POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 1 November 2008

PM Speak: What Can I Do?

BEGINNING OF FEDERAL BREAK-UP?

By Poonam I Kaushish

Who uttered these plaintive words: “What can I do?” No, it’s not Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil exposing his defencelessness on last week’s dastardly 9 serial blasts in Guhwati killing over 70 and injuring 300 people. Nor is it Finance Minister Chidambaram lamenting the free-fall in the financial markets and the economic recession staring India in the face. Shockingly, it’s our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressing his helplessness in reining in Mumbai cub Raj Thackeray whose loud snarl on non-Mumbaikars is heard as far as New Delhi. Sending both the Union and commercial Capitals into a tail spin. Indeed, what can our mukhota PM really do?

Witness the pathetic way the Government has responded to the cub’s diatribe against “outsiders”. The Prime Minister exerted his authority by asking his Home Minister to convey the “sense” of the Union Cabinet’s angst against Raj and writing a strong letter to the Chief Minister asking him to take action. The Railway Minister Lalu Yadav called Raj a “mental case for unleashing regional terror”. Nothing more nothing less. All working overtime to bend and twist the law and even to reinterpret it to suit their political ends. (The Union Cabinet gave precedence to Raj over the Assam carnage.)

Why? One, it suited the Congress-NCP State Government to let the Maharashtra Navnirman Samiti’s goons attack 13 railway board examination centres in Mumbai protesting "inadequate representation" to the locals and chasing  away candidates from north India. Downing shops shutters, setting buses ablaze and forcing people indoors. It intends playing the MNS against its main opponent Shiv Sena headed by Raj’s uncle Bal Thackeray. Two, politics is all about self and keeping the vote banks intact.

Raising a basic point? Should our rulers be allowed to play havoc with the rule of law? How can they forget that this rule is supreme in any civilized society. None can be permitted to fiddle with its majesty. Be it the lowest of the low or the highest of the high. That is what any orderly and law abiding society is all about, let alone democracy.

Arguably, is there something called collective responsibility or not? Is this concept not known to the Government? Can the Prime Minister simply shrug off his responsibility by asserting “what can I do?” If he can’t do it who will? Clearly, the Government has once again indulged in double speak. Saying something for the public consumption and only writing a “strong” letter to the Chief Minister. Additionally, why has the Union Cabinet not invoked Article 355? As done when caste violence erupted in Orissa and Karnataka.

However, the issue encompasses a wider question of ‘outsider’ versus ‘insider’ and the ‘sons of soil’ theory.  This concept of ‘outsider’ and ‘local’ seeped in when States were formed on a linguistic basis, it sowed the seeds of sub-nationalism in the country. Pride in the mother tongue became a chauvinistic badge of honour. It led people to assume that if one's mother tongue was the same as the State's, then he or she has the first charge on the economic gains. Others were second class.

In the early 60’s the alienation of the people of Tamil Nadu from the Centre saw the birth of the DMK, which later split into the AIADMK and some other groups. In Maharashtra Bal Thackeray dealt similarly with the South Indians lungiwallahs in the late '60s, demanding that locals alone should get the fruits of progress by way of employment just because they are locals.

In the 70s this alienation spread gave rise to the concept of regionalism in the North-East via Assam. Youthful students began their agitation on the foreigners’ issue and the step-motherly treatment meted out to them by the Central Government. The students donned political robes as the Asom Gana Parishad and rode and crest of the political wave on the popular slogan: “Assam is not for burning”. Regionalism had arrived.

The Assam flare-up resounded again in Maharashtra, where first Bal Thackeray then his nephew repeated their demand of Maharashtra for Maharashtrians. Mandalisation in the 90’s gave birth to the Made in India leaders all with a common USP: “We are the locals, Delhi is doorust – an outsider.” In Nagaland too, the students want all non-Nagas out. Recall, the Delhi Chief Minister recently too took up cudgels against the influx of Biharis and Purabias.

“The sons of soil” demand has its own history. Over the years local youth has demanded “reservation” of jobs in their area, specially in the backward regions where new industrial ventures like public sector plants or other development projects have been coming up post Independence. In the 50’s when the Bhilai Steel Plant was inaugurated, the locals agitated for their fair share of jobs. Similar agitations by the locals were held when several defence industries were established in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

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 whole country, it should carry with it the unfettered right and privilege of every nook and corner of the country. The above right is, however subject to the restriction, if any, imposed by Parliament under clause (3) of the Article.

This States: Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office (under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory) prior to such employment or appointment”  This restriction in the case of State employment was engrafted for the sake of efficiency to prevent people from flying from one State to another to secure an appointment and then walk away.

However opinions have deferred between political leaders on this issue over the years.  Right from the Constituent Assembly debate on this Article, then Article 10 of the Constitution. 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 of 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 due to too few jobs and more applicants thanks to a burgeoning population and rising urbanization with rural youth moving to the cities for a better life-style. Resulting in the locals being elbowed out. Arguably if “outsiders” corner jobs where should the locals go for their bread and butter?

All in all the issue India faces is a lot more than whether Raj Thackeray is arrested. India after all is a Union of States, not a union of castes, knitted together into a country. Not an issue of outsider-insider. It does not behove anyone to ignore the basic philosophy of India’s unity and integrity and ban ‘outsiders’. Else, it could be the beginning of the federal break up.—INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)