|
POLITICAL DIARY
Regionalism Raises Ugly Head
SAY GOODBYE TO AMCHEE MUMBAI
By Poonam I Kaushish
New Delhi, February 12, 2008
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.
Mr Thackeray, why should being a local or an outsider be made
into a big all-encompassing issue? After all, India is a Union
of States. 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”. --- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
