By Garga Chatterjee
`Cosmopolitans`™ of the Indian Union were united in their righteous anger when the news broke that the Maharashtra government had decided to make knowledge of Marathi language a pre-condition for applying for new auto-rickshaw licenses. People who will never ride an auto-rickshaw in Mumbai, people who will always converse with auto-rickshaw drivers in Hindi when in Delhi and people who never raise any eyebrow with the rule that Central government job applications can be made in Hindi but not in Marathi, have now pounced upon this, waving the banner of `cosmopolitanism`™.
Maharashtra`™s Transport Minister and Shiv Sena MLA Diwakar Raote has announced that from 1st November, permits for new auto rickshaws will only be given to those who can speak Marathi. In the capital of the linguistic state of Maharashtra, where, for centuries, Marathi-speakers have graciously hosted outsiders, Marathi speakers cannot be made into second-class citizens. The stipulation of Marathi knowledge is not on an ethnic basis. We can`™t forget the second condition that Raote announced, which is, licenses will only be given to applicants who have been living in that particular locality for the past 15 years. It is only natural that outsiders who come to another people`™s homeland will indulge in cultural give and take and create their own niche. That has been Mumbai`™s story. However, that does not mean that a Marathi-speaker will be made pariah in his own homeland by outsiders who refuse to indulge in cultural exchange but still would want to benefit from Maharashtra`™s economy. Mumbai attracts Tamil speakers, Hindi speakers, Bhojpuri speakers, Bangla speakers, Gujarati speakers and many, many others who want to build their careers and homes there. The stipulation simply underlines the right of a Marathi-speaker to be serviced in Marathi in Maharashtra and his Marathi words to be comprehensible to the person providing the service. The words `in Maharashtra`™ are very important here.
There are elite special interests groups who want to underline the `special nature`™ of Mumbai. By talking about the `special nature`™, what they really want to do is to create some sort of a separation between Mumbai and Maharashtra. These are the types whose ideological and genetic ancestors tried to separate Mumbai from Maharashtra during the formation of the Maharashtra state. The mass struggle of the Marathi people destroyed that conspiracy by a few. However, since then, the defeated elites have tried every nasty trick in the book to carve out their Bombay out of Maharashtra, if not territorially, then economically and culturally. When the Marathis have protested these moves, they have been called `parochial`™. If it is parochialism to protest one`™s becoming a second-class citizen in one`™s ethno-linguistic homeland, then so be it. And the people have spoken, time after time. `Bombay`™ doesnt win the BMC elections. Mumbai does.
Beyond hand wringing by urban elites who are as comfortable in Mumbai, Delhi or Bengaluru, has there been any major protest by those on whose behalf this local-hating charade in the name of cosmopolitanism is being done? Have Bhojpuri people (themselves a victim of Hindi imposition and assimilation) taken out processions saying that they don`™t know Marathi and refuse to know it in Maharashtra? Mumbai has been built on the hard labour of locals and the poor/ lower-middle class migrants who assimilate well into the rich cultural milieu of Maharashtra. Almost all of them slowly come to learn Marathi. However, this is not the group who laments the `passing away`™ of Bombay. The non-local face of Mumbai are part of the elite `only Indian`™ gang who dominate the Mumbai story as beamed elsewhere by being articulate in English and being connected to similar such `only Indian`™ types in other metros, especially Delhi. By stressing on the identity of being a Bombayite as opposed to being a Maharashtrian (a resident of Maharashtra, which all residents of Mumbai are), they undervalue the legacy of the Samyukta Maharastra Andolan. Those shot down in 1960 by Congress Chief Minister Morarji Desai`™s police at today`™s Hutatma Chowk were proud Maharashtrians and not `only Indian`™ cosmopolitan Bombayites. Mumbai must be a rare place where rich parasites look at hosts with such contempt. Ashis Nandy says that all great cities have multiple names. Those who insist on Bombay have a certain politics. Those who insist on Mumbai also have a certain politics but at least they have the numbers. What does Bombay have, when you take away English language education, Bollywood and the rich? The `I prefer to call it Bombay`™ crowd gets their comeuppance only where their false-representation game is replaced by numerical representation contests at the BMC elections. As I said earlier, here Mumbai rules. The contempt of Bombay for Mumbai gets a regular reality check.
It is clear to any observer that this auto permit declaration and its opposition and embedded in politics. The declaration wants to underline the right of Marathi language in its homeland while the opposition wants to be able to play in any ethno-linguistic homeland by their own rules. From the latter group, now ideas of `smart city`™ and `city government`™ spring out, which are nothing but renewed attempts to detach the city from those of the hinterland on whose toil such `cosmopolitan`™ cities are built – here and everywhere. This sentiment of wanting to detach from the hinterland, from the host culture, is a common characteristic of the `cosmopolitan`™ class who in their South-Asian avatar are deeply alienated from anything that is not Anglo-Hindi. Which is why this class never says that `cosmopolitanism`™ is in danger, when a city like Delhi, which also hosts many people from many parts of the Indian Union, do not complain at the near complete dominance of Hindi at most levels, from auto-rickshaws to public services. The rootless elite always want an excuse to act parasitically when hosted by the sons and daughters of the soil. The nature reaction to this parasitism and the contempt that this class has for the people of the soil triggers certain resentments, which is utilized by some to create a politics of violent jingoism. In that cowardly politics of violent jingoism, the non-local working class becomes a soft target. Maharashtra deserves nothing less than an inclusive pro-Maharashtra politics, bereft of anti-Muslim, anti-Dravidian, labour-union busting strains of goondaism. One must remember the old Marmik slogan `” `Khicho na kaman, na talwar nikalo/ Jab tope ho muqabil to akhbar nikalo`™. Maharashtra`™s future is best secured by Maharashtrian youth and not by the descendants of Krishna Desai`™s murderers who want to attach themselves to the club of elite Indian babalogs privately and by dressing up as 17th century caricatures publicly.
Who is likely to be affected by this new auto rickshaw permit rule? It is a person who either has come to Maharashtra very recently or has lived in an urban area of Maharashtra for 15 years and has not learned Marathi in those 15 years. The Maharashtra government`™s primary responsibility is to Maharashtrians, including migrants who have settled for a longtime and only secondarily to non-Maharashtrians and recently arrived outsiders. Hence, it has laid down guidelines that put those people first who are Maharashtrians or have been there for a long time (and hence are Maharashtrians, which is not an ethnic category). In standing up for the Marathi speaker, Maharashtra government has done in Maharashtra, albeit in a very small way, what the Government of India has been doing for Hindi speakers by imposing Hindi on citizens of the Indian Union in a much wider range of things. But there is a difference. Maharashtra and many other states were created on a linguistic basis. The Indian Union was not.
Well said. Such a good well written article. Thank you for effort to present the anguish of Maharashtrians.