Off late the vicious environment created in Maharashtra and rest of India by
Raj Thakrey and goons has created lot of noise but sadly not much debate in
the mainstream media besides sound bites on some TV Channels. Maybe because
the affected parties are poor laborers from poor parts of the country.
Rakeshjee , a close friend and senior wrote below article and thought the
group might wanna discuss this

*Attack on Migrants*

Attack on India's Pluralistic Fabric

*by Rakesh Srivastava*

Pluralism is the dominant principle of the Indian society. Plurality,
heterogeneity, or even conflict in values is regarded as characteristics of
the Indian system. That is the reason why the Indian civilization is
distinguished from other civilizations of the world given its continuity,
heterogeneity, and accommodating ethos. Since time immemorial, the Indian
civilization has played host to streams of migrant groups and communities
from across the world. The migrant groups and communities enriched the
Indian society with their respective traditions and behaviour patterns that
they had brought from their native lands. In the course of time, they lost
contact with their places of origin, underwent an extensive process of
indigenization, and helped build the nation that we know as India today.

But several critical factors have threatened the very fabric of this unique
pluralistic society from time to time. Communalism, casteism, religious
extremism, and what not! In the recent years, regionalism has been raising
its head again and is eating into the core of the pluralistic heart of the
Indian union. When the politicians start feeling insecure about their
acceptance amongst people, they raise the emotional issue of locals vs
outsiders. Delhi CM Sheela Dixit once suggested that North Indians
particularly those coming from Bihar and UP were burden on the national
capital. The Assam militants resorted to the killing of Bihari migrant
labourers. And now Raj Thackeray's ranting against the 'uttar bhartiya' in
Mumbai. All these acts of political desperation can only be termed as
politics at its most emotional, irrational, inarticulate, and
incomprehensible.

Raj Thackeray's assertion that "migrants come and ruin local culture" is
absolutely ridiculous. It is certain that, if asked, Raj Thackeray would not
be able to define 'local culture'. I would suggest Raj read the eminent
sociologist M N Srinivas to learn that the local culture at a given place
reflects local, regional and all-India patterns. While a lot in Pune's
culture will be the same as that of Nagpur, there will still be certain
things that will be different. Similarly, while Mumbai has an admirable
culture that is different from that of Delhi, there are lots of common
traits too between the two as both are within India. Culture, by its very
definition, is the amalgamation of various behaviour patterns that people
bring in from their native lands. A person in Delhi will tell you that his
native place is Bihar, a person in Patna will say that his native place is
Chapra, and a person in Chapra will say that his native place is Amnaur.

The above example will help one understand that any vibrant society is in a
constant state of migration – migration from a village to a town, migration
from one town to another, migration from one state to another, and migration
from one country to another. The cultural amalgamation resulting from this
migration process leads to better people-to-people understanding. This is
something that needs to be fostered, since in recent years, identity
politics is trying to endanger the accommodating society that India has been
for ages.

It is widely believed that migration is a burden on the local society. This
is a myth. On the contrary, migration is a two-way enrichment process.
International studies of immigrants clearly show their significant
contribution to host economies. While the migrants improve their lives with
the opportunities available in the host society, they also contribute to its
growth. They also generate thousands of jobs through their spending within
the host land.

Punjab is amongst the most developed states of India today. Could Punjab
have achieved the status of 'food granary' of India without the contribution
of migrant Bihari labourers? The contribution of Parsis to India's welfare
and its economic and social development is extraordinary. Tata and Godrej
are household names in India. Can anyone imagine Mumbai as the business
capital of India without the contribution of Gujaratis who have made Mumbai
their home?

Let us look further across the Atlantic. America is known as the land of
immigrants. The USA is the most developed country of the world because it is
a heterogeneous society of immigrants. If you analyse why America became
more powerful than the countries where its people came from, you will
realize that it is due to its assimilation of the immigrants into a liberal
democratic American society. While the American society correctly asks what
the immigrants have to offer to them, it also ensures that the immigrants
are able to live in peace and enjoy all services offered to America's
citizens. This assimilation and care for each other results in a liberal
culture in the society. The synergy generated by the people from different
background and different strengths has built America what it is today.

Raj Thackeray should understand this. He should know that a majority of the
migrants coming to Mumbai are engaged in production-related jobs. As per a
recent Times of India report, migrants, apart from working in industries,
are involved in providing 48 types of services in the city — ranging from
selling milk, vegetables and provisions to driving vehicles, working as
security guards and so on. While these are mostly low-paying jobs, their
contribution to maintaining the standard of life in this affluent city
cannot be discounted. The non-migrant population on the other hand, dominate
white-collared professional, technical, executive and managerial jobs,
including clerical and sales jobs, in various service-based industries.

But those who have nothing new to offer to their people, have taken recourse
to identity politics without realizing that it will ultimately harm their
own society. If militants in Assam are killing Bihari migrants, it's not
adding to the reputation of the state. Rather, it is creating an uncertain
atmosphere in the state where law of the land does not rule roost. And this
results in industrialists not looking towards Assam as a good place to
invest that would have generated jobs for lakhs of Assamese. So, ultimately,
it's the Assamese people who are suffering. The sooner the Assam
'nationalists' understand this, better for them.

These regional chauvinists should know that by indulging in violence, they
may get media coverage for few days, months, or at the most years, but their
kind of extremist politics will not survive long. One thing is certain, it
will never bring them to power. We have history as the witness. Even the
flag bearer of the extreme right politics in France, Le Pen of Front
National has changed track. Now he does not direct his ire against the
immigrants, he does it against the politicians who support the immigration.
Le Pen's message is not directly anti-immigrant. Certainly he sees what he
calls the flood of immigrants as the immediate reason for France's decline,
but for him it is not the immigrants' fault: they can't help wanting to come
to a great country. It is the fault of the politicians who have let them in.


In India too, the problem is the same. The development is not uniform across
the country. The myopic urban development policy of the central govt. has
created this mess. Some areas have developed a lot whereas others have
remained under darkness.

Hence, people from backward regions like UP and Bihar throng developed
cities like Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore in search of opportunities. Given an
option, these immigrants would rather return to their home state if they are
developed as centres of employment and high economic growth. After all, no
one, not even poor labourers, want to live in poor living conditions of the
slums in these cities that rob them of their dignity. Migration can be
reduced if jobs are created nearer home.

It's nobody's case that Raj Thackeray's fulminations are mere incarnation of
our worst racist selves. We cannot deny that there is fire behind the smoke.
Maharshtra is not Punjab where poor Bihari labourers are invited to do jobs
that the Punjabis do not want to do themselves. So, we see no protest by any
political party in Punjab against the Bihari labourers. On the other hand,
there is widespread unemployment in Maharashtra. Raj Thackeray has
identified that there are lakhs of unemployed Marathis in the state who feel
let down by the politicians. The media too does not give voice to the
resentment of these people suffering from a feeling of victimization.
Sensing this as an opportunity, Raj Thackeray is trying to be the principal
electoral voice of these Maharashtrians who feel that they are suffering due
to the north-Indian immigrants. Most of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena's new
recruits come from these sections of society.

However, Raj Thackeray is treading a path that is not going to succeed. His
exclusivist politics may fetch him limelight and he may become a household
name in India, but only for sometime. The Mumbai of the twenty-first century
is not the Mumbai of seventies when the original Thackeray first played the
politics of mumbaikars vs outsiders and achieved success. The socio-economic
profile of Mumbai has changed in forty years. Recent surveys show that the
majority of modern educated Maharashtrians do not approve the exclusivist
and intolerant agenda of Raj Thackeray. Raj may have acquired some fan
following after his recent rantings, but it will always be limited to that.
It will remain and create nuisance from time to time but it will not grow.

If Raj does not want to fade away in history as someone whose goons once
bashed up north-Indian taxi drivers in Mumbai, he should formulate an
inclusive political strategy for the development of Maharashtra, and that
means development of all those who live in Maharashtra – Marathis,
Gujaratis, South Indians, Parsis, Biharis and UPites. It would do him a lot
good if he reads the recent writings in Le Pen's diary. Then, as Le Pen did,
he would also realize that innocent citizens should not suffer due to the
follies of the state. If he is a true nationalist that he claims to be, he
should immediately ask his violent activists to stop venting their ire
against immigrants. He should channelise the anger of these unemployed youth
into pressurizing the govt. to have a proper urban development policy for
Mumbai and stop regularizing illegal slum colonies.

However, this is also an opportunity for the nation to ask itself certain
questions. Why are migrants in different parts of the country suffering at
the hands of marginal politicians and militants. Why does not the state deal
strongly with the perpetrators of violence against the vulnerable
immigrants? Can we allow political compulsions to overtake the respect for
law and national integrity? Can we afford to keep our focus of development
on the few cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore? Or should we target the
new areas of growth and opportunity – the tier two towns? Shouldn't the
country have a proper urban development policy which should include a
development-friendly national immigration policy?

Mumbai, Delhi, Patna and Bastar are all parts of the body and soul of India
that is Bharat. While Mumbai and Delhi grow, Patna and Bastar cannot be left
far behind. The Centre along with the govts. of the under-developed states
must up its ante and work together to create more job opportunities in the
states, sooner rather than later. But at the same time, migration and
migrants should not be seen as problems to be dealt with. They should rather
be looked upon as challenges and opportunities. The state govts. must
understand migration as part of the range of poor people's livelihood
options. Migrants are people trying to improve their lives and must be
treated accordingly. This country can be built into a great nation only with
the synergy generated by different people possessing different strengths. We
must not allow fringe elements like Raj Thackeray to attack
Non-Maharashtrians in Mumbai. The nation can no more afford a 'Non
Non-Maharashtrian manifesto' or 'Non Non-Assamese manifesto' the way it
witnessed a 'Non-Brahmin manifesto' in 1916 in Tamilnadu.

Cheers
Atul Kumar
Tristate, USA
+1 203 987 4452 g


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rakesh Srivastava
Date: Feb 16, 2008 10:35 AM
Subject: migrants
To: Atul Kumar

Here comes the article


Rakesh Srivastava


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]