Remaking a violent success story

Elections anywhere in the world generate a plethora of soundbites. The more immature a democracy, the shriller the soundbites. They are most...

Elections anywhere in the world generate a plethora of soundbites. The more immature a democracy, the shriller the soundbites. They are mostly about passionate themes rather than about issues. Take Balasaheb Thackeray’s recent call for ‘‘Mumbai for Maharashtrians’’. Obviously he has an eye on the elections scheduled in September-October 2004.

Thackeray’s entry into politics can be attributed largely to the slogan ‘‘Mumbai for Maharashtrians’’. But that was in the late 1960s. That was the time when Bombay did not have such a pre-eminent place in the national scheme. There was no fervently monitored sensex, nor the phenomenal stock boom and bust. At that time, Bombay was a business centre which also produced some films mostly based on the lost-and-found theme.

Thackeray should know that times are changing and people are maturing. He should not hope to replicate his violent success story of 1967 in 2003-4. If he was so sincere about purging Mumbai of all non-Maharashtrians, he could have pursued his aim when his party was ruling Maharashtra. His government did try to throw out some Bangladeshi migrants but it stopped after some initial bravado. If he had the courage of conviction, he should have asked his government to resign on its failure to carry out that initiative.

Story continues below this ad

He should know that whipping up passion on ethnic lines has caused much unrest not just in India but the world over. Think of the fate of George Speight, an US educated management graduate who overthrew the government of Mahendra Chaudhary in Fiji, or of Slobodan Milosevic who carried out one of the worst ethnic cleansing programmes in recorded history. Closer home, there is the two-decade old ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. By now it is clear that Pirabhakaran can at best achieve a province, not a separate state.

But Thackeray talks only passions and not issues of governance. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he knows it is largely his party that is responsible for transforming Maharashtra’s finances into the present ‘Mahamess.’

Have you heard Thackeray talking about the tradeless days in Delhi Stock Exchange or how to strengthen the regional stock exchanges? He also does not have any known record of backing reform measures like the power sector reforms. Quite the contrary, in fact. Remember Suresh Prabhu, who was considered to be efficient and reform-oriented, and who was pulled out of the Cabinet by the Sena chief?

Dare we still hope that Thackeray sees the writing on the wall and acts sensibly?