Raj-Thackeray don't divide India

Odds and evens : RAJ Thackeray by Jug Suraiya TOI

mymyboli — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:31:54 +0000

A lot of people are wondering what’s happened to Raj Thackeray of late. Ever since 26/11 there hasn’t been a choo from the self-proclaimed champion of the Marathi manoos. Where’s he gone and what’s he up to? Has he pushed off on a secret Mission Impossible into Pakistan to avenge the terrorist attack on Mumbai and bring LeT commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, kicking and screaming, to India for justice, with Dawood Ibrahim as a New Year bonus? No one knows. But the other night i had a curious dream in which that stalwart upholder of Marathiness had come to take up residence in the National Media Centre, the Gurgaon housing society where i live and which is, in many ways, a microcosm of India.
In my dream, no sooner had Raj settled in than he began to cast a keen eye around for any Marathi manoos on whose behalf he could take up cudgels. There were indeed Marathi manoos in the NMC. The trouble was that they could not be told apart, not even by themselves, from the non-Marathi manoos, i.e. Punjabi manoos, and Haryanvi manoos, and Bengali manoos, and Gujarati manoos, and Malayali manoos, and Tamil manoos, and even a few foreign manoos, like American manoos, English manoos, and Russian manoos, who also lived in, or were associated with, the NMC. Not only did all this bewildering variety of manooses — poor Raj hadn’t had the faintest idea that there could possibly be so many different varieties, even more than all 31 flavours of Baskin-Robbins — live together but they were often inextricably linked to each other through ties of marriage, or profession, or common interests. Heck, it was all so mixed up, that Raj himself couldn’t tell apart the Marathi manoos from his non-Marathi NMC neighbour.
That being the unfortunate case, how was Raj to fulfil his life’s vocation of creating parochial rifts in any given community? Some people collect stamps; Raj collected rifts. But here in the mini-India of the NMC, where were the rifts for Raj, or anyone else, to collect? But Raj is nothing if not innovative. If there were no rifts in the NMC, then he would have to create them. How so? In a flash, it came to him. Numbers. If he could not create rifts on the basis of community, he would create rifts on the basis of numbers. This seemed quite easy to do.
The NMC has 190 houses, numbered from 1 to 190. These could be divided — or rifted, if you prefer, which Raj did — into odd numbered houses and even numbered houses. For example, 1 was an odd numbered house, in that the number 1 is an odd number, which cannot be divided by 2. On the other hand, or the other rift, if you prefer, which Raj did, 190 is an even numbered house, as 190 can be divided by 2. So Raj began his divisive campaign.
He told all the even numbers that all the odd numbers were, well, to put it frankly, distinctly odd. As in weird, strange, angular, unpredictable, funny, not ha-ha funny, but funny-funny, like psycho-funny, like people-who-bay-at-thefull-moon-funny. In short, odd numbers were not to be trusted and should be given not just short shrift but also short shift, as in shortly shifted out of the NMC. Then Raj told all the odd numbers that even numbers were, well, to put it frankly, even. Which meant they were divisible by 2, and as everyone knew, anything or anyone who was divisible was essentially unstable, unpredictable, undependable, a split personality. In short, a sicko with whom one should have absolutely no truck, lorry, or bus.
Raj spread his message of divisiveness. But the harder he tried the less he succeeded. Odds and evens seemed closer together than ever before. Why wasn’t his plan working? Simple. It was because of the number that Raj himself was. He was neither odd nor even, but when added to any other number, odd or even, made everything even. That’s right, what Raj was, always had been, always would be, was a perfect zero.
jug.suraiya@timesgroup.com

How do you define , maharashtrian,UPite,Indian

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:26:24 +0000

This interesting observation was mailed by our esteemed visitor

1. We should teach our kids that if he is second in class, don’t study
harder. just beat up the student coming first and throw him out of the
school

2. Parliament should have only Delhiites as it is located in Delhi

3. Prime-minister, president and all other leaders should only be from
Delhi

4. No Hindi movie should be made in Bombay. Only Marathi.

5. At every state border, buses, trains, flights should be stopped and
staff changed to local men

6. All Maharashtrians working abroad or in other states should be sent
back as they are SNATCHING employment from Locals

7. Lord Shiv, Ganesha and Parvati should not be worshiped in our state
as they belong to north (Himalayas)

8. Visits to Taj Mahal should be restricted to people from UP only

9. Relief for farmers in Maharashtra should not come from centre
because that is the money collected as Tax from whole of India, so why
should it be given to someone in Maharashtra?

10. Let’s support Kashmiri Militants because they are right in killing
and injuring innocent people for the benefit of their state and
community.

11. Let’s throw all MNCs out of Maharashtra, why should they earn from
us? We will open our own Maharashtra Microsoft, MH Pepsi and MH
Marutis of the world

12. Let’s stop using cellphones, emails, TV, foreign Movies and
dramas. James Bond should speak Marathi

13. We should be ready to die hungry or buy food at 10 times higher
price but should not accept imports from other states

14. We should not allow any industry to be setup in Maharashtra
because all machinery comes from outside

15. We should STOP using local trains.. Trains are not manufactured by
Marathi manoos and Railway Minister is a Bihari

16. Ensure that all our children are born, grow, live and die without
ever stepping out of Maharashtra, then they will become true Marathis
JAI MAHARASHTRA!

RAJ THACKERAY’S SHORT-TERM THUGGERY

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:17:43 +0000

It was with a degree of consternation that most people watched Raj Thackeray’s young army of party-workers attacking Indian citizens from Bihar and UP inside Maharashtra. Was regionalism surfacing again as a new centrifugal force in India? How much traction would it find amongst Maharashtrians? Why have these tendencies not blunted with time? And, is this the start of more violent identity politics?

I discussed these questions with Professor Suhas Palshikar, a political scientist and professor at the Pune University and an expert on Maharashtrian politics. He says, “This is a very short-term strategy by Raj Thackeray because the Maharashtra elections are around the corner. Three years from now you may not hear him saying these things.” He adds, “This is part of the majoritarian brand of politics that does find traction even amongst moderate people.” Raj Thackeray keeps his message conveniently vague invoking a sense of hurt inflicted upon Maharashtrian culture and sentiments and towards the economic status of Maharashtrians. Professor Palshikar says, “He does not want to tie his hands and so his position is ambiguous. The message seems to be that outsiders will have to remain within bounds.” “Regional majoritarianism has good appeal and it is the easiest policy to adopt while entering politics. He wants to gain ground away from the Shiv Sena and there is a space for this kind of regional, identity politics. His strategy will be to be a spoiler in the coming elections.”

Founded only in 2006, Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena will contest its first assembly elections next year.
PS: How can a political party have the very militant word ‘Army’ in it? How can Maharashtra Navnirman Sena or Shiv Sena be allowed? (And just incidentally, both uncle and nephew, Raj and Bal Thackeray are admirers of Adolf Hitler.)

A K Bhattacharya: Why Raj Thackeray may still succeed

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:12:17 +0000

Social scientists have argued that Raj Thackeray, the Maharashtra Nava Nirman Sena leader, will fail to sustain or get popular support for his recent movement in Mumbai against migrant workers from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh seeking livelihood in the country’s financial capital. The argument is premised on their assessment that the cultural, social and economic milieu that prevailed in Bombay in the 1960s is no longer the same in Mumbai in the first decade of the 21st century.

The Marathi angst that was present four decades ago due to the perceived threat from south Indians cornering the city’s most remunerative jobs (and which Bal Thackeray used to build a political base for his party) is not there in Mumbai today to be exploited by Raj Thackeray, it has been argued. Also, migrant workers from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are mostly doing only those jobs in the city (driving a taxi or vending vegetables) which are by and large shunned by the Marathis, who have moved up in life and therefore will not ordinarily look at them as an option.

On the contrary, the average middle-class Marathi will look at a north Indian migrant worker as fulfilling some of the basic economic needs of Mumbai, even though he may frown upon the quality of the service he gets from the latter. Thus, the social scientists have concluded, Raj Thackeray will fail to strike a chord with the Marathi middle class, the way his uncle had managed to do and that lack of support will be strong enough to put an end to the current movement against north Indian migrant workers.

This assessment may not be correct because the diagnosis of why Raj Thackeray launched this movement seems to be flawed. It might appear that the Maharashtra Nava Nirman Sena leader launched this movement to protect the Marathis or create more job opportunities for them. This may not be entirely true. A more important reason for launching the movement was his growing insecurity as a Marathi leader. With the demographic profile in Mumbai, in particular, changing rapidly, a Marathi leader in that city has good reasons to feel threatened. It is this risk perception that seems to be the driving force behind his movement.

Note that while defending what they did in Mumbai, Raj Thackeray and his associates are pointing their fingers at leaders like Amar Singh and Lalu Prasad. They have argued that Mr Singh and Mr Prasad are trying to create a political base for themselves by exploiting the sentiments of a large number of north Indians engaged in different jobs in Mumbai. Their real anger is against these leaders from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. In fact, one of the statements from Mr Thackeray has clearly suggested that these leaders should confine their politics to their own states and refrain from expanding their territory.

It is a fight for constituency. Raj Thackeray and other Marathi leaders have no objection to workers from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh living in Mumbai to earn their livelihood. The problem starts when these north Indian workers become a potential vote bank and political leaders from the north descend on the city to build a base for themselves or their parties. If leaders like Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati refrain from exploiting the large presence of people from north India in Mumbai for political gains, the movement against migrant north Indian workers in India’s financial capital will die down on its own. Already suggestions have been made to the effect that north Indian migrant workers are free to live in Mumbai, but they must do so as Mumbaikars and, therefore, not as a vote bank for politicians from the north.

But it is naive to believe that political leaders from north India will stay away from Mumbai because the potential political gains are too tempting for anyone to ignore. Thus, Raj Thackeray’s movement will also gain impetus and even though the north Indian migrant worker serves a specific economic purpose (providing cheap labour), their continued presence in the city will become an issue because it is after all a fight for exploiting a vote bank.

In many ways, this is a story that is likely to be repeated in many other parts of India if our political leaders do not mend their ways. A few years ago, the appointment of Sheila Dikshit as Delhi’s chief minister had become a big issue even within the Congress party because she was not seen as a politician hailing from Delhi. Would the scenario be any different if a leader from Orissa or Bihar, for that matter, were to exploit the large number of migrant workers from either of these states living in Kolkata for political gains?

Sixty years after India’s independence, migrant workers in the country are still seen as potential vote banks and political leaders do not still miss an opportunity to exploit them. Today, Raj Thackeray sees his political base shrinking as a result of north leaders trying to exploit the sizeable presence of north Indians in Mumbai. But if he gets an opportunity like Lalu Prasad, he too would not hesitate to play the same game.
ashok.bhattacharya@bsmail.in

Excerpts from Raj Thackeray’s Diary… – Priti ,India

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:08:21 +0000

“I sit in this dark and stinking jail cell and I can’t, just can’t help smiling…

I was the right hand man of my uncle Bala Sahab Thackeray and expected him to let me become heir to the Shiv Sena. But when he choose his son over me, his nephew, I did not give up. I created MNS called Maharashtra Navnirman Sena but actually it stands for Menace and Nuisance of the Society.

In Shiv Sena I learned how fascism works, how it catapults you into limelight. But today I have outperformed this ideology of my former party that axe me.

I had it easy. Everyone wants more then they deserve. I target the poor. Tell them their poverty is not their inability to earn better but the fault of a more hard working north Indian. They also listen to my gibberish.

Not all get convinced by my tactics but I have found enough “Marathi Manoos” to be a known face in dirty poliics. The media has given me required focus. I did use the name of Bachchan family and took offense by their non-offensive statements to get media’s attention. And they started writing Nike and prorogue in hindi on showrooms because of me …

I finally became a known face, folding hand while getting arrested was a little filmy but I am sure they must be showing the same again and again on the news channels.

I have already made enough arrangements and instructed my people to create enough impairment and violence to make people realize that a popular leader is in jail.

Soon I will win in elections and get my aim of becoming the chief minister. To reach their soon I will have to soon change sides woe North Indians as their votes need to be harnessed too. I have nothing for or agaisnt marathi manoos … they were just meant to serve a purpose and they did …”

Chauvinist Criminals Terrorise Mumbai

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:01:23 +0000

The chauvinist criminal Raj Thackeray, the estranged nephew of Bal Thackeray, was trying to emulate his uncle who has terrorized Mumbai in the 1970s attacking the South Indians to get political milage and to reap power. The only difference was that this time Raj and his criminal force, the so-called ‘Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), picked up a Hindi superstar who is alleged to have patronized UP after becoming rich in Mumbai, and after getting necessary publicity launched attacks on the north Indian workers who eke out their paltry earnings toiling in the city and in its suburbs, like any other sections of workers. He was emboldened to launch criminal attacks on a section of people violating their rights to move freely, to settle and work in any part of the country because his uncle and many others in Mumbai and elsewhere in the country were allowed in this manner to indulge in lawless, heinous acts to create a vote-bank and grow in to a political force. His assumptions were proved correct. In spite of violating the Constitution and the IPC, promoting disharmony and enmity among people, openly calling for violent actions to throw out a section of people from Maharashtra, the state government did not take any action for days. Finally when he was arrested, a criminal like him was handled as a great political leader and let off within minutes. Meanwhile the electronic and print media projected him like a new ‘hero’, giving extensive coverage to his chauvinist utterances. Thus the ruling system and the monopoly media have helped this scoundrel to overcome his ebbing political influence by whipping up chauvinist feelings.
Raj Thackeray incident has once again raised the serious question: which are the forces who are creating enmity among people and threatening their unity? The Prime Minister and leaders of all so-called main stream parties always repeat that it is the terrorists from religious minorities (meaning Muslims) and the left extremists who are posing a challenge and creating problems in the country. So the state machinery is made more and more powerful and ruthless to suppress them. But the real culprits responsible for creating socio-political-economic situation causing the growth of such forces re-conveniently allowed to escape and dominate the political scene. Neither the fanatics of RSS Parivar led by Narendra Modi responsible for the genocide in Gujarat, nor the Shiv Sena and RSS Parivar fanatics spreading fundamentalist and chauvinist venom in Maharashtra and elsewhere are brought before the law. In dealing with them Congress, NCP like parties are pursuing a ‘soft Hindutua’ line. Chauvinism is ‘tolerated’ and adjusted to safeguard vote banks. As a result of these, all over the country divisive forces are growing. Thus a most favorable situation is created for the imperialists, especially U.S imperialists, the MNCs and Corporate houses to divide and control the people and the country. The comprador rulers are playing in the hands of imperialist forces.
So Raj Thackerays will continue to come up and flourish unless their designs are thoroughly exposed and uncompromising struggles are waged against them and the forces who create, fund and prosper them.

“Outsiders go Back! Mumbai for Marathis Only” ….. by S L Rao

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:57:45 +0000

My father migrated to Bombay from Tamil Nadu at the age of seventeen in 1922 to earn a living. His father was dead and he had a mother and siblings to support. Our mother tongue was Kannada but he ensured that he, my mother and all their children, when in Mumbai, learnt fluent Marathi. My brother marched for a united Maharashtra including Bombay, for the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti. Yet in a few years the Shiv Sena started a movement to expel people with our surname and similar ones from South India. We were supposed to be taking jobs away from Marathi mother tongue Maharashtrians. Over the years the Shiv Sena realized that hostility to all Indians except such Maharashtrians would not win them elections. Becoming very pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim would. They were proved right.
The recent agitation against migrants to Bombay from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar has a similar basis. It raises many questions. Do migrants take jobs away from locals? What about migrants into Bombay from other parts of Maharashtra? Should not then the original East Indian inhabitants of the Salsette Islands have a superior claim over the Marathi speaking immigrants from outside Bombay? Who actually made Bombay into the commercial capital of India-Marathi inhabitants or the mass of Parsees, Gujaratis, Bohris, Khojas, Mangaloreans, Tamils, Kannadigas, Malayalees, Sindhis and many others? Is a Maharashtrian one whose mother tongue is Marathi, or just an inhabitant of Maharashtra? Does Maharashtrian domicile demand living there, speaking Marathi or ownership of property? Does a Marathi speaking spouse change a person’s status for this purpose? In India there is considerable intermarriage across gotras. Thus the deshasthas of Tamilnadu and Karnataka claim to be Marathi speaking though their Marathi is a mixture of Tamil, Kannada and Marathi and probably undecipherable to a person from Pune. Can they be regarded as Maharashtrians?
In 1955 Sardar K M Pannikar, distinguished historian and Member of the States Reorganization Commission talked to us students in Delhi University. He said that their biggest problem was to decide about Bombay and Bangalore. Neither had majority Marathi or Kannada speaking populations. Bombay was regarded as the commercial capital of India and that status might get affected (it has certainly eroded since 1955), if it was given to the new linguistic state of Maharashtra. Ultimately, political agitation and pressure from Y B Chavan, made Bombay the capital of Maharashtra. The Commission could not conceive of giving Bangalore to Andhra, though the population was majority Telugu speaking. It kept Bangalore in Karnataka and instead gave Hindupur on the border, to Andhra.
Bombay has been for long the most meritocratic city in India. It is where competence and hard work have brought success, unlike till recetly, in other parts of India. If Maharashtra had not been part of India, with Indians coming from other states, Maharashtra and Bombay would certainly not have become the commercial capital of India.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of movement over India to any Indian, and the right to visit and reside anywhere (unless there are military restrictions as in Kashmir or parts of the North East). It is the duty of every state government to give equal protection under the law to a migrant from Bihar or elsewhere in Bombay as to someone born there.
India has been very permissive in allowing internal migration as well as from other countries. The illegal influx of unknown millions, mostly Muslims, from Bangladesh, has changed the linguistic and communal pattern of Assam. It is changing the voting blocks by language (Bengali) and religion (Muslim) in parts of Delhi and other big cities, as these migrants move. There is also rural-urban migration. No political party has made this a major issue.
Delhi is today largely a Punjabi city as even its Lieutenant Governor, (a Punjabi) has said. It was not so before partition. Bangalore after the I.T. boom has become even less of a Kannada speaking city than before, with huge influx of people from all parts of India. Its culture has changed. Much property is owned by non-Kannadigas. This is also happening in many other cities. In rural Punjab and Haryana migrant farm labour from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh make up for the reluctance of local youth to take farming as an occupation. Even brides are imported because of high female infant mortality, from as far as Kerala.
There have been violent reactions against labour migrants in Punjab and Haryana. A high level government committee defined a Kannadiga as one who could read and write the language. But Karnataka government and leaderships have been relaxed about this definition.
Linguistic chauvinism is common in other countries. Belgium is tearing itself apart because of the disagreements between its French, Dutch and German speaking populations. Conflict in Pakistan between the ruling Punjabi elites and others-Sindhi, Pashtoon, etc- are similar to the earlier conflict with the Bengali speaking population of East Bengal. The United States is poised for similar conflicts as Spanish speaking immigrants begin to dominate large parts of the country.
Political parties, their leaderships and governments have a duty to protect freedom of movement and residence. But neither the Congress party nor the Left, fearing electoral consequences, have come down heavily in the past on Balasaheb Thackeray and his violent statements and actions against linguistic and communal minorities in Bombay. Even the nephew, Raj Thackeray, trying to establish his political leadership, escapes because of this fear. Governments and political parties are subverting the Constitution by not dealing quickly and firmly with advocates and perpetrators of violence.
Raj Thackeray says that in other parts of India spewing hate against Indian migrants is not punished. The agitation in Bengal when Ganguli was dropped as captain of the Indian Cricket Eleven is an example of linguistic and regional loyalties at the forefront. Even a ‘secular’ Communist Minister in the state government made extremely provocative remarks at that time.
. The central government did not scold the West Bengal government for failing to protect Taslima Nasrim who was in Kolkata on a valid visa. Maharashtra has not punished those practicing violence against migrants from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Nor has it acted against violence to migrants in Punjab and Haryana.
Television media provoke violence by blatantly prejudicial reporting. There is no action against television journalism and others who thus spread hostility. A single visual of a solitary man breaking the back windshield of a car was flashed for days, implying widespread violence against Bihari taxi drivers in Bombay.
The world over, immigrants have to conform to local cultural norms. In France it is forbidden for school children to display outward symbols of religion-the hijab, turban, kirpan, a cross, etc. In Britain there is a tightening of English language requirements. In the United States there are similar tougher language and other requirements.
India’s internal migrants and their leaders should help their community who migrate from to another part of India to learn the local language and recognize local customs. Their children must learn the local language in school.
We should not legislate this or impose rules making it compulsory especially for adults. But we must encourage this. The media could play a useful role in propagating this than in exaggerating pictures of violence against migrants. People migrate, not to live in crowded and unhygienic slums, but to earn a living with dignity. They will go back when their original states are run better and there are better opportunities there.
Meanwhile, it is essential that there are voluntary attempts to learn the local culture and language. This would be a good way for migrants to live peacefully with the ‘original’ inhabitants.

An Open Letter to Raj Thackeray from Rajdeep Sardesai

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:51:41 +0000

By Rajdeep Sardesai (IBNLive.com) – Thursday, November 06, 2008
An Open Letter to Raj Thackeray from Rajdeep Sardesai
My Dear Raj,
My apologies for having to communicate through the editorial pages of a newspaper, but frankly am left with little choice since you seem to have decided to stay away from the so-called ‘national’ non-Marathi media. Let me at the very outset say that I am impressed with the manner you have carved a niche on the political landscape of Maharashtra. I distinctly remember meeting you in February last year soon after the Mumbai municipal corporation elections. It wasn’t the best of times: your party, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena had been marginalized while your cousin Udhav Thackeray and the Shiv Sena had captured power in the city. With many of your supporters deserting you, you appeared down, if not quite out. Twenty months later, I see you’ve bounced back: every local and national daily has you on the front page, you are the subject of television debates and your politics has even united Bihar’s warring netas.
And yet, my friend, there is a thin line between fame and notoriety, more so in the fickle world of politics. Bashing north Indian students may grab the headlines, getting arrested may even get you sympathy and strident rhetoric will always have a constituency, but will it be enough to secure your ultimate dream of succeeding your uncle Bal Thackeray as the flagbearer of Marathi asmita (pride)?
If Balasaheb in the 1960s rose to prominence by targeting the south Indian “lungiwala”, you have made the north Indian “bhaiyaa” the new ‘enemy’. In the 1960s, the Maharashtrian middle class in Mumbai was feeling the pressure of job competition for white collar clerical jobs. Today, it seems that there is a similar sense of frustration at losing out economically and culturally to other social groups in Mumbai’s endless battle for scarce resources. With the Congress and the NCP having become the real estate agents of the state’s rural-urban bourgeoise and the Shiv Sena a pale shadow of its original avatar, the space has been created for a charismatic leader to emerge as a rabble-rouser espousing the sons of the soil platform.
But Raj, I must remind you that electoral politics is very different from street agitations. Sure, round the clock coverage of taxis being stoned and buses being burnt will get you instant recognition. Yes, your name may inspire fear like your uncle’s once did. And perhaps there will always be a core group of lumpen youth who will be ready to do your bidding. But how much of this will translate into votes? Identity politics based on hatred and violence is subject to the law of diminishing returns, especially in a city like Mumbai, the ultimate melting pot of commerce. Your cousin Udhav tried a “Mee Mumbaikar” campaign a few years ago that was far more inclusive, but yet was interpreted as being anti-migrant. The result was that the Shiv Sena lost the 2004 elections – Lok Sabha and assembly – in its original citadel of Mumbai. Some statistics suggest that nearly one in every four Mumbaikars is now a migrant from UP or Bihar. Can any political party afford to alienate such a large constituency in highly competitive elections?
Maybe, your not even looking at winning seats at the moment, but simply staking claim to the Sena legacy in a post Bal Thackeray scenario. Perhaps, thats exactly what the ruling Congress-NCP combine in Maharashtra wants: like a market leader who gets competing brands to crush each other, the Congress-NCP leadership seems to be practicing divide and rule politics once again. They did it with Balasaheb and the communists in the 1960s, with Bhindranwale and the Akalis in the 1980s, even with the Kashmir valley politicians in the 1990s. A larger-than-life Raj Thackeray suits the ruling arrangement in Maharashtra because it could erode its principal rival, the Shiv Sena’s voter support. It’s a dangerous game, but often when politicians run out of ideas, they prefer to play with fire. It’s a fire that could leave Mumbai’s cosmopolitanism scarred for life.
Now, before you see my writings as the outpourings of an anglicized non-resident Maharashtrian, let me just say that, like you, I too am proud of my roots. I too, would like to see the cultural identity of Maharashtrians preserved and the economic well-being of our community assured. Where we differ is that I am a citizen of the Republic of India first, a proud Goan Maharashtrian only later. Fourteen years ago, I left Mumbai for Delhi to seek professional growth and was distinctly fortunate to be readily embraced by the national capital. Like millions of Indians, I too am a migrant and a beneficiary of a nation whose borders don’t stop at state checkpoints.
Moreover, I cannot accept that ‘goondaism’ is the way forward to forging a robust Maharashtrian identity. By vandalizing a shop or stoning a taxi, what kind of mindless regional chauvinism are we promoting? Taking away the livelihood of a poor taxi driver or beating up some defenceless students from Bihar reflects a fake machismo that is no answer to what ails Maharashtrian society today. The Maharashtra I once knew was inspired by the progressive ideals of the bhakti movement, by a Shahu-Phule-Ambedkar legacy of social reform. Are we going to dismantle that legacy under the weight of hate politics?
When you started your party a few years ago, it had been pitched as a party committed to a “modern” Maharashtra. If that vision still stands, why don’t you take it forward in real terms? Why don’t you, for example, set up vocational courses and technical institutes for young Maharashtrians to make them competitive in the job market? Why not, for that matter, start English-speaking classes for Maharashtrian students to equip them for the demands of the new economy? If cultural identity is such a concern, why not launch a statewide campaign to promote Marathi art, theatre and cinema by financially supporting such ventures? If Mumbai’s collapsing infrastructure worries you, then target the politician-builder nexus first. And isn’t it also time we realized that Mumbai is not Maharashtra, that the long suffering Vidarbha and Marathwada farmer needs urgent attention? Why not use your political and financial muscle to start projects in rural Maharashtra instead of focusing your energies on Mumbai’s bright lights alone? An employment generation scheme in a Jalna or a Gadchiroli may not make the front pages, but it will have far greater value for securing Maharashtra’s future.
Jai Hind, Jai Maharashtra

Raj cuts cake with ‘bhaiya’ written on it

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:47:13 +0000

MNS leader Raj Thackeray is at it again. A video released on Friday shows Raj cutting a cake with “Bhaiya” written on it. The cake was reportedly cut on June 14 – Raj’s birthday.

The revelation is sure to add fuel to the already smouldering fire regarding the anti-North Indian stand of the MNS. Ironically, the video was released by Samajwadi Party leader Kishore Samrite, who refused to divulge how he got hold off the controversial tape.

“On one hand he (Raj) had said in the court that he has no hatred against the North Indians and on the other hand he cut his birthday cake with Bhaiya written on it! This shows the deep hatred he is nursing against North Indians,” said the SP leader.

Meanwhile, when contacted by Zee News, MNS leader Sirish Patkare refused to draw any conclusion on the significance of writing Bhaiya over a cake.

“There is no discretion or any particular meaning to this incident. It has nothing against the North Indians. The cake was brought by a party worker. Also, I am not obliged to give any explanation on this issue,” he said.

Interestingly, Congress and NCP have refused to comment on the issue as of now. They are in fact scheduled to meet this evening over the forthcoming assembly elections and may discuss the Raj episode too.

Meanwhile, the Shiv Sena is mum on the episode. The BJP, however, was quick to condemn the video and accused the state government of soft pedalling the Raj Thackeray issue.

Aamir Khan condemns Raj Thackray

mymyboli — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:43:05 +0000

“Don’t ever join the community of those leaders who try dividing the Nation on the basis of language and other aspects. A leader is the one who strives achieving peace, harmony, unity and integration among the County and not causing havoc to these elements” said Aamir Khan on Bal Thackray and his son Raj Thackray. Both of them have been recently involved in unwanted issues of opposing the Bachchan’s family and other state actors who shine in Bollywood and Shah Rukh Khan is not an exception.
Aamir Khan who had gathered media channels for the press meet on his directorial debut Taare Zameen Par venturing into Oscars for the nomination of Best Foreign Film, he had to speak opposing these entities as the occasion called for it.
Also he added that there are no boundaries for any actors for they have the ability to gain name and fame breaking the barriers and not even one of those leaders can stop it.