Governments
are duty bound to give equal protection to a migrant from any state as
they do to someone born there.
My father migrated to Bombay from Tamil Nadu in 1922 to earn a living.
We are Kannadigas. Yet my father ensured that his family learnt fluent
Marathi. My brother participated in the Samyukta Maharashtra movement
to keep Bombay in Maharashtra.
The Shiv Sena soon began expelling Kannadigas (especially Udupi
restaurant owners and people like us) and Malayalees, to retain jobs
for Maharashtrians. After the Shiv Sena recognised that such hostility
would not win elections, they morphed into a very pro-Hindu and
anti-Muslim party.
The present agitation against migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is
similar. Marathi speakers alone did not make Bombay the commercial
capital of India. The mass of Parsees, Gujaratis, Bohris, Khojas,
Mangaloreans, Tamils, Kannadigas, Malayalees, Sindhis and many others,
did. Even Marathi speakers are migrants to Bombay. The original
inhabitants are East Indians. So who is a real local: a Maharashtrian
whose mother tongue is Marathi, an inhabitant of Maharashtra, speakers
of Marathi (like my father’s family), owners of property there,
or those with Marathi speaking spouses? And what about Deshasthas who
claim to be Marathi speaking, but a mixture of Tamil, Kannada and
Marathi?
In 1955, the States Reorganisation Commission had to sort out Bombay
and Bangalore. Neither had majority Marathi or Kannada speaking
population. Bombay was the commercial capital of India. Ultimately,
because of political agitation, Y B Chavan gave Bombay to Maharashtra.
The Commission could not also conceive of giving Bangalore to Andhra,
though there were more Telugu speaking in Bangalore. It went to
Karnataka; instead Hindupur went to Andhra.
Our Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to any Indian, and the
right to visit and reside anywhere (unless there are military
restrictions as in Kashmir or parts of the North East). This migration
is widespread. State governments are duty bound to give equal
protection to a migrant from any Indian state to another, as to someone
born there. Migration has altered the linguistic composition of many
cities. Delhi is today mostly a Punjabi-speaking city. Bangalore after
the IT boom is even less of a Kannada speaking city. Much of property
is owned by non-Kannadigas.
In rural Punjab and Haryana, migrants from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
provide much needed farm labour as local youth avoid farming. They even
import brides from Kerala and elsewhere because of the shortage of
females due to female foeticide and infanticide. Bangalore has seen
some agitation against migrants. But many migrants to Punjab and
Haryana have been beaten, even killed. Neither the state nor central
governments have taken any action.
Yet no state (unlike Moscow and other cities), has tried to introduce
permits for internal migrants. Indeed we have also not prevented
illegal migration of unknown millions, mostly Bangladeshi Muslims. They
have changed the linguistic and communal profile of Assam and added
large Bengali speaking and Muslim voting blocks in Delhi and other
major cities. Poor governance in many states, and political compromises
encourage such violations of the Constitution.
Linguistic chauvinism is everywhere. Belgium has been on the verge of
breaking up because of conflict between French, Dutch and German
speaking populations. Pakistan has wars between the ruling Punjabi
elites and Sindhis, Pashtoons, etc. The massacre of the Bengali
speaking population of East Bengal, primarily on ground of linguistic
differences, resulted in Bangladesh. The United States is poised for
similar conflicts as Spanish speaking immigrants begin to dominate
large parts of the country.
Our political parties, their leadership and governments must protect
freedom of movement and residence and punish violations. The Congress
party and the Left, do not do so, for electoral gains and fear of
electoral consequences. Bala Saheb Thackeray goes scot free despite
violent statements against linguistic and communal minorities. His
nephew, Raj Thackeray attacks Biharis to build his base in Marathi
chauvinism.
West Bengal and the central government failed to protect Taslima
Nasreen in Kolkata despite her valid visa. Maharashtra has not punished
perpetrators of violence against Bihari migrants. Punjab or Haryana
have not acted firmly against violence on migrant Bihari and Oriya
labour. Assam has not protected non-Assamese from violence by Assamese
speakers. These governments thus subvert the Constitution.
In the west, French school children are forbidden from displaying
outward symbols of religion: The hijab, turban, kirpan, a cross, etc.
In Britain there is a tightening of English language requirements. In
the US, there are similar tougher language and other requirements.
Electronic media escalates the situation by repetitive pictures of
violence and agitation. The tension spreads to other parts of India.
Given its power, none dare criticise the media when they indulge in
such provocative reporting.
We must also think how we can ensure assimilation of internal migrants.
In an open and free society as provided by our Constitution, immigrants
(whether from other states or outside India) must voluntarily conform
to local cultural norms, learn the local language and understand local
customs, if they are to avoid provocation of locals.
Leaders of India’s internal migrant communities should help their
migrants and especially children in this, before it becomes mandatory.
http://www.deccanherald.com/CONTENT/Jun62008/editpage2008060571908.asp
