IN A written reply to Najma Heptulla – who once enjoyed typical Indian fringe benefits due to her kinship with a politician of Gandhi-Nehru-era – Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, has managed to hog the limelight. She did this by ending a prolonged period as a virtual non-entity, after denial of a meatier post prompted her to cross the floor. Always a national level politician with no roots, she has latched on to the regionalism-nationalism debate in Parliament.

 

In a written reply to the ‘elite’ member of Rajya Sabha, the septuagenarian home minister Shivraj Patil, who is currently a non-entity in his home state Maharashtra, informed her, “No anti-migrant drive has been started by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS of Raj Thackeray) against the workers of UP and Bihar…!” While the minister said during the debate that it was not true that all Maharashtrians had come out on the streets, he admitted in writing, “However... 336 offences were registered and 1575 persons were arrested for substantive offences, in addition to preventive action against 5159 persons, in respect of various incidents that took place in February, 2008!” Well, that is the way the democratic business is carried out in the Parliament!

 

Another compulsive defector, Sharad Yadav, who currently leads an outfit called Janata Dal-United or JD(U), came to Heptulla’s rescue and accused Patil of lying. He slammed the government for not being stern enough in dealing against someone “who is not even worthy of being the leader of municipality.” Not daring to name the his target, Yadav said, “He should have been arrested the first day.” The Mumbai-based MP representing UP and a typical Samajwadi Party (SP) politician noted for a multi-crore-show scam, Abu Azmi, also joined the debate. In fact it was he who had started the controversy for his masters’ political gain and brought misery to ordinary mumbaiyas (North Indian settled in Mumbai).

 

Former Lok Sabha Speaker and Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi changed the tone of the discussion by coming in with a counterpoint to all the pro-migrant votaries and the backers of the ‘sons of the soil’ argument – from parties such as Shiv Sena, BJP, SP, Congress and JD(U) – who spoke before him. There was a vertical division in the opinions of MPs, transcending party affiliations, often in conflict with own party colleagues. Joshi said that anti-migrant feelings were not confined to Maharashtra alone but were to be seen in many states. He asked Patil to spell out his views on giving priority to locals in job and whether the home minister loved his state or not.

 

Only last week, his party’s executive president, Uddhav Thackeray, had responded to a question as to what Shiv Sena’s stand was on his cousin Raj Thackeray’ demand that 80 per cent of jobs in private sector in Maharashtra should go to locals. He said, “Maharashtrians share an unbreakable bond with Shiv Sena and they know what issues we take up and what we stand for… Shiv Sena has always been fighting for giving preference to Maharashtrian locals in jobs, whether it is five star hotels or Air India and those who have got the jobs know that it is due to the fear of Sena that they have got it.”

 

The home minister, predictably, refused to be drawn into the question and cleverly parried it with, “We should be careful that our utterances do not create a divide!” But in response to Joshi’s repeated taunts about Maharashtrian pride, he maintained, “I am proud to be an Indian and I think Maharashtra is in India. Maharashtra is part of India and I am not going to separate Maharashtra from India.”

 

While this cunning non-answer drew cheers from members of the ruling side belonging to other states, Maharashtrian Congressmen were visibly uncomfortable. After all, they are expected to go back and face their electorate, after seemingly betraying their ‘asmita’!

 

Amid all this farce, (SP) member and Big B’s better half Jaya Bachchan, who has all along been a ‘sleeping beauty’ in Parliament, made desperate attempts to make her point. But, chairperson Hamid Ansari told the glamourous MP that there was a set procedure that she had to follow. Alleging that they were not getting a fair deal, the SP members noisily trooped out, following her. Incidentally, Ansari had humbled the former vice-president of the Bombay Pradesh Congress Committee and long-time deputy chairperson of RS to become chairperson.

 

Shivraj Patil’s foxy obfuscation did not at all address the subject that is fashionable with the ‘intellectuals and elite’ of India nowadays. But, the media put words into his mouth, observing, via headlines, as if he expressed that national pride was above all feelings. For one thing, the home minister did not say anything resembling that. Far from it, Patil admitted that the union government has no business to dictate to the state government under what sections of the Indian Penal Code action should be taken.

 

On closer scrutiny, the concept of ranking regional pride at a lower stratum than the so-called national pride appears to be fundamentally flawed. The theme of the nation being worshipped, loved and valued more than one’s own life could produce popular novels or movies. But, will any rational being do that when that happens to harm the lives of his near and dear ones? It would be foolish to expect any sensible person to willingly let his/her parents, children, family, clan, neighbourhood, local community and region be crushed for the sake upholding national honour. By nature, whenever there is a conflict, “Near is dear”. That is, the feeling that is nearest to the individual’s own soul that will be dear to him/her. Hence, saying that “national pride is above all feelings”, whether or not the wily Maharashtrian politician said that, is just a lot of hot air in the age of globalisation and worldwide web. If that was true, must ‘Asian pride’ rank above ‘national pride’ or must ‘Banares pride’ rank below ‘UP pride’?

 

Even within, say, Maharashtra, Kolhapurkars or Nashikkars have a pride that is distinct from Marathas. If jingoists demand the dissolution of that local feeling, saying that Maratha feeling is above everything, Maratha pride will be nowhere!

 

Nationalism, according to sociologists, is a post-Napoleonic construct. In case of South Asia, the concept of India as a nation-state came only after colonisation by the British. Even the hazy idea of a Hindoostan had taken shape only after the Mughal conquest; notably, it did not cover the entire Deccan and south of the Vindhyas. And, Kashmir had always retained its individual identity, free from occupation by any outside ruler except Ranjit Singh briefly. If one goes back to the early axial age, the Aryans had a concept of Aryavarta, limited to the Gangetic valley. In contrast, the hundreds of regional identities have existed since ages. Any attempt to subjugate regional pride by the fleeting concept of ‘national feeling’ will lead to unnecessary conflicts that benefit only parasites.

 

Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency among the opinion leaders in India to dub regional pride and aspirations as an anti-national trend. It is elitist to condemn them as ‘parochialism’.