Tyranny of the fringe

The tyranny of the fringe might appear for the present a minor distraction, even an irritation. An irritation that one endures, like a traffic jam or something similar. The number of such instances, however, ought to be worrisome.

If the MNS in Maharashtra, and similar groups elsewhere including Karnataka, are allowed to draw the line for cultural compliance, the danger for civic society from these groups would be real in the long run.

Take the case of the MNS insisting that a film director apologise merely for using the word Bombay in a film. That this was done for pretty narrow electoral considerations (actually not narrow at all for the party concerned) is besides the point. That the director concerned complied is also besides the point.

Fringe groups like the MNS have made a habit of making such outrageous demands which, even if no collateral consideration is involved, amount to emotional extortion. For such groups violence comes pretty easily. Violence that is used in a calculated manner to inflict as little physical damage as possible but a fairly disproportionate psychological impact.

These fringe groups have attacked unsuspecting candidates appearing for pre-recruitment tests in Bombay and in Bangalore raising the bogey of ‘locals vs migrants’. Immediately after such instances, the state does file cases but rarely does anything to instill the fear of the law. So, such fringe groups actually enlarge and multiply in the course of time because fighting for the cause of the locals is profitable even though, in most cases, it does not pay electoral dividends.

‘The local vs the migrant’ is an issue that often afflicts large metros with highly mixed populations. Bombay has had to deal with this issue since the 1970s and Bangalore in the last decade or so, though, in the southern metro, the issue has always had a linguistic undertone as well. The perceived denial of opportunities to locals gives such groups the ability to survive even in the face of an extremely dismissive  attitude from other citizens.
While it may be impossible to completely eliminate such fringe groups, the issue of locals vs non-locals can be dealt with in two ways. One, by strictly going by the book.

The Constitution confers on every individual a fundamental right to seek work and live anywhere he or she pleases in this country. Authorities in the state can certainly assert this right on behalf of citizens and deal with groups like MNS pretty firmly. They do not, because the political overtone of such organisations puts the rest of the organisations on the defensive, and that too because there are votes to be won or lost.

The BJP in Maharashtra will partner the Shiv Sena and accept all its known policies including restricting non-locals in Mumbai through a system of permits to live and work. But the very same BJP in Karnataka will raise a hue and cry over denial of economic opportunities to Kannadigas who have made Mumbai their home. Likewise, the Kannada Rakshana Vedike will prevent Biharis from writing an entrance test in Bangalore, but espouse the cause of migrant workers in Goa.

The constitutional guarantees, therefore, work only at the legal level of enforcing fundamental rights, but do not provide emotional comfort for those who move to cities that offer economic opportunities and better living standards.

The other way of dealing with this probably is to seriously examine a suggestion articulated once in a while — to declare such economic centres independent of the state government both from a state revenue and geographic point. If Mumbai and Bangalore, for instance, were to be treated as metro-states, then the question of locals vs non-locals would die a natural death.

Neither Maharashtrians nor Kannadigas would be able to claim ownership over Mumbai and Bangalore, and that would mean having to give up the plank of preference for them; everyone would have to compete on the same terms for opportunities.

It is not easy to do this since the state governments have a whole range of interests in such economic islands. Both Maharashtra and Karnataka benefit a great deal in terms of tax revenues with Mumbai and Bangalore as part of the state. These states would certainly oppose conferring an independent status to these cities within the union.

There ought to be a way out of such considerations. They probably can continue to serve as capitals of the state and even have a revenue-sharing model if necessary. If they become city-states or whatever name or classification one can think of, the metros would benefit too in terms of governance and management of civic infrastructure.

A Hong Kong or a Singapore may be an extreme example and the political context may be completely different there. It is still a worthwhile idea to chase so that cities that are made economic engines of the country by migrants in search of a dream are not held hostage by an archaic idea of emotional ownership.