Why do the Thackerays of the world flourish? | Girish Nikam

Published on 11-02-2008 In National

Viewed 1744 times

Why do the Thackerays of the world flourish?

Millions of people migrate every year from one place to another, from one state to another and one from country to another. It is safe to assume that 75 percent of them if not more, do it, for economic reasons. Whether it is a techie from Bangalore relocating to United States or a marginalised farmer from Bihar or Uttar Pradesh migrating to Mumbai or drought-hit families in rural Tamil Nadu coming to Bangalore in search of work, they are all seeking better livelihood.

And migrants by nature go where there are better work opportunities. And Mumbai being one of the biggest metropolises in the country, it naturally draws huge number of migrants looking for better opportunities. Whether it is Amitabh Bachchan who did the same about three and half decades back, or that taxi driver all saw on the TV screens being brutally beaten up by the goons of Raj Thackeray's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), last week.

Raj, the youthful clone of the ageing Tiger of Mumbai, Bal Thackeray, has come in for all round criticism from all over, for allowing his goons to terrorise the north Indians, specifically the UP and Bihari migrants. He has also been severely criticised for his attack against Amitabh Bachchan, who according to Raj still shows more concern for his home State, UP than Maharashtra or Mumbai. The recent much-publicised event of Bachchan family announcing the opening of a Girls college in UP, and also his in-famous ads on TV as the brand ambassador of that State, have all obviously been used by Raj to corner the original Badshah of Bollywood.

Raj Thackeray who has broken away from his Uncle and cousin's Shiv Sena is obviously trying to emerge as the voice of the "Marathi manoos". That has raised the hackles of his intrepid Uncle, who had started it all, in the 1960s against the South Indians, and has called MNS workers chickens, "afflicted with bird flu". The older Thackeray, whose friendship with Bachchan is very well known, is certainly not amused, not so much by the issues, which his nephew has raised, but by the threat he poses to his son's future political ambitions. At present let's live the Thackerays' vaulting political ambitions and the inner-family war aside.

The question is does Raj Thackeray's arguments hold water? Does he have a point? Well, one thinks he has, however much one can criticise the methods being employed. After having created the linguistic States, we have always opened ourselves up to linguistic chauvinism. A question would then be asked, if we didn't settle for linguistic States, would there have been less of this? Probably. Possibly not. Maybe the problems then would have been of a different kind, with language groups fighting against each other in the State, for sharing the spoils.

Language and culture are always a binding force, anywhere in the world and all through human history. And that bondage is more pronounced as one goes down the economic ladder. In the present day world of shrinking job opportunities, those who are affected by it, naturally tend to look upto their own to protect their interests. And it is here that people like Raj Thackeray now, and his Uncle in the past, capitalize on and build a political career out of it. And there is no point quarreling with it.

There is no doubt that the huge influx of migrants in Mumbai has caused tensions, as migrants tend to work for lower wages than the locals when it comes to menial tasks and unskilled work.

The result is the locals over a period of time find themselves marginalised in certain occupations. Increasingly in Mumbai the taxi drivers are hindi speaking from UP and Bihar. So are the roadside vendors and watchmen.

This is the case in Delhi too. But since Delhi does not have such a strong linguistic character to it, like other metropolises, the tensions are limited. And in any case Delhi is a city of migrants..

However whether it is Mumbai, Kolkatta, Chennai or Bangalore, the presence of strong local culture and language creates tensions. The culture and language aficionados feel threatened, when the migrants not only dominate certain categories of livelihood, but also refuse to assimilate with the local culture and its sensitivities and ignore learning the local language. This leads to ghettoisation of these migrants and over a period of time start creating tensions at very local levels. And worse, when self-serving politicians target these groups, seeking to create a vote bank, the situation worsens.

When Raj Thackeray or his goons talk about the "chhat" festival being observed by the Bihar and UP migrants, they are crudely, but justifiably refer to the fears of the locals being threatened that their Ganapathi festival, which is the most important cultural event in the annual calendar of a Marathi manoos, will be over-shadowed. Apart from creating a cultural threat, it also creates a language and political divide, when they try to make these festivals into a show of their strength.

One recalls the attack against the tamils in Karnataka in 1991. The gruesomeness of the attacks and the wide spread violence did not justify the immediate reason for it---The Cauvery Tribunal's interim order. The reason behind the fury was a long-standing grouse against the migrant tamils (as against residents for generations) who had over the period of time taken over many of the occupations of the locals at the lower level. And to compound that feeling of loss, was the little effort made by most of these tamils to assimilate themselves with the local culture or learn the local language. And when the interim award, which the politicians and others saw it as anti-Karnataka, provided a spark it was used as an excuse to target and launch an attack against the Tamils.

So for us to see what's happening in Mumbai now as just another gimmick of an aspiring politician would be dangerous. An old Roman saying, "when in Rome be a Roman" is something all migrants need to keep in mind. And no one is a better example of it than the Tamil superstar, Rajnikant.

Once he made Chennai his home, he has assiduously assimilated himself with the language, culture and its sensitivities. So much so, that when this writer once tried to talk to him during the course of an interview, in Kannada, the language of the State both of us hail from, he refused to acknowledge it.

One cannot expect such adherence as Rajnikant does, but it wont hurt for a migrant to remain sensitive to the local sensibilities. If they do, the Raj Thackerays will have to find a different occupation. As long as the migrants don't, more Thackerays will flourish.

1 Comments

Blog

Print