Ethnic politics

As has long been known, uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. As the ruling emperor of Indian cinema, Amitabh Bachchan will readily provide yet another confirmation of this adage. For no reason other than the fact that he makes the news, Raj Thackeray, nephew of Bal Thackeray and founder of the breakaway Maharashtra Navanirman Sena (MNS), has used Mr Bachchan's name and fame to stir a tiresome old pot. On Saturday, he foolishly accused Mr Bachchan of favouring UP over Maharashtra because the latter had, of all things, opened a school in UP. Unwisely, instead of ignoring him, Jaya Bachchan retorted that if Raj Thackeray would provide some land in Mumbai, the Bachchan family would be delighted to start a school in Mumbai also. She also said that she knew only of Thackeray pere and fil, Uddhav. Earlier, activists of the MNS had turned violent in protest against a Samajwadi meeting on Saturday. A couple of theatres staging Bhojpuri films were attacked and five cars damaged. Raj Thackeray, who doesn't seem to like Biharis either, had also made some disparaging remarks about the chhat festival, which Biharis hold in great esteem. This provoked Lalu Prasad to say "Raj Thackeray will suffer for what he has said on Chhat. He is a child in politics". Then, although the police said they had not heard anything, two motor-cycle-borne youths apparently threw glass bottles at Mr Bachchan's residence on Monday. In short, Raj Thackeray succeeded in what he had set out to do: draw attention to the influx persons from outside Maharashtra to the state.

Several things are noteworthy in this context. One, Maharashtra politics, or at least Mumbai politics, seems prone to sub-national xenophobia. Second, in some ways this might be better than the inherently divisive caste politics, which all political parties feel obliged to take a step further than the competitor. But, as we shall soon see, Uddhav Thackeray will feel obliged to oppose his cousin Raj even if it was his father who started this brand of politics back in the 1960s, when the target of attack was South Indians (even earlier, in the Samyukt Maharashtra movement, the issue was Gujarati dominance). Finally, under the Constitution, there is no place for restrictions on the freedom of movement, which means that the any kind of regional exclusivism is, for all practical purposes, a non-starter. After all, Kannadigas are a minority in Bangalore, and Kolkata has a large non-Bengali population. Neither city has suffered for this.

Still, such regional chauvinism has been the reason for the Shiv Sena's existence for over four decades, and it has not done badly. So it cannot be ignored because, as has been seen in the past, and not just in Maharashtra, sub-national xenophobia can lead to orchestrated violence and a sense of insecurity among those from outside the state (Assamese have attacked Bengalis in the state, and not long ago protested against Biharis writing an exam in the state which would have qualified them for jobs). India is one country, and all Indians have a perfect right to work and live anywhere they like. Self-serving politicians who need a quick emotive issue should be warned off before they can build up mobs that become violent. The responsibility for this falls squarely on state governments and it will be interesting to see how the Congress government responds to Raj Thackeray. Will it uphold the Constitution, or will it hold its hand because it knows that the Congress president has a personal grievance against the Bachchans?