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?
