By Sumarbin Umdor
There were two important developments coinciding with the celebration of Meghalaya’s 50th statehood Day in January of this year. One is the recommendations for partial settlement of six disputed areas along the boundary of the State with Assam submitted by the Chief Ministers of both the states to the Union government. If accepted, it will mark a major achievement for both the states and may pave the way for settlement for the other disputed areas as well. The amicable resolution of boundary disputes between the two states through dialogue and negotiation will also serve as a pathway for peaceful resolution of similar lingering interstate border disputes in the northeast and other parts of the country. For Meghalaya, the progressive steps in solving the long-standing interstate border disputes are a major achievement for which the stellar role played by the present political leadership of the State deserves to be recognized and complimented.
The other development is the decision of the MDA government to raise the age limit for entry into state government services from 32 to 37 years for locals (ST candidates). On the face of it, this measure will benefit the ballooning army of educated unemployed local youth of Meghalaya as it increases the number of attempts that one can make in his/her quest for employment in state government services, which, by the way, is the only available avenue for formal employment in Meghalaya in the absence of opportunities in the formal private sector. The policy will prolong the hope and dream of thousands of local youths of getting absorbed in the government services. However, this step taken by the state government in response to popular demand may also have unintended and undesirable negative consequences which will further exacerbate the frustration of the unemployed young people of the state.
According to the American Sociologist Robert K Merton, unintended or unforeseen consequences are outcomes of purposeful action that were not anticipated by the actor. There are many examples of unexpected drawbacks and perverse results of social actions. One often cited example is the decision of the government of Mexico City which in 1989 attempted to mitigate worsening air pollution by banning most drivers from driving their vehicle one weekday per week on the basis of the last digit of their vehicle’s number plate. The policy however backfired as many drivers bought used, high emissions car which led to an increase in the total number of vehicles in circulation as well as a change in composition toward high‐emissions vehicles worsening the air pollution.
Another phrase that is used to describe any affirmative action that leads to unintended consequences and perverse outcomes worsening the prevailing situation is the Cobra Effect. The term was coined by the German economist Horst Seibert (1938-2009) to describe an experience during the British rule in India when the then ruler of Delhi, in their quest to eradicate the poisonous snakes from the city, announced a cash reward for every dead cobra. This however incentivised the enterprising citizenry who took up breeding of the snake in order to get hold of the promised bounty. When this was later realised and the bounty withdrawn, the people rearing the poisonous snakes simply released them from captivity which made the problem worse than it was when it started.
During a visit to a family friend just a few days after the government announcement of raising the upper age limit for entry in state government services, I overheard one of the parents calling their son who was working in a private job in one of the metros. They asked him to consider coming back to the State and try for a government job as he has few chances left before reaching the new upper age limit. This conversation stayed with me as I began to ponder the likely effect of this relaxation, and I foresee at least four unexpected drawbacks and perverse outcomes that may occur.
First and the most obvious is that the number of job applicants will increase significantly as those above 32 and up to 37 years of age will now be competing along with the others for the few vacant state government positions that are advertised from time to time. Given the present financial position of the state government and the saturation of existing employment avenues in its departments, it is unlikely that there will be any drastic rise in vacant positions in the near future. Thus, with the relaxation in upper age limit, the increased number of applicants for the few vacancies will result in a greater number of disappointed applicants every time the recruitment results are announced thereby heightening the frustration level among the youths in our society.
Another likely unintended outcome is that many will wrongly assume that an increase in the number of chances to appear in state government competitive examinations due to the higher age limit will translate into higher probability of getting a secured job. This will create a perverse outcome as it will give a false sense of assurance among many young people leading them to be complacent with their preparation for different competitive exams. As it is, many of the local candidates do not come well prepared for the various competitive exams and the extra five years age relaxation will further fuel this complacent attitude.
A more serious unexpected outcome is that many will find out in their late 30s that they are without a government job because of reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Before the age relaxation, those crossing 32 years of age come to terms with the reality that the option of joining government services is out for them. This forces them to start finding alternative employment in the private sector or starting their own enterprise. In both cases, starting early is more advantageous for acquiring skills, experience, contacts and building of assets. For those starting their own business failing fast, failing often and failing early is important for achieving success later. It is much harder for someone in his/her late 30s (and many with added family responsibility) to have the appetite and interest to take initiatives and risks in that phase of life.
Last, but not the least, is the impact of this policy on the quality of people recruited for technical posts. At the entry level for technical positions it is always better to recruit someone who is fresh from college with higher retention of knowledge and expertise than someone who has passed the technical qualification some time back. In this new situation, someone who has acquired a technical degree in his mid-20s will still be eligible to be considered for an entry level position almost 12-15 years after his/her graduation exams. How much such a person joining so late in his life long after his graduation can contribute to a department that he/she is engaged in is a big question.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the present condition the raising of the upper age limit for entry in state government service may benefit a few applicants but will not address the unemployment situation at the societal level. The only way forward is to create and nurture an economic and social environment for the private sectors and entrepreneurship to grow and thrive in the state which will create jobs and opportunities for all.