Migration has been a prominent feature of Nepali society for most of its history. The initial large outflow for enrolment in the British and Indian armies, migration to India for work, and labour migration to the Gulf countries and Malaysia represent three epochs that have characterised its trend over the last 200 years. Although, ostensibly, toiling in the sun in the Arab countries differs considerably from fighting as mercenaries in the two world wars, the two have more in common than is perceptible at first glance.

Circumstances, conditions and implications of migration and return have been perpetuated or allowed by those in power. The agency of migrants and their ability to render migration an informed choice remains attenuated for most, with migration still a compulsion and an agonising familial separation to sustain livelihood. Migration continues to be “choreographed” for the majority, even if not to the levels of inducement, enjoinment and coercion practised by the Rana regime to supply recruits to the British Indian army.

The choreography

Bir Shumsher, to solicit British support for his nascent regime after ascending to premier, agreed to their wishes of expanding the extant Gurkha battalions and supplied recruits accordingly from 1885. It then precipitated during the First World War and was later replicated by Juddha Shumsher during the Second World War. The Ranas employed every tactic in the book to supply recruits, enticing not only the recruits and the recruiters but also village leaders; many were coerced and forced to enlist. This explicit migration choreography would be considered a violation of human rights in contemporary times. Notwithstanding, the migration of Nepalis for work abroad continues to be choreographed to a large extent, albeit more subtly.

The opening line of Warsan Shire’s poem, Home, “No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark”, captures the emotions of many Nepali migrant workers who feel compelled to leave the country. With the grim prospects within the country, particularly for those who could not avail themselves of quality education available only in select regions, migration becomes inevitable. Rather than a voluntary application of one’s right to mobility, it is an avenue to ensure livelihood for many as a last resort. The government has done little to deter outmigration but instead has allowed the perpetuation of the structural factors that necessitate it.

Further, notwithstanding the speeches of political leaders, government policies encourage labour migration, as evidenced by inducements such as allotments to migrant workers in the public offerings of companies in the Nepal Stock Exchange and the recently introduced collateral-free loans for those repatriating remittances. There is a discrepancy between the proclaimed goal of enhancing employment opportunities within the country and the policies formulated.

Tendentious market power asymmetries characterise the global labour market, leaving migrant workers with little bargaining strength. The supply of workers is much higher than its demand, so governments and companies in destination countries can dictate favourable terms and conditions with little resistance. Destination country governments treat migrant workers as second-class citizens, allowing no opportunities for naturalisation and imposing stringent restrictions on mobility. Employer companies similarly confiscate passports and discriminate based on age, laying off migrant workers who are past their prime working years.

Thus, migrant workers are dismissed years after investing in the job, causing skills and confidence loss. They are labelled with the epithet “temporary workers”, which is as exploitative as it is denigrating. Through this, the origin country bears the burden of their unproductive years—childhood and old age—while destination countries reap the benefits but externalise the costs.

The agency of the migrant workers is compromised both in their decision to migrate and return. Institutional structures compel them to dance to the choreography imposed by other actors who also profit from their migration.

Maintaining the status quo

Outmigration from Nepal for work has had the pernicious effect of acting as a palliative to maintain the national order—political or economic—allowing those in power to avoid painful reform measures. Although not as unequivocal as the Rana regime's ploy to stay in power, today's import-based economy relies on remittances to sustain itself. Without this insulation, it is inconceivable how the economic order would be maintained, even in the short term.

Another aspect of this is the surplus labour in the country. Labour migration from Nepal constitutes a virtuous cycle whereby its surplus migrates to foreign nations with labour shortages or demands. It does not divest the Nepali industrial or service sectors of labour but helps match the excess human resources with jobs abroad, producing optimal outcomes. The migrant workers repatriate remittances in return—a win-win.

However, this highlights the inability of the Nepali economy to absorb these workers. They would be either unemployed or underemployed without the option to migrate, bringing about social and political turmoil. Migration is thus essential in the short term but with the dangers of lulling policymakers into inaction and producing moral hazard by allowing them to escape by not implementing painful but necessary reforms.

Migrant worker woes

Despite this indispensability, it is migrant workers who face the brunt of the consequences. They migrate for 3D (dirty, dangerous and difficult) jobs, which renders them vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. The Nepali government has resorted to imprudent, blanket approaches to protect migrant workers, with the feckless bans on female labour migration for domestic work serving as an example. Again, these bans choreograph migrations based on state expediency without considering migrant workers’ compulsion to migrate, thus exacerbating their vulnerabilities by forcing them to use informal routes. They have, however, allowed the government an excuse when questioned.

When the utility of migrant workers is assumed to have waned, they are discarded by governments and employers in destination countries without sufficient financial assistance or an alternative option back home. The disbandment of the Gurkha battalions in the aftermath of the Second World War still serves as a poignant picture. The same is true for migrant workers in the Gulf, many of whom earn enough to educate their children but not to retire. Most of them engage in menial work post-return, as the skills they learnt abroad are inapplicable in the Nepali job market, all the while looking for opportunities to remigrate. Despite such hardships, they cannot escape the structural factors that prompted their migration in the first place.