The Ground Reality

I was in a cab driving by the Dadar area of Mumbai and came to halt at a signal called Prabhodhankar Thackeray chowk named after Bal Thackeray's father. My cabbie threw a look at the statue of the man and commented that his two grandsons have gone to great lengths to assert their lineage - one put up an umbrella over the statue and the other his party flag. Of course, he was referring to Uddhav and Raj. More out of courtesy (to acknowledge his observation) than curiosity, I asked him if the MNS can survive on its own. And that got him talking.

He was intrigued that in this day and age, we have separatist politics when we should be drawing inspiration from migrants who put in insane hours of work. He felt this strategy may have worked 10 years ago when leaders were demigods. Now, people are wiser. He then wondered who is a Mumbaikar anyway? Is he the one that speaks Marathi, then how is he different from a Marathi Manoos and others that have learnt the language? Is he the one that is born here? But then migrant kids are born here too. Do people who own land and property in Mumbai should be considered Mumbaikars? Not only do a lot of migrants qualify, but a number of natives will be left out. The conversation was cut short as I reached my destination, but he closed out saying he is a Maharastrian himself and finds this whole thing comical. Worryingly though, he said his line of reasoning is not popular when he talks to fellow cabbies and others in his circle.

So it seems the Sena and MNS will have enough to go on. And I wish they do, at least verbally. The barbs traded by political parties on Mumbai and IPL issues are sheer delight. Modi wondered if a letter in Italian might stem price rise whereas the Sena politely declared that even in the extreme case of Mumbai being thrown open to Indians, Italians are still unwelcome. What sense of humor! Thankfully, the clashes havent gotten physical, and I hope they dont. It'll be a shame for this entertainment to stop. And Rahul Gandhi is gladly obliging with one faux pas after the other, and for once, I am egging him on.

Marathi Manoos

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Raj Thackeray interviewed by Arnab Goswami last Sunday. Delighted, in fact, for it provided the rare occasion where Arnab was lost for words, and resembled a castrated cat. Part of the problem, I guess, was that Raj chose to respond in Marathi. It's kinda obvious, but I missed the beginning so maybe Raj offered a particular explanation for not answering in English. And it wasn’t clear whether Arnab understood Marathi or if they ended up using an interpreter, which explains his constipated questioning. (I am ruling out the possibility that Raj doesn't know English.)

Raj, though, was perfectly composed and his answers, while uncompromising, were logical and rational. He basically pointed out that all states have a responsibility to their residents, and Maharashtra in general, and Mumbai in particular, shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of poor governance elsewhere. He also begged to differ from the popular opinion that Mumbai is a commercial and financial hub becauseof its migrant population. Rather, he noted, that because Mumbai had all the characteristics to be such a hub, that people flocked in. On the question of preferential treatment for Marathis, he simply pointed to agitations in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, where representation for localites has always been an issue. In Bangalore, for example, I recall a recent push by the local film industry to ban screening of Tamil and Telugu films because Kannada films have no viewers! On Chhat puja, he was enraged that, except in Mumbai, the event is not organized at such a scale anywhere else. I think he gave the example of Maldives that has a significant immigrant population.

His analysis of the situation is spot on. The root cause, of course, is the asynchronous pace of development, which also explains the urban-rural (India-Bharat) divide to an extent. But Raj neither has the ability nor the inclination to attack the root so he is simply going after the symptom. One can only question his approach rhetorically and ask, were the tables reversed, then would he, a migrant, accept being subjected to such discrimination by natives? Same goes for the migrants too – would they, as natives, watch in silence when their cities and towns start filling up with migrants?