India has travelled a long distance and the economy is now vastly different from what it was even 20 years ago. But provincialism remains as deeply ingrained as ever. ‘Cosmopolitan India' is a figment of imagination
One of the recurring themes of the campaign speeches of JD(U)’s Nitish Kumar and RJD’s lalu Prasad, the two leading lights of the Maha Gathbandhan, during the ongoing Bihar Assembly election, is “Bihari versusBahari”. This has been largely unreported by the mainstream media and has remained uncommented upon by the Commentariat. The overt reference is to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah, both from Gujarat and both robustly leading the NDA campaign in Bihar from the front.
On the face of it, there is nothing particularly exceptionable about entrenched Bihari politicians like Nitish Kumar and lalu Prasad reminding voters that a Bihari, and not a ‘bahari’, will ultimately be presiding over the Government of Bihar. That’s a no-brainer; although not particularly appealing to the ears, it isn’t outrageously objectionable either.
But the overt reference is unimportant here, what is important is 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 Udupi 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 is 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.”
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 AGP has failed miserably in tracking down and deporting Bangladeshis; the IMDT Act of 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 2015, India has travelled a long distance and the national economy is now vastly different from what it was even 20 years ago. But provincialism — or call it what you may — remains as deeply ingrained as ever. ‘Cosmopolitan India’ is a figment of South Delhi’s imagination, as is the bogus ‘Idea of India’.
(The author is a current affairs journalist based in NCR)