Shiv Sena, Migrants and Nativist Movements: A Reality Check

Ever since the MNS/Raj Thackeray saga began and more recently, with the Shiv Sena/SRK episode, the media has been thrashing the Shiv Sena and its more recent variant, the MNS with a heavy hand every day. The same treatment has been meted out to the Maharashtra government which brought forth a language and domicile requirement for taxi licenses. The latest strike comes from Rajdeep Sardesai with his open letter to Uddhav Thackeray. First of all, let me clarify, I am not a fan of the Shiv Sena or its violent methods. Political parties have a fundamental obligation to adopt and follow democratic methods and respect the rule of law; any party not doing that should be taken to task. However, when the system proves unworkable and local sentiments, though universal, are at variance with the law of the land, the prospect of violence is a reality and a debate becomes necessary to decide whether a change in the law is called for.

That said, I come to the subject matter of this post. The media has only been looking at this issue from the standpoint of which party/leader stands to gain/lose, how other parties have responded to this and what their political angle is. The point of writing this is to ask the questions the mainstream media has refused to ask or answer: Firstly, is the demand of the Shiv Sena for preference to locals politically illegitimate? Are the allegations and concerns of the Shiv Sena or the MNS regarding the welfare of Maharashtrian workers valid?

Regarding the first question, the answer is absolutely not. Not only have numerous states provided different forms of preferences to locals in post-independence India, the system existed even before that. Bengalis and Marwaris migrating to Assam even in the 19th century led to resistance from locals, migrants came to dominate the Chhota Nagpur region of Bihar at the expense of local tribals who were unhappy with the arrangement, Biharis opposed Bengalis gaining prominent government positions in the Bihar government, north Indian ghair-mulkis came to dominate the Hyderabad Nizam's administration leading to resentment from local mulkis, an important factor in the Telengana movement, etc. The more recent attacks on the Pundits in J&K are of course well known.

All of this was well known at the time of independence itself. When the protest of Biharis against Bengali dominance in their government in 1938 became an issue, Babu Rajendra Prasad, then a leader of the Bihari Congress concluded that 'Bengalis who have not made Bihar their home but have come here for service or profession or business' should be excluded from appointments. He argued that it is just and proper that the residence of a province should get preference in their own province in the matter of public services educational facilities. Bengalis in Bihar, not distinguishing between the native-born, the long-term residents, and recent migrants 'speak a different language and insist on having Bengali schools. They should have due and fair share- no more and no less- in services also. Noting that domicile requirements for government employment existed in most provinces at the time, he further said, "The desire of Provincials to seek employment in their own locality is natural and not reprehensible, and rules providing for such employment to them are not inconsistent with the high ideals of the Congress, particularly when they exist in all provinces".

This question also came up in the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly when Jaspath Roy Kapoor of U.P. wanted to add 'residence' in addition to 'place of birth' to the text of article 10, the non-discrimination clause of the draft constitution. Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyer contended on the other hand that residential qualifications ought to be permitted for the purpose of state employment and sought to amend the provision to allow parliament that authority. Various other arguments were also put forward in favor of allowing regions the right to prefer locals over others. Ambedkar urged the adoption of both of these amendments stating that while residential qualifications may detract from the value of a common citizenship, 'At the same time, you cannot allow people who are flying from one province to another, from one state to another as mere birds of passage without any roots just to come, apply for posts and so to say, take the plums and walk away...We are merely following the practice already established in the provinces'. The compromise thus finalized was to bar discrimination on grounds of residence as a general rule under article 16(2) while allowing Parliament to pass state-specific enactments as exceptions to it, a power accorded under article 16(3). This need for a balance between these conflicting interests was also later echoed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

In practice, given that migrations are almost always internal and the perceived gains of one state invariably rivals the losses of another, this has proven to be unworkable. Barring one instance in 1957, Parliament has thus never managed to enact any law granting states such freedom to discriminate. In that case, it allowed four states that special privilege - Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Himachal Pradesh - all states with agitations and conflicts involving outsiders. It is not surprising then that regional groups, despite local popularity of their cause, are thus left with one of two undemocratic choices: intimidate stakeholders in the system to bring change locally through unlawful means or force the hand of parliament. Either of these would invariably involve recourse to violence. Is it any surprise then to see the Shiv Sena engage in violence periodically with the silent acquiescence, connivance or tacit endorsement of the ruling dispensation and perhaps even the broader political fraternity in the state? Should it surprise anyone that the Shiv Sena manages to get away with it because, notwithstanding the media brouhaha, political parties see this as a popular stance and are reluctant to confront it?

Coming to the second point regarding the welfare of the marathi manoos, I am aware of no study that has systematically studied the impact of migrants on locals in Mumbai. But there are many other studies looking at the impact of immigration on local labor markets in other countries across the globe. They vary in their determination of the extent of impact but none of them suggests that large scale migration will have not an impact on employment opportunities for locals (see this paper for instance which reviews relevant literature). Some have suggested that while higher end job opportunities and wages grow with immigration and expansion of the local economy, lower end jobs suffer owing to greater availability of cheap labor. That finding matches the grievances of marathi manoos as articulated by MNS/Shiv Sena which have insisted that contractors and other employers prefer outside workers as they work cheap and are less likely to 'cause trouble' as they are not as well organized. One may or may not sympathize with such arguments but there is little doubt that there are real consequences. Furthermore, in the coming years, as fertility rates fall and economic growth hastens in the southern states relatively faster than their northern BIMARU counterparts, migration is very likely to grow with southern metropolises facing the prospect of cheap labor, growth of slums, heavy strain on infrastructure, higher crime and various forms of sectarian conflict. Appeals for peace, calm and media entreaties for national unity and broadmindedness may not bring much relief when people in overpopulated urban areas fight over limited resources. Rhetorical attacks on the Shiv Sena will resolve nothing; theatrics over Shah Rukh Khan and his new movie will fade from public consciousness but these issues including the periodic recurrence of episodic violence will remain. It is therefore better to debate them and find answers today rather than wait till they are exacerbated to a point where emotion overtakes reason and violent conflict becomes a routine and enduring feature of urban India.

Foundation for a pragmatic policy towards the terrorist state of Pakistan

It is time for all Indians to recognize Pakistan as the global harbinger of terror and treat them accordingly. If the recent acts of aggression of Mumbai do not prompt this action then nothing will. A friend forwarded this article, '8 things India Inc, govt must do against Pakistan' by R Vaidyanathan, who is a professor of finance and control, Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore.
This article contains a very pragmatic analysis and approach which the mandarins in the North block should heed and was published on Rediff(I'm sure Chindu would've blocked this at the germination stage).
Some excerpts,

Recognise and treat Pakistan as a terrorist state. The state policy of Pakistan is terrorism and their single-point programme is to destroy India.

About the Pak's army

..do not try to think of Pakistan without its army, irrespective of who rules that country temporarily and nominally. At least 70% of the market capitalisation of the Karachi stock exchange is owned by the army and related groups.

About the people within India who support Pakistan,

There are three groups in India, who are obsessed with friendship with Pakistan. One is the oldies born in that part before partition and who are nostalgic about the Lahore havelis, halwas and mujras. The second is the Bollywood and other assorted groups, who look at it as a big market. The Dawood gang has financed enough of these useful idiots. The third is the candle light holding bleeding heart liberals (BHLs) who cannot imagine India doing well without its younger brother taken care of.

This issue needs to be tackled now with the government, sane citizens and members of the media should initiate action against this failed terrorist state.

Pakistan's clock is ticking

Apparently somewhere Indian politicians and bureaucrats found some b*lls to force Pak into action.
I never thought, I'd read these words in the Chindu,

Islamabad to formulate plan to act against Lashkar-e-Taiba

After all the apologetic positioning by Chindu about Pakistan's so called innocence in the whole sordid affair, with the metaphorical gun being put to Pak's head by both India and the US, Chindu reports the obvious that LeT was involved with the ISI in planning and operating the Mumbai terrorist attack.
Even US politicians like McCain are sympathetic to India and appear resigned to the fact that India would retaliate.

This is India’s 9/11. We cannot tell India not to act when that is what we did, asking the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden to avoid a war and waging one when they refused to do so,

However that article written by Nirupama Subramanian titled, McCain warns Pakistan of Indian air strikes does not have a single statement direct or implied where there is evidence of India's retaliatory air strikes. Such articles steaming with lack of logic appears to be Chindu's style these days.

Words, Words and More Words...

Today's editorial notes all the problems with the much hyped strategy of diplomatic engagement in light of recent developments but then concludes:

The complexity of this situation, its seeming intransigence, will challenge India’s political and diplomatic capabilities in the coming weeks — and the sane answer is certainly not jingoism and military threats.

Diplomacy, as it notes, has not worked. And military threats are not a 'sane' answer. So what is the solution? Singing happy songs? Thinking happy thoughts? Oh, never mind. The revered Chief Editor cannot bring himself to say it.

Nirupama Subramanian sums up the Pakistan but offers anything on how India must proceed in light of this.

The best of the lot was Harish Khare yesterday, quite unique in his theory. Here is the gem I liked the most:

Perhaps the terror master-minds were right in their calculations that by targeting upper middle class men and women they can bank on India’s middle-class-centric media to create an anti-politician (and, eventually an anti-democratic) mood.

So the terrorists' goal was to create an anti-politician mood in the country!! I should really hand it to Khare for his remarkable insight unlike anything I have heard before. I wonder whether the terrorists themselves had thought about this.

Here are some more of his other wise observations:

It is time the Prime Minister and the government demonstrated intellectual spunk and administrative muscle.

...The same ambience of ‘public anger’ after the December 13 attack on Parliament House pushed the Vajpayee government into an ‘aar –paar’ (do or die) game with Islamabad. The itch for ‘doing something’ against Pakistan must be avoided.

Pakistan must not be touched. Period. That leaves very little wiggle room for the PM to demonstration any muscle or 'spunk'. Which means Khare's exhortation is also - to use the expression - just 'bunk'.

...Good politics and good governance demand that our response to Mumbai should not aggravate communal tensions at home. It is the duty of the Manmohan Singh establishment to use the next few months to educate the country on the sobering reality that rampant communalism over two decades has not made India a more secure place.

His advice about the rampant communalism suggests that he probably missed the bit about the perpetrators sailing into Mumbai from Pakistan.

People must get a clear feeling that the government is sincere about ensuring their security – and treats this as its primary duty.

With the riders he has put forth, good luck with that.

In the Aftermath of the Mumbai Attacks

The mind-numbing carnage has finally ended. Heads have begun to roll. But little else has changed and how much the few things the government has promised actually mean is uncertain at best. It is by now a cliche to say that the great tragedy of our time remains the stupendous failure of the present government to take the threat to India's very existence seriously. Will anything change now following this so-called mumbai's 9/11? So far, the signs have not been very encouraging to say the least. As Jaitirth Rao mentioned in the Indian Express a couple of days ago, we all know in our hearts that this will not be the last of the attacks we face. Now that they have, by gaining global attention, spectacularly succeeded in their objectives, rest assured that there will be attempts to replicate them in myriad forms in mumbai and other cities in the country. None of them has anything more than the most rudimentary security infrastructure which means future carnages are likely to occur on a matching scale even if the number of foreigners killed is fewer.

In fairness, few modern day socities can completely preempt attacks of this sort especially after fully prepared terrorists have arrived at their doorstep. Many of us work not in fields but in institutions housed in concrete buildings - hospitals, schools, colleges, companies, hotels, shops, restaurants, theatres etc. - few of which have either the means or the ability to protect themselves from such fidayeen strikes. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to protect all of these places and in any case, neither the government nor civil society is even looking at this prospect let alone comprehend the humongous nature of such a task. That means we remain at the mercy of these organizations which remain fully at liberty to choose their targets and to kill at will living in the fond hope that they will not choose us simply for self-serving tactical or strategic reasons, i.e., the cost of preparation and attack is not justified by the impact that the panic and fear the expected publicity will generate.

As for internal security, the few measures the government has announced seem to be hardly measure up to our needs. The country needs both a short term and a long term plan with the former aimed at mitigating risk of future attacks and the latter aimed at formulating an more enduring solution to this problem. What we have instead seen is simply a patchwork of proposals whose efficacy is unclear. The coast guard and navy have been put on alert but since we do not know how the hijacked fishing trawler evaded detection in the first place, what exactly will have to change to prevent this is not known. Four NSG units stationed in different cities have been promised by the PM to ensure timely intervention. For one thing, India now has six major cities - not just four. So, are Bangalore and Hyderabad to be left to their own devices then? We do not know yet but I would not be surprised if that is the case. Secondly, this will take many months if not years to execute which means this will be of little help in the immediate future when given the current trend over the last year, additional attacks may be expected. Thirdly, one of the major criticisms has been the delayed arrival of the NSG at the scene of all the action because of difficulties in finding transportation. There is no word on whether anything if any will be done to fix this before the next attack.

Local police have not only been woefully inadequate in numbers but poorly equipped or trained to handle situations of this kind. At the railway station (VT/CST), they have been alleged to have run away from the scene when the shooting began. There has so far been no mention of what if anything is to be done to train these first responders to deal with a situation of this kind. As Ajay Sahni points out in Outlook today, they are the ones who can make a real difference to outcome by limiting the initial damage but there is no word of how their capabilities will be augmented in light of this threat. The Karnataka government has announced that it will set up a commando force of 30 people to respond to such an attack. If it took 200 NSG commandos three days for their operation, one is left to wonder what a small force of 30 can do in response to a multipoint attack of this kind.

As for going after those responsible for these attacks, there are few good options and the GoI will have to review the very same ones that the NDA government looked at in 2001 following the parliamentary attacks. Our own diplomacy is a joke and the latest demarche to hand over the 20 most wanted men suggests exactly that. The Pakistani government will surely not hand over those who are likely to expose the ISI's culpability in all the past attacks which means that absolutely nothing will come out of it (I cannot believe that the GoI even seriously expects this). India may score a few political points in the diplomatic world but it will effectively change nothing on the ground. The LeT will continue to go about its murderous business as usual with at best a few token arrests and detention of their top leadership for a few days till the storm abates. As Ajai Sahni again points out, Pakistan has weathered many a storm of this kind and there is absolutely no reason to think that the current round will be any different from the past ones.

The only other option to this utterly ineffective and useless line of action is war. Apart from the huge cost and the dangerous consequences of a war between two nuclear powers, the consequence might turn out to be a weakening of the civilian dispensation in Pakistan which is still finding its feet. But is our inaction going to strengthen the civilian leadership there? There is little reason to believe so. Is it not going to embolden the intelligence and military elements who aided and abetted this attack not to mention the LeT itself? Very likely. Needless to say, India's inability to impose any cost for these ever more provocative attacks is simply to invite more of them. However, war cannot be an immediate step. India would have to first complete the investigation and lay out the evidence all the while pursuing diplomacy. When the time comes, we would have built up international opinion sufficiently in our favor to justify the action we take.

Pranab Mukherjee appears to have already ruled out war which in effect is telling Pakistan that there will be no punishment for its inaction. This is not surprising given that he similarly counseled against war even in 2001 following the attack on parliament. But by boxing itself into such a position, the GoI has left itself with little wiggle room if the diplomatic offensive goes nowhere (as everyone expects).

There is some reason to think that this attack may have been orchestrated by those in the Pakistani agencies who are opposed to the ongoing war against the Taliban so as to divert attention and to end the effort which their government is half-heartedly pursuing under intense American pressure. This report shows how early efforts are being made at a rapproachment between the Army and the Taliban in the name of fighting the common enemy India. The GoI might be calculating that a military attack on Pakistan will be playing right into their hands. Even if that is so, the question is whether not playing into their hands entails any real benefit to us. The benefits of such restraint are clearly becoming less and less tangible as the cost mounts.

Despite the scale of these attacks and the affront to the Indian state (as The Hindu called it), India's day of reckoning has not arrived. That means more attacks, more killings and more destruction........all in the near future. Till our leadership accords security the primacy it presently requires and summons the courage to take daring and bold action, blood and gore will remain an integral part of front page reporting.And if not acted upon quickly, the very idea of India, as Chidambaram called it, will soon come to evoke ridicule and contempt, not pride.

Post-terror editorial

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/28/stories/2008112854791000.htm

In a rare departure from tradition, N.Ram shares the grief of the victims of the terrorist attack. I have shown repeatedly in the past how the post-terror editorial followed a similar pattern. N.Ram justified Islamic jihad through the standard phrases:
- discimination against minorities
- babri masjid demolition (this one never ends)
- hindu intolerance
- rss/bjp (any and everything wrong in india can be traced to this)
- pakistan's good intentions
- congress' good governance

The editorial never had any valid recommendation to counter terrorism. How can N.Ram come up with anything valuable when his analysis(sic) is rigidly biased. In this editorial too, he says more policemen and intelligence would do. Empowering them is not an option and no more tough measures required. How can you take this guy seriously?

This terror attack has destroyed the "mumbai resilience". Now the anger is palpable. What incident will trigger a smilar change in N.Ram? Afterall, a "secular" tag and a fully loaded gun could not help Karkare save his own life. And N.Ram is no more immune than him.

Just as the political establishment failed to inspire confidence, the media outlets have failed to trigger any intelligent debate on the issue of tackling terror. I was watching the coverage on NDTV today. It was about joining and not breaking up the nation. The discussion about improving relations with Pakistan never seemed to end. Friendly ties with Pakistan took precedence over terrorism. N.Ram toed a similar line in the past too. I would blame the media as much as the political class for misleading the public.

Some foriegn media outlet has written about the elephant in the drawing room. Very soon, you may expect the Indian media to follow suit. But Chindu will be very frugal with the truth. I doubt if it will even make it to the print edition. So I am posting the excerpts here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200811282241.htm

"When faced with fundamentalist demands, India's democratically elected leaders have regularly preferred caving to confrontation on a point of principle. The country's institutions and culture have abetted a widespread sense of Muslim separateness from the national mainstream," the Wall Street Journal said in a stinging commentary.

"The country's anti-terrorism effort is reactive and episodic rather than proactive and sustained. Its public discourse on Islam oscillates between crude, anti-Muslim bigotry and mindless sympathy for largely unjustified Muslim grievance-mongering. Its failure to either charm or cow its Islamist-friendly neighbours -- Pakistan and Bangladesh -- reveals a limited grasp of statecraft," the Journal said.

on taking office in 2004, one of the first acts of the ruling Congress Party was to scrap a federal antiterrorism law that strengthened witness protection and enhanced police powers.

The Congress, it says, has stalled state-level legislation in Gujarat, which is ruled by the opposition BJP. And it was a Congress government that kowtowed to fundamentalist pressure and made India the first country to ban Mumbai-born Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" in 1988.

It is now time to call the WSJ a communalist, hindu fundamentalist, fascist, saffron outfit.

terrorists end the "hindu terror" drama

the terror attack on mumbai is tragic and the killing of policemen is very unfortunate. but the "hindu terror" drama on the tv news channels seems to have come to an end, atleast for the moment. the tragic death of ats chief, karkare has evoked reactions. he was leading the wild goose chase in the sadhvi pragya case. some thought he received swift justice. the poor guy paid a heavy price for looking in the wrong places. the secular media began the coverage of the attacks and karkare's death with an eye on forthcoming elections. rss and bjp became the prime suspects. the gravity of the situation seems to have caught up finally. the usual rhetoric about "mumbai resilience", "terror has no religion", etc. is also missing.