THE EVENTS of the past few days in Maharashtra do not bode well for the unity of this country. It may be too early yet to call it a move towards balkanisation of the country but the warning signs cannot be ignored either. If people from one part of the country cannot live and work in another part of the country then, it fundamentally trashes the very basis of ‘one country, one people’.

One can understand the obvious economic reasons for resenting so called outsiders from entering into what is perceived as the job market for the locals. But where does one draw the line? If for some reason the economic situation in one pocket of Maharashtra worsens and people migrate to neighbouring areas in search of jobs, would the locals of that place be justified in launching a hate campaign against them or asking for their removal? Today, it is the people from outside the state against whom this campaign of Maharashtra for Maharashtrians is being directed but conceivably it can, given certain circumstances, also extend to one region of Maharashtra denying people from other regions of the state taking advantage of its economic opportunities!

Preferential employment in government jobs for local residents is already an accepted fact in most states. But exclusion altogether of job opportunities for those coming from outside the state is a dangerous and fissiparous concept. At the most basic level, economic performance of Maharashtra and its wealth is not entirely indigenous; either in terms of raw materials, resources, or human capital. If all outsiders were to be excluded from Maharashtra, it would drain off most of its prosperity also.

 

In this day and age when people are going to far corners of the world to earn their living, and also incidentally contributing to economies of their host countries, a movement to exclude non-Maharashtrians to work in Maharashtra would be, in the long run, a self inflicting blow; apart from being repugnant to the idea of nationhood.

One may, with reservation, grudgingly accept this shortsighted movement as just a political gimmick, a measure of garnering support amongst gullible people who can’t see beyond their immediate financial advantage but why is it countenanced by men and women in authority? Surely, they can see the pernicious fall out of such thinking. Quite apart from fracturing the Indian polity, the hate and violence scorched people who have had to flee the state can easily provide a cause for widespread conflagration. And we have seen time and again that in today’s world even an individual, angry and sufficiently motivated, has the capacity to unleash dreadful violence. There is an urgent necessity, therefore to forestall gaining of an impression that the state has no will to move against those who spread hate vibes and give encouragement to those who seek ouster of non-Maharashtrians from Maharashtra. Such a move, demonstrable in its effect, is sorely needed to curb further damage to the Indian polity and Maharashtra in particular.

As the film ‘Chak De India’ shows, anyone who thinks of the pride of a state above that of the country should at no cost be encouraged. There is a need for the state to show its firm hand before the movement gets out of hand and causes widespread irremediable damage.