A Bengaluru entrepreneur’s decision to stop hiring male candidates from four Indian states has triggered a wider debate about workplace safety, hiring practices and whether an individual incident can justify excluding an entire category of applicants.
Neftic founder Shivam Namdeo has now joined the discussion, questioning the logic behind the decision and arguing that companies should improve their hiring systems rather than judge candidates by their place of origin.
Bengaluru CEO’s hiring decision sparks debate
Karthik SG, founder of Bengaluru-based A1 Sports World, said in a September 22 post on X that his company would not hire male candidates from Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
The announcement followed what Karthik described as an incident involving a former male employee. According to his account, the employee was an MBA graduate whose résumé and background appeared clean when he was hired. Karthik alleged that, around two months after joining, the employee began behaving abusively towards female employees and allegedly attempted to force himself on one of them. (Moneycontrol)
Karthik said the company’s decision was driven by concerns about the safety of its team and the young people with whom it works.
His post quickly attracted criticism as well as support online, with much of the discussion focusing on whether an individual’s alleged misconduct should influence the treatment of thousands of unrelated job applicants. (India Today)
‘My company, my rules’ becomes a flashpoint
The debate intensified after Karthik defended the decision against criticism by saying, “my company, my rules.”
That argument became a central point in Namdeo’s response.
“Brother, nobody is questioning your ownership of the company. We’re questioning your quality of judgement as a CEO,” Namdeo wrote.
His criticism is built around a simple question: if the original problem involved one employee, why should the hiring response be based on geography?
“If a clean résumé couldn’t help you identify one problematic individual, how exactly will a state address help you identify the next one?” Namdeo asked.
He argued that a candidate from Indore, Lucknow, Patna or Jaipur cannot reasonably be presumed to share the behaviour of another individual simply because they come from the same state.
From individual accountability to collective exclusion
Namdeo’s broader argument is that hiring should focus on an individual’s qualifications, experience and behaviour rather than their birthplace.
He pointed to conventional hiring safeguards such as background verification, references, structured interviews, probation periods and clear workplace policies.
“That’s called management,” he wrote.
The criticism does not dispute the importance of workplace safety. Instead, it questions whether a state-based exclusion policy addresses the underlying problem.
Karthik’s own explanation, as reported by multiple outlets, says the former employee had appeared suitable during recruitment before the alleged misconduct emerged later. (Moneycontrol)
That distinction is central to Namdeo’s argument: if screening failed to identify a particular individual, improving the screening process could be a more targeted response than excluding unrelated applicants.
Why Bengaluru’s migrant history matters
Namdeo also brought Bengaluru’s migration history into the debate.
The 2011 Census data shows Bengaluru had a substantial migrant population. Contemporary reporting based on Census migration data put the figure at around 44.3 lakh people, or 50.6 per cent of the city’s population. (The Times of India)
Academic research drawing on Census 2011 has similarly described Bengaluru as a major destination for migrants from different parts of India, including northern and eastern states. (PMC)
For Namdeo, that history makes state-based hiring particularly difficult to reconcile with Bengaluru’s identity as a city that has attracted talent from across India.
At the same time, he explicitly rejected the opposite extreme.
“I’m not going to make the equally stupid argument that ‘North Indians built Bengaluru,’” he wrote, adding that Kannadigas built an enormous part of the city’s foundation while people from across India contributed to its modern economic ecosystem.
A founder-to-founder criticism
Namdeo also framed his response as a founder speaking to another founder.
“I’m not saying this as someone sitting outside the founder’s chair. I’m a founder too,” he wrote, arguing that founders have to be particularly careful when converting personal experiences into company-wide policies.
His central question was not whether a company has the right to establish hiring standards, but whether those standards should be based on individual evidence or broad assumptions.
“Good founders build better systems after a failure. They don’t build bigger stereotypes,” Namdeo wrote.
He also acknowledged the legitimate objective behind Karthik’s explanation: protecting employees and maintaining zero tolerance for harassment.
The disagreement, therefore, is about the method rather than the stated objective.
The larger question for employers
The controversy now extends beyond one Bengaluru startup or four states.
It raises a broader question for employers: Should recruitment decisions be based on individual qualifications and conduct, or can an applicant’s demographic or regional identity become a proxy for perceived risk?
For Namdeo, the answer is clear in his closing line:
“My state isn’t your hiring problem. Your hiring process is.”
The episode highlights a difficult balance for modern workplaces. Employee safety is a fundamental responsibility, but recruitment decisions also determine who gets an opportunity to enter the workplace.
The takeaway: A serious workplace incident deserves serious action. The debate is whether that action should target the individual and strengthen organisational systems—or extend to people who have no connection to the incident at all. That question is likely to remain at the centre of the Bengaluru hiring controversy.
