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?

Regionalism or nationalism or... may be rationalism?

The acceptance of the above ideas should be increasing in that order, because it holds true for the first two, or at least, it is now a fashion to look down on regionalism and only talk about nationalism. And that gives ones opinion a complete acceptance to the educated, modern and cosmopolitan club, which everyone wants to be in.

So, why not go a step ahead and put in the third idea, 'rationalism' and see how it changes the scene. With all that happening in Mumbai, one man got all the bad media for raising an issue, which was made a taboo to talk about over the years. There is no denying, the issue might have been used to fare better in the hustings, but there would be no smoke with out a fire. There should be no condoning the violence unleashed on the innocent migrant but there is a need to treat the disease and not the symptom.

Now there are these cities which keep supporting migrants, and the states which keep producing them and dispersing them all over the country. Yes, the constitution gives the right to movement to any where in the country, but it also strives to achieve a welfare state. So using this right of movement so ruthlessly on a city by a sea of people does not go down very well. Technically it is all fare and fine but the issue is not all that black and white.

How does not trying to address a problem help the situation? Are we trying to encourage this mass migration to cities in the name of being a national citizen? In that case, we might as well hope for an unrestricted intercontinental migration for being a world citizen, (it might sound illogical, since there is no such world constitution).

Whose city is it anyway? This is what we hear in the media today. Should it not be something like 'Whose problem is it anyway?' which addresses the cause for such a movement of people from those ill governed and less opportunistic places. Should we not be talking about the betterment of those towns and villages to check this influx of people into already choking cities?

Now which is a bigger mistake? The governments (which again translates to people) of those states not doing enough for keeping its people in the state, or somebody who tries to bring the problem to the notice of the nation.

May rationalism prevail over all other isms..

-Aditya