Locals should have representation . No doubt and that too adequate. The problem lies in the definitions- of "LOCALS"
Taking a leaf out of Rabindranath Tagore's "Universal Citizen" we may safely deliberate, albeit unemotionally, on who constitute "Locals"
For Example :
"How many years after would you become a "local"?
"If language is the bench mark then too many fall under the head "Locals" , including the migrants who learnt the language while they resided here. Do they get counted?
"If boundaries and state hoods are the criteria then they go back only a few decades- state reorganisation etc.
So are we to become boundary-less and allow every one inside and provide them with all the opportunities ? Then what about the - "Locals"? Let survival of the fittest eliminate them?
Everything has probably something to do with some form of threshold. Threshold level of civic amenities. Threshold level of availability of jobs. Threshold level of migrant population. Once any of these threshold levels are threatened to be violated - atleast if its felt so - then the situation becomes potentially threatening, counter threatening and violent. Politics and others then come in to play.
But I guess protectionism and localism are here to remain as also the fight for preferential treatments and war cry against the immigrants. It will remain for ever.
How else can we justify- for example if I say -"Indians should be given first preference in India".(Even Obama says the same against outsoucing) A perfectly logical , patriotic call, we all should say.
But the moment a Marathi/Gujarathi/Tamil says it in-terms of his state - it will be jingoistic.
Divisiveness is the nature of human beings (animals I leave out from this as they never created states or countries) and the question of "how to divide" is only based on any topic , or time .