Mainstream WeeklyAbstract
Kerala is home to millions of interstate migrant workers whose contributions are indispensable to the state’s economy. While the term "guest workers" was introduced with the positive intention of promoting dignity and respect, this article argues that it is constitutionally inappropriate because it implies that fellow Indian citizens are outsiders. Drawing on the constitutional principles of single citizenship, freedom of movement, and the right to reside and work anywhere in India, the article contends that interstate workers are exercising fundamental rights, not receiving hospitality from a host state. It concludes that terms such as "interstate migrant workers" or "interstate workers" better reflect both their constitutional status and their equal role in India’s democratic and federal framework.
Keywords : Kerala, Guest Workers, Interstate Migrant Workers, Interstate Workers, Equal Citizenship and Constitution
Kerala today is home to an estimated three to four million workers from various Indian states, including Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Odisha, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Northeastern States and Tamil Nadu. They are employed in construction, manufacturing, hospitality, agriculture, transportation, retail, and numerous other sectors. Their contribution has become indispensable to Kerala’s economy, particularly at a time when the state faces labour shortages due to an ageing population, rising educational aspirations among local youth, and the migration of large numbers of Malayalis to other parts of India and overseas. Recognising their importance, the Government of Kerala and sections of the media have increasingly referred to these workers as "guest workers." This terminology was introduced with the intention of replacing expressions that carried prejudice and to encourage society to treat these workers with greater dignity and respect? While the intention is undoubtedly commendable, the expression itself deserves careful examination from the perspective of the Constitution of India and the idea of equal citizenship.
The central question is simple yet profound: Can an Indian citizen working in another Indian state truly be described as a "guest"? A guest is generally understood to be someone who visits another person’s home or country by invitation and remains there temporarily through the goodwill of the host. A guest receives hospitality, but his or her presence depends on the host’s acceptance. An Indian citizen who moves from Bihar to Kerala or from Assam to Karnataka does not occupy such a position. He or she is not visiting a foreign country, nor entering another sovereign jurisdiction. Instead, that person is exercising constitutional rights guaranteed equally to every citizen of India. Therefore, describing such citizens as guests may unintentionally create an impression that they are outsiders rather than equal members of the Indian Union.
One of the defining features of the Indian Constitution is the principle of single citizenship. Unlike some federal countries where individuals possess both national and state citizenship, India recognises only one citizenship—that of India. Every citizen enjoys the same constitutional status regardless of the state in which he or she resides. The framers of the Constitution deliberately adopted this model to strengthen national unity and prevent regional divisions from weakening the country’s democratic fabric. Consequently, a citizen born in Uttar Pradesh enjoys the same constitutional identity in Kerala as a person born in Kerala itself. State boundaries are administrative divisions created for efficient governance; they do not divide the citizenship of Indians. From this perspective, it becomes difficult to justify describing fellow citizens as guests merely because they have crossed a state border.
The Constitution further reinforces this principle through the Fundamental Rights. Every Indian citizen has the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country, and the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. These guarantees make it abundantly clear that employment across state boundaries is not a privilege granted by one state to another state’s citizens. It is a constitutional entitlement. When a worker from Odisha accepts employment in Kochi or Kozhikode, he is exercising rights that flow directly from the Constitution, not from the generosity or hospitality of the Government of Kerala. Likewise, a Malayali working in Bengaluru, Mumbai, Delhi, or Chennai does not become a guest in those cities. He or she remains an Indian citizen exercising constitutionally protected freedoms.
Kerala, like every other state in India, functions under the Constitution of India. It does not possess a separate Constitution or separate citizenship. Every law enacted by the state derives its authority from the Constitution adopted by the people of India. Therefore, movement from one Indian state to another cannot be compared with international migration. An Indian working in Canada, Australia, or the United Arab Emirates is indeed a foreign worker because he lives under a different sovereign authority. However, an Indian moving from Patna to Kochi remains within the same constitutional and political community. His legal identity as an Indian citizen remains unchanged. Referring to such a person as a guest may therefore create a constitutional inconsistency, however unintended it may be.
It must be acknowledged that the expression "guest worker" was introduced with positive intentions. Earlier, migrant workers were often subjected to prejudice and were referred to using terms that were insensitive or even insulting. The attempt to replace those expressions with a more respectful one reflected Kerala’s desire to create a more inclusive society. Good intentions deserve appreciation. Nevertheless, the appropriateness of terminology must be judged not only by intention but also by its implications. Language shapes public attitudes. Words influence how societies understand relationships between people. The word "guest" implies that there is a host and someone who has come from outside. It subtly creates a distinction between "us" and "them." In contrast, the Constitution recognises no such distinction among Indian citizens based on the state in which they were born.
The distinction between hospitality and equality is particularly important in a democracy. Hospitality is an act of kindness extended by one person or community to another. It depends on the willingness of the host. Equality, on the other hand, is a constitutional guarantee. It does not depend on generosity or goodwill. Every Indian citizen possesses equal constitutional rights regardless of where he or she lives within the country. If interstate workers are consistently described as guests, society may unconsciously begin to perceive them as temporary outsiders rather than equal citizens. Such a perception, even if unintended, weakens the constitutional idea that every Indian belongs equally throughout the territory of India.
An interesting comparison may be drawn with the experience of Malayalis themselves. Millions of Malayalis have migrated to cities across India in search of education, employment, and business opportunities. They have established themselves in Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, Pune, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Delhi, and numerous other places. They work as doctors, engineers, teachers, entrepreneurs, government employees, factory workers, and skilled professionals. Yet they are rarely, if ever, officially described as guest workers in those states. They are recognised simply as residents, employees, or Indian citizens. If Malayalis are not guests in Karnataka or Maharashtra, it is reasonable to ask why workers from Bihar or West Bengal should be regarded as guests in Kerala. Constitutional equality requires that the same standard apply everywhere in the country.
Kerala’s own social history also offers an important lesson. Several decades ago, labourers arriving from Tamil Nadu were often referred to as "Pandis." Over time, that expression acquired derogatory overtones and became associated with social prejudice. Today, most people recognise that such language failed to respect the dignity of fellow human beings. Replacing such expressions with more respectful terminology represented social progress. However, the evolution of language should not stop with merely replacing one expression with another. The next step should be to adopt terminology that not only conveys respect but also accurately reflects constitutional equality. Calling workers "interstate migrant workers," "interstate workers," or simply "workers from other states" recognises both their mobility and their equal status as Indian citizens.
The contribution of these workers to Kerala’s development cannot be overstated. They build homes, roads, bridges, commercial buildings, and public infrastructure. They sustain manufacturing industries, hotels, restaurants, agriculture, logistics, and many service sectors. They contribute to the state’s economy not merely through their labour but also through their consumption, payment of indirect taxes, rental of accommodation, and participation in local markets. They are partners in Kerala’s development. Such individuals deserve recognition not as temporary guests but as equal contributors to the prosperity of the state and the nation.
Language is never merely symbolic. It shapes attitudes, influences public policy, and reflects the values of society. A democracy committed to equality should ensure that its public vocabulary reinforces constitutional principles rather than unintentionally weakening them. Respect is undoubtedly essential, but respect founded upon equality is stronger than respect founded upon hospitality. Hospitality can be extended or withdrawn; constitutional equality cannot. The relationship between Kerala and workers from other Indian states should therefore be understood not in terms of hosts and guests but in terms of fellow citizens cooperating for mutual development within one nation.
None of this diminishes the goodwill behind the expression "guest worker." On the contrary, the intention to eliminate prejudice deserves appreciation. Yet democratic societies continually refine their language as their understanding of equality deepens. It is entirely possible to honour these workers without describing them as guests. Expressions such as "interstate migrant workers," "interstate workers," or "fellow Indian workers" recognise both their contribution and their constitutional status. Such terminology affirms that every Indian citizen belongs equally throughout the Republic of India.
India has one Constitution, one citizenship, and one national identity. No state has its own citizenship, and no Indian becomes a guest by crossing a state boundary. Workers from Bihar, Assam, Odisha, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, or any other state who come to Kerala are not visitors in a constitutional sense. They are fellow citizens exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution and contributing through their labour to the growth and prosperity of one part of their own country. Just as Malayalis working in other states are not regarded as guests, workers from other states in Kerala deserve the same recognition. A mature democracy should move beyond the language of hospitality and embrace the language of equality. Equality, after all, is the true spirit of the Constitution, and our public discourse should reflect that enduring constitutional ideal.
(Acknowledgement: AI Use: It is used only for limited editorial assistance, including language correction and stylistic improvement. All ideas, arguments, interpretations, and the final version of the manuscript are the sole responsibility of the author.)
(Authors: Dr. Jos Chathukulam is a former Professor, Sri Ramakrishna Hegde Chair on Decentralisation and Development, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bengaluru and currently the Director of Centre for Rural Management (CRM), Kottayam, Kerala. He can be contacted at joschathukulam[at]gmail.com.
Dr, A.M. Jose is a Professor, at Amity School of Economics, Amity University Haryana, Gurugram, and a Former Professor, at Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala. He can be contacted at amjose[at]ggn.amity.edu]