POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 9 February 2008 

Regionalism Raises Ugly Head 

SAY GOODBYE TO AMCHEE MUMBAI 

By Poonam I Kaushish 

India pre-1947 resounded to the battle cry of “throw out the British”. Sprinkled with a heavy dose of nationalism, all pledged to make the country more secular and united than ever before The Mera Bharat Mahan of 2008 is all about chucking the “outsider aam aadmi” from respective States and imposing an “insider curfew” on them. Peppered with loads of patriotic regional chaap, all promising to make their respective States more local and faithful than ever.  

By unleashing the ‘Maharashtra for Maharashtrians’ and ‘throw out the North Indians’ campaign, Raj Thackeray’s non-descript Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) let loose the spectre of regionalism in Mumbai and the rest of the State. Violence became the rhetoric for three gory days as cars and taxis of non-Maharashtrians were burnt, street food-stalls of poor UP bhaiyas and the Biharis were looted, shops owned by north Indians were forced to close down et al.  

Amidst this mayhem, trust our netagan to use this opportunity to play the ‘insider-outsider’ game to their electoral advantage. Some played safe. The country’s Home Minister Shivraj Patil, a Maharashtrian made the staid noises of ‘the State Government has been asked to maintain law and order’ and the Chief Minister tepidly asserted ‘we are studying the law to see if Thackeray can be arrested.’  

Others took potshots at each other. The RJD Chief Laloo dismissed the MNS chief as a “political novice,” Samajwadi’s Mulayam dubbed him “frustrated” and uncle and Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray dumped his nephew as “a chicken suffering from bird-flu of depression.” What to say of Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti which torched a Maharashtrian’s house in Ranchi. All thus exploiting the issue for their own selfish gains and maximize their political return, read votes. No matter that they only stoked the flames of hatred and pitted the aam Bharatvasi against each other – and revived the time old controversy of “sons of the soil” demand once again. 

Recall, 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 a little-known cartoonist Bal Thackeray became the self-styled champion of everything Marathi. He nurtured the Shiv Sena on the infamous `Marathi manus' standard, by which practically everyone in Mumbai was an `outsider' except the 28 per cent Maharashtrians. The first victims were the skilled labourers from the southern States who were branded as "lungi-wallas” and their businesses ruthlessly attacked. After them came the Gujarati entrepreneurs and now it’s the North Indian, UP bhaiya or Bihari migrant. 

Taking a leaf from Maharashtra saga, Assam burnt over the foreigners issue in the 70’s, when the All Assam Students Union (AASU) started a movement to oust all “illegal migrants from Bangladesh” from the State. This caught the imagination of the people and the ruling Congress government was voted out and the Asom Gana Parishad voted in. In nearby Nagaland too, the students want all non-Nagas out. Regionalism had arrived.  

In November 2003, India resounded to parochialism again, when Assamese stopped 20,000 Biharis from taking a recruitment test in Guwahati. The Biharis retaliated by stopping trains from the North East, dragged out the people, killed some and beat the rest. The Assamese hit back with a vengeance--- killing over 52 Biharis. The dreaded militant outfits ULFA and the All Bodo Students Union joined in the mayhem. Their slogan: “All Hindi speaking people must leave Assam”. “Catch the Assamese and kill them all,” countered the Biharis.  

Why blame the locals alone? Our polity too revels in playing the regional card. In the 1999 Lok Sabha polls, the BJP dubbed the Congress Lucknow candidate Karan Singh, former Sadr-i-Riyasat of J&K, an ‘outsider’ compared to ‘insider’ Vajpayee. Never mind that Lucknow is miles away from Gwalior, Vajpayee’s birthplace. Interestingly, the same Saffron Sangh again portrayed ‘Vajpayee the local’ in Himachal, by underscoring his love for Manali and the numerous visits made. Now shouldn’t that make him an outsider in Lucknow? Then we had the absurd case in Nainital, where the BJP candidate described his BSP rival as an outsider because he did not have a telephone in his name. “Is a telephone connection going to decide our local status?” the BSP contestant argued.  

So, regionalism mushroomed around the countryside with both people and parties making it their mantra. Former Prime Minister and kisan leader Charan Singh floated the farmer-oriented Janata Party and Devi Lal his Lok Dal in Haryana. Badal his Akali Dal in Punjab, N.T. Rama Rao his Telugu Desam in Andhra, Bengal’s Mamata Banerjee set up her Trinamool Congress and Biju Patnaik’s son, Naveen floated the Biju Janata Dal in Orissa. All with a common USP: “We are the locals who shall rule, Delhi is dur --- the outsider.”   

Additionally, Mandalisation gave a further impetus to regionalism and changed the politics of India. With the debut of the “Made in India” leaders like Mayawati, Mulayam, Ram Vilas Paswan, Laloo, etc. Their electorate no longer was willing to know-tow to the centrist parties and those foisted upon them. In their perception, who better than their own biradari, to understand, sympathise and articulate their voice at New Delhi. Confusion was confounded by the failure of the voter to draw a distinction between the responsibilities and powers of an MP and that of an MLA.  

Moreover, this gave a further fillip to the “sons of soil” issue. The local youth demanded “reservation” of jobs in their area, especially in regions where new industrial ventures like public sector plants or other projects coming up. In fact agitations have taken place for “their” share of jobs. However, Constitutionally, Article 16 is very clear on the issue. It provides: “There shall be equal opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.” This has its genesis in the concept that there being only one citizenship for the entire country, it should carry with it the unfettered right and privilege to every corner of the nation.   

Sadly, over the years opinions have deferred between political leaders, right from the Constituent Assembly debate. Some leaders felt that the States should have the unfettered right to give employment to locals residing in the State. Not a few quibbled about the years of residence – should it be 10 or 50 years.  Others disagreed, as they felt that every citizen must be made to feel that he was a citizen of the country as a whole and not of a particular State.  

Dr. Ambedkar felt that if the States were granted the right to give jobs it would “subtract from the value of a common citizenship of India.” But he added a rider: “You cannot allow people who are flying from one province to another, from one State to another as mere birds of passage without any roots, without any connection with that and apply for posts and so to say take the plums and work away. Let us give the power to Parliament not the States to decide on the residence status for purpose of employment.” 

From then to now the controversy continues. There is no gainsaying that all citizens should have equal job opportunities across the country. The problem has arisen after locals have demanded their pound of flesh 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? Join the militants and take up guns? Does that promote national integration? In State after State where militancy rages, statistics have proved that it is the unemployed local youth who have taken to the gun as jobs have been cornered by outsiders. Both the North East States and Kashmir bear this out. 

The tragedy of it all is that our polity willy-nilly chipped away, with deadly precision, at the reality of a united and integrated India where regional aspirations play second fiddle to national unity. And, where every Indian has the right to live in any part of the country he chooses and get equal opportunities to earn a decent livelihood. In sum, an India that is equitable and offers a level-playing field for all classes, castes and communities.  

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)