties and their political economy priorities to not use jobs and reservations as short-term populist tools. Instead, they must address India’s systemic inequities, demographic dividend challenges and prepare a sustainable, inclusive model of growth.

Finally, while the Karnataka Bill has triggered controversy, it should be seen as a wake-up call. It underscores the urgent need for honest conversation about India’s growth model, social cohesion, and political stability.

Question-1) Which of the following best describes the primary concern of the Karnataka Reservation Bill as discussed in the passage?

A) The Bill seeks to provide opportunities to local candidates in the high-skill job sector.
B) The Bill aims to address regional socio-economic disparities by reserving jobs for local candidates.
C) The Bill intends to promote national unity by encouraging interstate migration.
D) The Bill focuses on the employment of local candidates to prevent their migration to other states.

Question-2) According to the passage, what is a significant reason for industries preferring migrant workers for unskilled jobs?

A) Migrant workers have higher skill levels.
B) Migrant workers are less likely to form unions and are easier to exploit.
C) Migrant workers demand higher wages than local workers.
D) Migrant workers are more efficient than local workers.

Question-3) What is the main criticism of the Bill as outlined in the passage?

A) The Bill is seen as promoting national unity at the expense of local employment.
B) The Bill is considered too lenient and ineffective in addressing job reservations.
C) The Bill is perceived as heavy-handed and requiring a rethink of some provisions.
D) The Bill is criticized for focusing too much on high-skill job reservations.

Question-4) What does the passage suggest is a broader issue that needs to be addressed beyond the Bill itself?

A) The lack of high-skill job opportunities in Karnataka.
B) The constitutional right to freedom of movement within India.
C) The need for a national debate on India’s job crisis and regional development disparities.
D) The importance of maintaining corporate sector profitability.

Question-5) Why does the author suggest that the issue of local reservations for jobs cannot be dismissed as mere parochialism?

A) Because it is mandated by the Indian Constitution.
B) Because it reflects the political leadership’s attempt to respond to local electorate needs.
C) Because it ensures equal opportunities for all states in India.
D) Because it promotes migration for unskilled jobs.

Question-6) What institutional response does the author suggest is necessary to address issues of federalism and national unity?

A) Establishing new employment generation programs.
B) Resurrecting the National Development Council.
C) Implementing stricter labor laws.
D) Promoting interstate migration