‘Bihar for Biharis' is not a new theme; its appeal has existed all along. But now it has begun coming out in the open, with lalu Prasad and his ally Nitish Kumar guiding the State towards parochial provincialism

In a report filed from Patna, the news wire service PTI informs us that Rashtriya Janata Dal president lalu Prasad Yadav on Saturday demanded that “80 per cent of Bihar’s jobs and seats in educational institutions should be reserved for the residents of Bihar — as is prevalent in other States”. This momentous ‘demand’ by the senior co-sharer of power in Bihar where Nitish Kumar increasingly appears to be the notional Chief Minister busy implementing prohibition while bootleggers and liquor smugglers rake in windfall profits and hoodlums make up for the wasted decade when RJD was forced to sit out, was expectedly made at a media briefing of sorts.

“like other States, namely Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, West Bengal and Kerala, which have a provision of reservation for their students, Bihar should also reserve 80 per cent for locals in jobs and admission in educational institutions under State Government control... I’ll take up the matter with Nitish Kumar,” Yadav said. He elaborated his reason with what was part truthful admission and part exaggeration: “The shortage of higher education institutions in Bihar has forced its students to move to other States, where they have failed to find jobs due to the reservation system in place there.”

There’s something naively telling in what he had to say: “Due to a lack of such provisions (reservations) in Bihar, candidates from other States grabbed a majority of jobs in the State... In an ongoing examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission for Assistant Professor of English, 80 per cent candidates were from other States... In States like Kerala and West Bengal, the marking pattern in school and college examinations are different from Bihar. As a result, their students score high marks. In such a situation, they grab a major portion of employment, depriving students of Bihar... A similar situation was prevalent in the recruitment of lecturers in other subjects like Science and Philosophy, where almost 80-90 per cent of successful candidates are outsiders”.

There’s no point in even reminding lalu Prasad Yadav that the marking or grading system that exists in Bihar is best exemplified by the higher secondary examination scandal that came to light this year. In RJD’s Bihar, the topper in social sciences thinks political science is “prodigal science” while the topper in science is clueless what H2O is all about. This is not about shortage of schools and institutions, it is about a severe shortage of ethics and morals. But Yadav would not understand such shortages, so why botherIJ

Instead, it would be useful to view his statement from the perspective of ‘Bihar for Biharis’, the outing of the deeply held faith of Bihar’s politicians, whose existence is dependent on identity politics, in the nativist ‘son of the soil’ policy which they otherwise denounce when it impacts Bihari immigrants in other States. Among all the States, Bihar has always had the most rigorous and tough-to-meet (for non-Biharis who may have migrated to the State) domiciliary rules.

I grew up in undivided Bihar and went to high school in Patna, but found myself disqualified from applying for admission to medical colleges in the State. Bars that were imposed on me, a Bengali, did not exist for Yadav’s daughters. ‘Bihar for Biharis’ is not a new theme; its appeal has existed all along, subcutaneous at best. It has now begun coming out in the open, with JD(U)’s Nitish Kumar leading the way — and guiding the State towards parochial provincialism.

One of the recurring themes of the campaign speeches of Nitish Kumar and lalu Prasad Yadav, the two leading lights of the Maha Gathbandhan, during the Bihar Assembly election, was “Bihari versus Bahari”. This went largely unreported by the mainstream media and has remained uncommented upon by the Commentariat. The overt reference was to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah, both from Gujarat, who led the NDA campaign in Bihar from the front.

On the face of it, there was nothing particularly exceptionable about entrenched Bihari politicians like Nitish Kumar and lalu Prasad Yadav reminding voters that a Bihari, and not a ‘bahari’, would ultimately be presiding over the Government of Bihar. That was a no-brainer; although not particularly appealing to the ears, it wasn’t outrageously objectionable either.

But the overt reference was unimportant, what was important was the covert messaging aimed at latent Bihari parochialism: That they alone, more so Nitish Kumar, not only prescribe to and believe in the ‘son of the soil’ principle of Bihar for Biharis, but also shall shut Bihar’s doors to non-Biharis. It would be silly to suggest that latent Bihari parochialism does not exist. It always did and has acquired a sharper edge as India moves on while Bihar lags behind. Shrinking opportunities spur hatred for the outsider. Moreover, majoritarianism comes in many shades and flavours, of which religion is only one. The once prosperous Bengalis of Bihar who have moved out of the State, or their descendants now settled in West Bengal and elsewhere, will tell you that’s true.

It’s not the ‘outsider’ alone who has left Bihar. Biharis have left Bihar too, seeking opportunities, jobs and homes in other States, which is perfectly fine. India is a seamless Republic that does not discriminate between citizens. State boundaries cannot become impenetrable barriers. The restrictions that exist, for instance in Jammu & Kashmir, some hill States and in the North-East, are exceptions and not the rule; even these must go, as should imposed bhumiputra policies that are born of politics of linguistic and regional exclusivism.

The Shiv Sena, of course, is the original sinner: ‘Maharashtra for Maharashtrians’ is not only a slogan for the Sainiks, but also the raison d’être of the deeply parochial organisation Balasaheb Thackeray founded in 1966 to combat “Marathi marginalisation”. That was six years after Maharashtra’s formation following an often violent agitation by Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, culminating in the infamous police firing on agitators at Mumbai’s Flora Fountain in which 105 people were killed, forcing a cussed Morarji Desai to climb down from his high horse. Strangely though, Balasaheb Thackeray did not unleash the city’s lumpen proletariat on Gujarati traders and businessmen, who stayed put after Bombay State was carved into Maharashtra and Gujarat, but immigrant Tamilians and their eateries. later it was the turn of ‘North Indians’.

Much has been said and written to denounce the violence against ‘outsiders’; the Thackeray cousins, who now head their own Senas, deserve much of the castigation that has come their way. But in our haste to criticise their noxious politics of nativism, let us not forget that parochialism is the other name for regionalism. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that ‘State politics’ across India, as opposed to ‘national politics’, is largely based on pandering to parochial pride and provincial sentiments camouflaged as regional aspirations.

In Tamil Nadu, the idea of a ‘Dravida Desam’ where Brahmins — described as “agents of North India” in DMK pamphlets — shall have no place, continues to titillate popular imagination. In Andhra Pradesh, NT Rama Rao made ‘Telugu Desam’ the platform of his politics; his political heir, Chandrababu Naidu, who now heads the Telugu Desam Party and the State Government, continues to build on it.

Shibu Soren, who heads the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, as well as his son and political heir Hemant Soren make no effort to hide their view that Jharkhand is the “sole preserve” of Adivasis and moolvasis. Reminding his Adivasi audience that Jharkhand was created for the “rights of tribals and not non-tribals”, Shibu Soren, in his active days, was fond of saying, “What we wanted was the rapid development of Jharkhand... (for) the actual sons of the soil. We (Adivasis) helped create Jharkhand, but we are yet to taste its fruits.” That did not stop Shibu Soren from joining hands with Dikus to feather his own nest, though.

A similar sentiment is cited to justify violence against non-Assamese in Assam where migrant labourers and traders from Bihar continue to be targeted by ‘sons-of-the-soil’ seeking to assert their rights in their State. Many would still recall the anti-foreigners agitation that was triggered by the discovery of voters in Mongoldoi having multiplied several times over, thanks to illegal immigration from Bangladesh, when a by-election was necessitated following the death of Hiralal Patwa on March 28, 1979.

Till the signing of the Assam Accord in 1985, the All-Assam Students Union, which organised the ‘Bangaal kheda’ agitation, held the State, and the country, to ransom. It is another matter that despite being in power twice, the Asom Gana Parishad has failed miserably in tracking down and deporting Bangladeshis; the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was not alone to blame for this failure.

Few remember today that the seeds of the anti-foreigners agitation were sown during an earlier virulently parochial agitation against ‘outsiders’, disparagingly referred to as “Ali-Kuli-Bangaali”. Very few Bengalis now remain in Assam, most having migrated back to West Bengal, while Kulis — tribals from what was once known as Chhota Nagpur — employed in tea gardens continue to face the wrath of the ‘sons of the soil’.

It would, however, be incorrect to believe that the perceived rights of ‘sons of the soil’ over those of ‘outsiders’ followed the creation of linguistic States. TN Joseph and SN Sangita, in their research paper, ‘Preferential Politics and Sons of the Soil Demands: The Indian Experience’, have pointed out how the ‘sons of the soil’ demands were advocated by leaders of the nationalist movement.

“For instance, a report prepared by Rajendra Prasad for the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress presents an extensive survey of the Bihar situation as of 1938. This report, endorsed by the Indian National Congress, uses the term provincials to refer to the sons of the soil and declares that their ‘desire to seek employment in their own locality is natural and not reprehensible, and rules providing for such employment to them are not inconsistent with the high ideals of the Congress’.

Rajendra Prasad argued in the report that it is ‘just and proper that the residents of a province should get preference in their own province in the matter of public services and educational facilities... It is neither possible nor wise to ignore these demands, and it must be recognised that in regard to services and like matters the people of a province have a certain claim which cannot be overlooked’.”

Between 1938 and 2016, India has travelled a long distance and the national economy is now vastly different from what it was 25 years ago. But provincialism — or call it what you may — remains as deeply ingrained as ever. ‘Cosmopolitan India’ is a figment of fashionable South Delhi’s imagination, as is the bogus ‘Idea of India’ of sanctimonious left-liberals.

(The writer is commissioning editor and commentator at ABP News TV)