|
Political
Diary
New
Delhi, 6 February 2010
I Belong
To India
WHO
IS SHIV SENA TO STOP ME?
By
Poonam I Kaushish
Circa pre-1947: India, a conglomerate of 565
States, resounded to the battle cry of “throw out the British”. Sprinkled with
a heavy dose of nationalism, all Bharatvasis
pledged to unite the country more than ever before.
Circa 2008-10: Mera Bharat Mahan comprising
28 States is about throwing out the “outsider aam aadmi” from respective States. Infused with loads of patriotic provincial
chaap, all promising to make their respective
States more local than ever before.
The ‘Maharashtra for Maharashtrians’ and “throw
out the North Indians” bugle first sounded by Shiv Sena’s “paper tiger” Bal
Thackeray’s estranged nephew Raj’s non-descript Maharashtra Navnirman Sena
(MNS) in February 2008 unleashed a volley of regionalism in Mumbai and the rest
of the State. The baton of Amchee
Maharashtrians was picked up by cousin Udhav’s Sena last week which not
only sent India’s
commercial Capital into a tail spin but also unleashed a volley of vitriolic tu-tu-mein-mein between the SS and the
Congress.
All over Bollywood superstar and Indian
Premier League (IPL) team owner Shahrukh Khan’s criticism of the exclusion of Pakistani
cricketers from the IPL. Predictably an incensed Sena, accustomed to having
things all its own way followed its set pattern: abused Khan for being
“Pakistani”, tore down posters of his new movie and intimidated theatre owners from
screening the film till he apologised. Equally familiarly, the police did not
clamp down on the violence.
The raging controversy hit a new low following
“Congress Prince” Rahul Gandhi assertion “Mumbai belonged to all Indians.” A
livid Sena countered, “he is a frustrated bachelor.” Next it targeted his mother
Sonia’s foreign origin, “Mumbai may belong to all Indians but how can it belong
to an Italian mummy.” Shot back the Congress “Bal Thackeray is senile.”
Caught in the cross-fire a rattled Shahrukh
asserted, “If there is an issue with me you have to sort it out with me”. It
remains to be seen if Khan will do a Karan Johar and apologise in person.
Recall, how Johar bent over backwards to placate Raj Thackeray when he objected
to Wake Up Sid being set in “Bombay
and promised changes in the script as well as in all future scripts.
Amidst the mayhem, trust our netagan to use this opportunity to play
the ‘insider-outsider’ game to their electoral advantage. True, both the
Congress and BJP have come out against the Shiv Sena’s chauvinism on Mumbai. Not
because they have rediscovered nationalistic fervor but to exploit the issue
for their own selfish gains and maximize their political return, read votes Specially,
the ‘migrant’ Bihari votes in the forthcoming Bihar Assembly polls. No matter
that they only stoke the flames of hatred and pit the aam Bharatvasi against each other. As also revive the time old
controversy of “sons of the soil” demand once again.
While the Congress, in theory, is committed
to one-India-all-Indians view, in practice, it has played copycat politics. Remember
last month its State Government issued a decree that taxi drivers in Mumbai should
speak and read Marathi and have been domiciled in the city for over 15 years to
get new licences. Only to hastily backtrack and reiterate that these
requirements were a part of an old law. Sic. Also recall, how it turned a blind
eye to the MNS violence against north Indians and humoured it against bête noir SS in the run-up to the Maharashtra Assembly polls in 2009.
The BJP and RSS’s opposition to ally Sena
stems from a different form of chauvinism, one that talks of Akhand Bharat and excludes non-Hindus
from its concept of citizenship and nationhood. “India is one from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.” It cannot accept Mumbai, or
another city, belonging only to a sub-set of the nation.
Importantly, the moot point is not whether our
rulers should be allowed to play havoc with the rule of law? But encompasses the
wider question of ‘outsider’ versus ‘insider.’ A concept that seeped in when
States were formed on a linguistic basis and sowed the seeds of sub-nationalism.
Pride in the mother tongue became a chauvinistic badge of honour and led people
to assume that they had the first lien on the economic gains. ‘Others’ were
second class.
However, Constitutionally, Article 16 is
clear. It provides: “There shall be equal opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”
Sadly, opinions have deferred right from the Constituent Assembly debate. Some
leaders felt that the States should have the unfettered right to give
employment to locals. Not a few quibbled about the years of residence, should
it be 10 or 50 years. Others felt that
every citizen must be made to feel a citizen of the country and not a particular
State.
From then to now the controversy continues.
Regionalism first raised its ugly head in Tamil Nadu in the early 60s, where
the alienation of the people from the Centre led to the birth of the DMK, which
later split into the AIADMK and other groups. It then moved to Maharashtra where Thackeray’s SS became the self-styled
champion of the ‘Marathi manoos'
whereby everyone in Mumbai was an `outsider' except the 28% Maharashtrians. It
attacked skilled labourers from the south who were branded as "lungi-wallas.” Now it’s the North
Indian, UP bhaiya or Bihari
migrant.
Assam followed in the
70’s when the All Assam Students Union (AASU) started an “oust all illegal
migrants from Bangladesh”
movement and won the elections. In nearby Nagaland too, the students want all
non-Nagas out. Regionalism had arrived. In
2003, Assam
resounded to parochialism again when the locals stopped 20,000 Biharis from
taking a recruitment test in Guwahati. The Biharis retaliated by stopping
trains from the N-East, dragged out the people, killed some and beat the rest.
The Assamese hit back and killing more Biharis. The Delhi Chief Minister
recently too took up cudgels against the influx of Biharis and Purabias.
More. Mandalisation in the 90’s unleashed
the Made in India leaders
all with a common USP: “We are the locals, Delhi is doorust
– an outsider.” Be it Badal’s Akali Dal in Punjab, N.T. Rama Rao’s Telugu Desam
in Andhra, Bengal’s Mamata Banerjee’s
Trinamool and Naveen Patnaik’s BJD in Orissa.
Thus, with both people and parties making
regionalism their mantra, it gave a
fillip to the “sons of soil” issue. The local youth demanded “reservation” of
jobs in their area, and to some extent rightly too. Arguably, why should people
from outside a particular State apply for menial jobs? If outsiders corner jobs
of sweepers or helpers as in the case of the Railways, where should the locals
go for their bread and butter?
The tragedy is that now we are Marathas,
Tamilians or Biharis first and Indians next. Worse, our polity has chipped away
at the reality of a united and integrated India preferring to take the
regional route and basking in the ignorance of the emotionally trapped, majorly
illiterate, locals. Does this mean people in India cannot live and work in a
different city? Think. Only a Himachal-born can buy land in the State. Why? Is
this a nation marching towards progress in its 60th year of Independence?
What next? First, the Government should
come up with a law to ban parties trying to divide the country on regional
lines. True, language and cultures need to be protected but should not be used
to divide people. There must be a legal provision allowing people of one State
to earn their livelihood in any part of the country. Second, movement of human capital
and resources is necessary to prevent stagnation from creeping into the body
politic.
Importantly, the periodic outbursts of
outsider’ vitriol and violence witnessed in Mumbai and other parts of the
country will not end unless the ‘sons of soil’ conception and practice of goonda politics change. Unless democracy
is envisaged as a genuinely inclusive and participatory project, with an
attendant focus on broadening the socio-economic pie and making development
more equitable across geographies and communities.
Clearly, regionalism will lead to
disintegration of the country. It does not behove anyone to ignore the basic
philosophy of India’s
unity and integrity and impose curfew on “outsiders”. Let politics be a healthy
exercise to unite, not divide. Every citizen of India
is a “local of India.”
----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
