Column

I’m not sure it is fair to make a connection, but in the run up to the first anniversary of the November 26 terror attacks on Mumbai, does it not seem a tad incredible that we should have spent so much time fighting over what are, essentially, non-issues? Sachin Tendulkar gave the country’s unity, always under supposed threat these days, a great boost with his pithy reminder that we are all Indians first and that Mumbai belongs to India. It is hard to imagine how anyone can take exception to this remark. And yet, the Shiv Sena came out all guns blaring. Sadly for them, the guns turned out to be shooting blanks.

While the party has not given up — ‘what’s so great about Sachin as a Maharashtrian’ is its latest provocative foray into foolishness — there has to be an underlying feeling that Tendulkar has had the last word for now on the Marathi manoos issue. People can be facetious and say that the Sena has been pathologically opposed to the people with the surname’ Tendulkar’, since the late great playwright Vijay Tendulkar was a common target. Or that it has never really respected Marathi icons. Bal Thackeray’s ill-considered remarks about the much respected and loved writer, the late PL Deshpande, in the 1990s saw Marathi society rising as one in outrage and Thackeray had to backtrack.

Of course there is no rule that says that even if you are in love with the idea of some regional “asmita” or the other, you cannot criticise people who belong to the same ethnic origin. For instance, in spite of being of ethnic Bengali origin, I am not a great fan of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose but am a tremendous admirer of Rabindranath Tagore. So what? But nor am I a huge believer in Bengali asmita. I feel that we should be strong enough to withstand attacks or we are not worthy of our regional parochialism. And I will, even when in the capital city of West Bengal, alternate between Kolkata and Calcutta depending on my mood. Again, so what?

This insistence on ethnic superiority surely has its limitations. It is no greater to be a Tamilian than it is to be a Gujarati — or conversely it is great to be all of them — so finally we all equal each other out. Walking too far down this road leads you slam bang into racism. How great are we if we cannot look beyond our state of origin? Frogs in a well or tadpoles in a pond? Little fish dreaming of being little fish forever?

Yes, there are issues of heritage which needs to be preserved. But this back and forth over whether Sachin is more or less Maharashtrian than Lokmanya Tilak is not helping the cause of preserving Maharashtra’s many great legacies. Yes, there are issues of historic discrimination where race or origin becomes significant. But even here, the attempt has to be to solve the problem of discrimination, not to keep harping on the origin at all possible times and in every possible context. By doing that, you trivialise the importance of the problem and focus attention away from solutions.

Sadly, the Sena’s current obsession with Marathi-ness has not helped the national
image of Maharashtra at all. Instead, it has made a laughing stock out of a state for no fault of the people of the state and it has also put the rest of the country’s back up. All Maharashtrians do not want to be part of this controversy which is becoming ridiculous and making them all look ridiculous. In fact, this also applies to people like me who, whatever the ethnic origins, are proud to be Maharashtrians. Now, we are needlessly explaining ourselves to people elsewhere.

The other question that is brought up at these times is of what to make of Maharashtrians who have emigrated to other countries. Once you open that door, the argument of pride, asmita, identity, country, love, state, origin, blows through the roof. A good time to deracinate ourselves, perhaps.