I was spending my time in the doldrums
I was caught in the cauldron of hate
I felt persecuted and paralyzed
I thought that everything else would just wait
While you are wasting your time on your enemies
Engulfed in a fever of spite
Beyond your tunnel vision reality fades
Like shadows into the night
To martyr yourself to caution
Is not going to help at all
Because there'll be no safety in numbers
When the Right One walks out of the door
Can you see your eyes blighted by darkness?
Is it true you beat your fists on the floor?
Stuck in a world of isolation
While ivy grows over the door
So I open my door to my enemies
And I ask could we wipe the slate clean
But they tell me to please go fuck myself
You know you just can't win
-- Lost For Words, Pink Floyd
Maybe we should give Raj Thackeray what he wants - his Maharashtra - ethnically cleansed, double-distilled maharshtrian gene pool, gift wrapped.
The Honorable Supreme Court today turned down a PIL against Mr. Thackeray, but took notice of the fact that the activities of the MNS are unconstitutional and "balkanization" of the country will not be tolerated.
I like the term "balkanization". It defines to the tee, what India has been for centuries now - split into a zillion little fragments, barely getting along and looking for the slightest of excuses to go at each others jugular. "Unity in diversity" is a pathetic shroud invented in a tearing hurry, as the British left the country, leaving our internal divisions naked for the world to see.
Coming back to the point, lets throw Maharshtra out of India, seal our borders, put heavy duties on trade, ask all North, South and East Indians to leave, ensure all Marathis have valid visas for their stay in India and generally pull the plug from under Mr. Thackeray’s chair.
Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against Mr. Thackeray or the MNS. I entirely buy his "son of the soil" slogan and his solution of "beating the shit out of the outsiders" as perfectly legitimate. You would agree with me if you too had the proper historical context. Unfortunately, chances are high, you have been spoon fed more number of times than you would care, that we are a 5000 year old country, we have a shared past, a common heritage and sundry such state sponsored propaganda.
If you cared to dig deeper, you would realize that this couldn’t be farther from the truth. India, as we know her today has always been a loose federation of independent states, owing only a certain degree of political allegiance to the centre, which fluctuated with the strength of the ruler. Only some history's most extraordinary emporers - Chandragupta Maurya, Ashok and Akbar - were able to truly unify the entire geographic landmass from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and carve out what we define as a nation in the modern sense. Combined, this is probably a few hundred years of nationhood. For all of the remaining 4500 years we have been mistrusting, hating, plotting, attacking, killing and looting each other.
Our shared socio-cultural past is splintered and ambiguous. I am never sure whether to consider the likes of Maharana Pratap and Shivaji as national heroes or state rebels. When I look at the Taj or at Humayun's tomb, I feel a certain pride in the 300 years of Mughal rule. But a certain section of our country would want me to feel angered by 300 years of Muslim domination. When I hear of Tipu Sultan's bravery against the British, I am not sure if I should give any credit to the stories of his forceful conversion of Hindus into Muslims.
The more you think about it, the more you realize that India was Balkanized since time immemorial. True, we have to our credit, eons of mutual coexistence, cultural and social intermingling and the true distillation of what was superior in all cultures, races and peoples. But at the same time we have always been very aware of our individual ethnicity and religious and socio-cultural distinctiveness, and taken great efforts to preserve and hand it down through the generations.
The India that we know today, in essence and form, is an India carved out by the British, designed to be run by British. The British success was more due to a psychological, rather than a political or military victory. They reduced the natives into second class citizens in their own land, and made them feel united in their own misery. And from this common misery arose the first truly nationalistic feelings, directed at a common oppressor.
1947 brought a transfer of power. It would seem, prima facie, that Indians (and Pakistanis) took control of their destinies. But that’s just a facade. The politicians and bureaucrats on both sides of the border, who took charge, where more British than Indian. And so, this British designed political engine, continued to be manned by British trained pilots.
The only reason we chose to remain united is probably not patriotism and brotherhood, it’s probably not the goose bumps that the national anthem gives you, nor the pride of seeing the tricolor flying high. It is greed and necessity, and also beyond a certain point, apathy to issues larger than our own selves. We are Indians not because we really want to be, but rather because the British made us so.
If Mr. Thackeray and his ethnic cleaning squad want to reassert, what has historically been their prerogative - to prevent outsiders from taking root - please, let’s oblige him. But Mr. Thackeray, and since we are speaking on the subject, Mr. Banerjee, Mr. Sharma, Mr. Mishra, and other such enlightened representatives of their states, must realize that their British honeymoon is over.
Like their forefathers, they would be obligated to maintain their own armies, constantly wage wars on the borders, and pay exorbitant annual taxes to whoever sat in Delhi. They would also have to rely solely on local resources and talents for all industrial and economic development. If they were hit by an occasional drought, it would be too bad for the farmers, since there would be no aid coming from Delhi, or no water released from the rivers upstream. Resources such as electricity, minerals, petroleum and food become several times more expensive, since they would have to be imported from neighboring foreign countries like India. Revenue resources of the state would become one-tenth or less since economic development would slow down, foreign investment would be negligible and there would be no central aid.
But all of this I guess, is a small price to pay for true nationalism (read Maratha-ism) and the goodwill of the masses. Mr. Thackeray’s 'sons of the soil’ I am sure, would readily undergo these and more such sacrifices for the privilege of being the sole taxi-drivers of Mumbai, or the sole constructions workers in the IT Parks of Pune. The question of course is, will there be taxis plying the streets of Mumbai, or IT parks being built in Pune at all, in such a scenario?
