November 19, 2012

Double-standard of our intellectual elite on Shiv Sena and Bal Thackeray


Perceived injustice begets passions, stirs one into action. Is this not the case with both Naxalism and the politics of Thackeray? The exploitation of tribals by non-tribals, through capture of their resources, leading to loss of their livelihoods is the root cause of Naxalism and Maoism in India’s red corridor. Similarly, the pre-dominance of non-marathas, and non-locals in employment, and the marginalization of the locals in their own city was the reason for abrasive speeches and rough politics of the Shiv Sena.

Tribals take to barrels, directly challenge the law and even kill any number policemen so inhumanly. Though their cause is the same as that of the Shiv Sena, that is, protection of the rights of son of the soil, the local culture, etc, and though their violence is literally on a war footing, most of the intellectuals, scholars, activists, NGOs, and media, invariably take a soft and considerate tone, suggesting the State to address the root cause of the problem, and they tend to dilute the crime of murder and war against State.

When it comes to the politics of Shiv Sena and the role Thackeray, the same intellectuals, turn to be vitriolic, inconsiderate, intellectually dense, and compete in showing their despise to the earthy method of shiv sainiks. Are the methods of Shiv Sena more violent that those of Maoists? Have the Shiv Sainiks shown any record of butchering of innocent policemen and State authorities? Is the anger of tribals against the devious, exploitative non-tribals, any different from the so called 'chauvinism' shown by Shiv Sainiks? Is the cause of Shiv Sena any unpatriotic or seditious like those of Maoists? The answer to all these questions is No. Then why do the intellectuals not go into the root cause and do a balanced analysis of politics of Bal Thackeray?

Or is it that the people who feel their rights being trodden down have no right to protest? What do these so called armchair intellectuals expect the common man to do when he perceives injustice? Read their columns and write to the letters to editor, applauding their analysis? Change does not happen by editorials and intellectual columns.

These intellectuals who fashionably quote Marx to look communist and egalitarian, do they realize that Marx famously quoted “"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it". Marx calls for action. Why is then Marx not criticized as Bal Thackeray, but used as a decorative by the intellectuals trying to pass off as communists.

Why is it that the fight for justice in one case, is labeled as chauvinism in another case by a section of our society. Is this not a double-standard?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sir...pls specify who r those intellectuals..wat did they say...can u define who an intellectual is...nd r u not an intellectual?

Aditya said...

u wnt to know which intellectuals im talking of: go read dileep padgaonkars post in times of india on 17th nov 2012. read todays editorial in the hindu. i believe these r pseudo intellectuals.

about me, i dont wnt to be called intellwctual. im better off speaking my mind without the motive being seen as an intellectual.
aditya

Anonymous said...

I think there are atleast two differences between the tribals' problems and the "sons of soil' theme of SS.
1. The tribals are "constitutionally" protected with regard to their rights, especially their lands. where as SS's fight is about poor maharashtrians' perceived loss of jobs to poor non-maharashtrians. In other words, Tribals are fighting rich non-tribals and therefore any sane thinking person would sympatise with them whereas SS is trying to push out poor non-maharashtrians. As already said,tribals have,at least on paper, constitutional protection.

2. Naxalism is a widespread phenomenon involving mostly FOREST areas which they conserve if not protect, whereas SS's theme is puerly about metrpolitan Mumbai. Which Shiv Sainik is worried about Biharis / South Indians in Igatpuri/Nasik or even Pune ? Or even the RICH non-marathi businesses in Mumbai ?
so it is a poor versus poor fight. If SS is allowed to hAve its way, tomorrow Kaanadigas will say GETOUT to non-kannadigas in Bangalore and Hyderabadis would sa NO to non-telugu speakers and so on. And that goes against constitutional rights of people to sttle anywhere. Do we want metrpolitan cities to be become mini kashmirs ? Hence I think (one need not be an intellectual to think), SS is wrong.

To conclude, tribals may be wrong in their methods but at least their cause is right. And SS is wrong on all counts.