Thackeray versus who?

In Mumbai, Raj Thackeray’s supporters beat up workers and small enterprises of self-employed migrants were destroyed. In Nasik, Pune and Aurangabad there was violence against north Indians. Even Amitabh Bachchan’s house was stoned. Raj Thackeray mocked north Indians referring to Chhat Puja, perhaps the most revered event in Bihar and eastern UP.

A stunned nation is wondering whether there is any rule of law in this country and whether any government can take action against the hate campaigners. I totally disagree with the notion that Raj Thackeray is too minor a player to be taken seriously. The magnitude of damage caused by his campaign is a big issue. But the more dangerous thing is that by not acting promptly, the state is legitimising a particular ideology that breeds hatred of one community for another.

Let us see what the state government did after Raj Thackeray’s acerbic campaign. Only after taking permission from the Union home ministry on February 11 a half-hearted case was registered against Raj Thackeray, while a case was immediately filed against Samajwadi Party MP Abu Azmi for his rightful reaction against the former’s statement. Raj Thackeray was finally arrested but released within minutes. His supporters continued to engage in the worst forms of violence. In this situation, the state government should have resigned and if that did not happen the central government should have imposed president’s rule.

It was the result of the government’s silence that Uddhav Thackeray also started making inflammatory statements. Mumbai and Thane became centres for anti-north Indian hate attacks for three days. Chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh kept quiet, as if he was passively supporting the issue Raj was espousing. It seems Mumbai is afraid of the Thackerays.

Is Raj Thackeray above the Constitution and rule of law? Why did the Maharashtra Chief Minister come to Delhi to take permission for arresting him? I am questioning whether the state and central governments are willing to take the blame for the chaos caused by Raj Thackeray’s illegal campaign.

Those who keep regional interest above national interest cannot be trusted to lead the nation. The population of Mumbai is 16 million; of these, 4.5 million people belong to north India. This is why Uddhav Thackeray had started appearing in social events of north Indians to woo them. All political parties in Maharashtra have reconciled to the fact that only ‘Marathi pride’ will not be enough to enjoy power in the state. That’s why in 2004 the ‘mee Mumbaikar’ agitation was stopped. Raj Thackeray is well aware of this and when he had formed his party he wanted to do the opposite of what he is doing now. But recent reverses in local elections have marginalised him. This is perhaps his last bid to claim the place of his uncle, Bal Thackeray.

Assembly polls are approaching in Maharashtra and it seems that all the main players are hand in glove with each other in this crisis. The Maharashtra Congress and NCP are using Raj Thackeray to divert the people’s attention from their failure in governance and development. Raj Thackeray and former Shiv Sainik, Narayan Rane, are drawing closer due to their shared hatred for Uddhav Thackeray. Raj Thackeray thinks that once there is a law and order problem in the state, it would weaken Vilasrao Deshmukh and Narayan Rane could become chief minister.

As far as the Congress and NCP are concerned, people have understood their backroom politics. The BJP, which is a national party, is more sensitive to its regional arrangement. While the BJP’s alliance with other parties has been tenuous, its alliance with the Shiv Sena, in spite of irritants, has been steady over time. Apart from the fact that both are pitted against the Congress and NCP, their antipathy towards non-Hindus also binds them together.

But the Shiv Sena is limited to Maharashtra while the BJP is a national party. That’s why it should think beyond the compulsions of alliance politics at state level. There are times when the BJP leaders try to show that they are liberal. But their differential treatment to Taslima Nasreen and M.F. Husain and their stance in the present Maharashtra crisis makes their position suspect. L.K. Advani wants the freedom of expression made available to Nasreen but he is quiet when it comes to Husain.

I think that both Mumbai and Delhi are having the same problems with one difference — in Mumbai the issue has been voiced openly by a regional outfit. Through the way Delhi’s Chief Minister and Lt. Governor have behaved in the past few months, their hidden agendas have come out in open. Why do these issues keep coming back? Today it is Mumbai and Delhi. In future, it could be Chennai and Bangalore.

These cities have become not only national cities but global hubs. People staying there before a particular time cannot claim that they have first right on resources. Companies whose headquarters are located in Mumbai do business all over India. They are located there, but they survive by doing business in other parts of the country. Moreover, migrants have played the most important role in making cities into cosmopolitan places.

There is a false notion that migrants earn money and send it back to their homes. Don’t celebrities like Mukesh and Anil Ambani, Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Ruias, Birlas —‘outsiders’, all — enhance the reputation of Mumbai? The way in which the Maharashtra government has allowed Raj Thackeray to engage in hate politics is an example of how Congress and NCP politicians are treading a dangerous path for narrow political gains.

The writer is an MP and general secretary of Samajwadi Party