When Bal Thackeray’s ambitious nephew, Raj Thackeray, parted ways with the Shiv Sena a couple of years ago, it was expected that he would form a party very much like the one he had left behind. After all, in looks, mannerisms, aspirations and in the opinions he held he was very much like his uncle, more so even than his cousin, Balasaheb’s son, Uddhav. But the style in which young Thackeray went on to launch his Maharashtra Navnirman Sena in March 2006, with a crowd of a lakh and a half, a no-frills show, a ban on obsequious gestures and an all-inclusive agenda, it seemed that he was making a break with the past in more ways than one and launching a new-look party for a modern era. Events of the last few days have destroyed that illusion. Raj Thackeray’s combative stance on the issue of north Indians in Mumbai is reminiscent of the Bal Thackeray of the sixties, when he launched a virulent agitation against south Indians on nativist grounds of protecting jobs for the “sons of the soil” and forced shops and other establishments to translate their signboards into Marathi. Raj Thackeray’s style, sarcasm, caustic tone and apparent fearlessness in the face of the law and of the various court cases filed against him, too are vintage Bal Thackeray. The issue of north Indians in Mumbai though was originally raised by the Shiv Sena and has been put forward from time to time, most recently when Uddhav Thackeray, the party’s executive president, held “outsiders” (read north Indians) as being responsible for the molestation of two women on new year’s eve outside a suburban hotel (subsequent investigations revealed them to be local boys). Raj Thackeray’s relentless campaign on the subject, however, seems to be aimed both as an attack on his former mentor and an attempt to position himself as the true native — Bal Thackeray is known to be close to Amitabh Bachchan; the superstar even released a music album based on lyrics by Uddhav’s teenage son recently. This too is a challenge to the Sena, which has styled itself as a campaigner for the poor most recently by criticising the state government’s favouritism towards builders in the wake of the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling (Regulation) Act and threatening to oppose building activity if the interest of slumdwellers was ignored.Despite the clear political motivations and the all round condemnation following in the wake of Raj Thackeray’s comments and the violence unleashed by his supporters against north Indians in Mumbai, the virulence of his methods has opened up a can of worms that cannot be wished away any time soon. Resentment on regional lines has been evident at the ground level in Mumbai for some years now. Koli fisherwomen agitated against the loss of their livelihood to vendors from the north. And stray instances have been known to occur, such as a local policeman asking a taxidriver from Uttar Pradesh when he was likely “to leave Maharashtra”. A traditional competitiveness with the north may underlie this resentment but studies by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences and the International Institute of Population Studies find that there may be a statistical basis for the perceived threat from the north. According to data analysed, inter-state migration from Uttar Pradesh has sharply increased, while a declining trend in migration has been evident from other parts of Maharashtra and neighbouring states like Gujarat and Goa. The studies also found that more migrants were arriving from rural rather than urban centres in the north, suggesting the possibility of a different stratum of migrant.Migration is and has always been a sensitive issue in Mumbai. Mumbaikars are proud and protective about their cosmopolitanism. But they have been known to succumb to efforts at demonising communities. Our experience in recent times, with Mumbai in 1992-3 and Ahmedabad in 2002, also show that modernising cities are more not less vulnerable to divisive ideologies. But Raj Thackeray’s rhetoric and the reaction to it have ramifications that stretch beyond Mumbai. The BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad, for instance, condemned the use of violence employed in the MNS’s protest; an intriguing complaint given the repeated use of violence by the BJP and its sister organisations to protest against activities it considers inimical to Indian culture. Similarly, Raj Thackeray’s attack on Bachchan for taking on the role of UP’s brand ambassador and not doing the same for Maharashtra raises the ghost of the ‘Tebbit test’ which demanded a demonstration of loyalty to country by supporting the country’s cricket team. The same has often been used by the Hindutva lobby against the minority Muslim community.It is absurd to expect single rather than multiple loyalties to be the norm. And it is against the law of the land and the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution to demand such tests of loyalty. At the same time, greater competitiveness and mobility brought on in a world of shrinking borders will make citizens more vulnerable to jingoistic demands of this nature. This issue may or may not blow over but in some form or the other the outsider issue will surface. In the recent past when a former mayor was attacked in Belgaum Bal Thackeray threatened reprisal against Kannadigas in Maharashtra. A few weeks ago it was Modi’s perceived invasion into Sena territory that sent alarm bells ringing. Parochialism offers an easy resistance to change.Mumbai-based Shah is the author of ‘Hype, Hypocrisy and Television in Urban India’amritareach@gmail.com
