For those who are listening to Raj Thakarey and Bal Thakarey's continuous condemnation of "North Indians"and their calls for throwing them out from Maharashtra and yet are not vehemently opposing them... a poem:
"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
His poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
The Nazis were extremely proud of the history of Germany - it's historical power, it's economic strength and cultural base in history. Nazi philosophy attributed much greatness to the "Vaterland" or the Fatherland. They claimed that certain "outsiders" were ruining their culture. They managed to create a popular base with this proto nationalist frenzy and win elections. Many of them also threatened non Nazis into submission and claimed that there would be "retaliation" if people did not adhere to their philosophy.
Please check and think for a moment if the word Nazi above can be replaced by Shiv Sainik and the word Germany replaced by Maharashtra.
The Nazis could not be stopped by mere good intentions, by paying them off or by ignoring them. If one were to check the history of the Nazi party, one will find many industrialists and businessmen, Jews and non Jews, the wealthy and the powerful who thought that paying off Nazi leaders would keep their families safe. Others thought that they were so entrenched in the economy that the Nazi party would not be able to touch them. History shows us otherwise.
While this message adds to the flurry of words and good intentions, one must also realize that words may not be enough.
7 comments:
Important to recognize the facist train of thought from the Thackreys ... But you know what ? ... There are literate and affluent people who support the ideology.
Pisses me off to no end ... Why live in a country if you want to limit its citizens from moving around .... so damn stupid.
I agree with your stand against such extremists! But although the point of only Marathis have right to Mumbai/Maharashtra is a BS, the problem of adverse immigration cannot be overlooked under the clause of 'Right to Move'.
Secondly, if you are suggesting that an absolute power is a satanic idealogy and will lead to societal catastrophe then I do not agree.Every developed society has developed only under such a concentrated authority: Be it US, UK, or Pre WW2 Germany. In fact Germany's progress had peaked under Hitler's rule.
The important point to be understood in the anti-north indian rage here is "where does it originate from?" and is this agony justifiable?
Since you had pointed out Nazism as an analogy let me use that here. I condemn war and any kind of mass killing. But if German Jews hadn't supported Germany in world war 1, then is the german hatred (post world war 1) for Jews really non-understandable? Then how come we Indians understand our hatred towards Pakistan? We believe they (pakistanis) are sworn to our destruction (overlooking what we do to them by sending our spies like Sarabjit Singh, Kashmir Singh et al).
My 2 cents:
Our immediate society and community binds with our Individual indentity very intimately; national bonding exist only at a very high level. And this is true for any society.
So if you see that you immediate community is being adversely affected, it is only natural to be enraged.
If you see that the land where you have grown up and savor with all your zeal is being ruined owing to a huge exodus of unskilled labor from impoverish parts of the country and thus altering the existing cultural fabric and economic conditions not for good but for bad. E.g. travel in mumbai by the rickshaws, 2nd class bogie in train. It is dominated by the illiterate unemployed/unskilled laborers from the North. You can see the lack of discipline/culture in their societal behavior to an appalling extent. And the population of these immigrants keeps increasing wihtout any improvement in their employment or economic status quo. Doesn't such adverse immigration affect the prosperity, cultural as well as economic, of any place?
Bottom line:
I do feel that the frustration over immigrantion of unskilled laborers is right and much warranted. But it needs to be handled in much better way than instigating masses on regional bias!
" t is dominated by the illiterate unemployed/unskilled laborers from the North. You can see the lack of discipline/culture in their societal behavior to an appalling extent. "
As compared to the austere, debonair and suave behavior of the unskilled and unemployed labourers from other parts of the country ?
What region of the country a labourer comes from is not the source of the problem ... the source of the problem is the belief that someone elses shit stinks a lot worse than my own.
Shit stinks period. The intelligent way to fix this would be to realize that localized progress is bad for any country ... generating hatered of regional stereptypes is not a solution. Glad we agree on that.
It is the line of reasoning that perturbs me ... rich and very affluent north Indians living in mumbai don't cause us problems. Infact most educated, affluent and socially well behaved people dont. So lets just ban all poor uneducated louts from Mumbai ... only the rich and well behaved are fit to live here.
That line of thought is just as unreasonable as the differentiation based on language.
@cheezewhizzkid: you said
"most educated, affluent and socially well behaved people dont. So lets just ban all poor uneducated louts from Mumbai ... only the rich and well behaved are fit to live here. "
well....I definitely did not insinuate a class division.
Let me explain:
The lack of discipline is not a problem; it is expected in the unskilled, uneducated, unemployed, poor people. It is the appalling extent of this behavior that bothers!!! And yes we need to take measures to control the population of such errants: local or immigrants.
For e.g look up any significant crime story (theft, murder, molestation etc) in mumbai. The gang is dominated by the people. Now isn't this going to frustrate you?
I reiterate here that the measures against this has to be more progressive than a creating a social rift.
the source of frustration is valid and understandable. The current measures by the politicians need to be corrected.
I am responding here to the first comment by Vrroom. Your response is certainly elaborately thought out and constructed.
There are some minor issues with your argument which I would like to discuss.
I agree with your statement that Mumbai or any city does not belong only to the locals. Cities belong to everybody. Cities in countries belong to all people in that country. In fact thinking amongst contemporary social urbanists is that when we call out “global cities” (Saskia Sassen only called out London, New York and Tokyo as true global cities) they should belong to people of all countries and no longer even to the people of that country.
If that were the case that only locals should be allowed in cities, it would fundamentally violate what constitutes a modern city. A modern city is an amalgamation of various people from various places. It is melting pots of culture. There DO exist cities which are fairly homogenous but they tend to be much smaller in size and population and of much lesser national and international importance. The more the importance of the city, the greater the influx of people from all places. And it works the other way around as well - the more the influx of people from other places, the greater a city becomes usually. The wheel spins full circle. Mumbai is not a city which has grown to greatness in homogeneous isolation. To try and force the city to become homogenous is therefore against the spirit and good of the city – something the Thakareys seem to care little about.
If we believe in the country of India, then ALL citizens, bar none, regardless of caste, creed, gender, education, literacy, religion and place of birth have the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to live in any part of the country they chose. It is that choice that makes India a great democracy.
Once we have established that, we have to ask the question – do the uneducated and illiterate workers serve a purpose? Do they serve the city and the citizens of the city by their presence? Studies show that in a place like India, they serve great purpose. They offer services which can range from the transport of goods and people to cooking and many other services, which a city like Mumbai NEEDS. There is a large informal economy which operates in Indian cities. They are necessary for the running of the city. (whether they offer high end service or low quality service is not the question)
Why are the workers uneducated and illiterate? Are the Thakarey’s offering any solution outside communal strife to solving that problem? They do not seem to want to take it upon themselves to better people in other parts of the country. In fact, they do not even seem to consider other parts of the country and subsequently the people from them, theirs. Their speeches and campaigns get more virulent and rabid. The fact is that the content and insinuations of the speeches by Raj Thakarey are wildly unconstitutional.
Giving the speeches is not unconstitutional – it adheres to the right to free speech. In others words, he appears to chose when he wishes to use the constitution to his benefit and when he doesn’t want to adhere to it Unfortunately if one were to know Mumbai one would know that the influence of the Thakareys is not confined to words. If the Thakarey’s do not wish to allow people (educated or not) to have the undeniable fundamental right to live in whatever part of the country they chose (as per the constitution) and do not look at others parts of the country as their own, there are two words which come to mind which can be used to define their actions – treason and secession.
One of the key reasons why certain people in the country are uneducated and illiterate and have to move to other parts of the country is unequal distribution of wealth. Why don’t the Thakarey’s (since they claim to be men concerned with the welfare of the people) allocate a portion of their very significant wealth to the parts of the country which do not have it. That will go a long way in preventing urban migration. The same can be said of a lot of wealthy citizens of India.
On other issues – I said nothing of absolutism being Satanic. There is no devil worship or Christian fundamentalism involved here. I am against absolutism, because I believe in democracy. Democracy is messy. That is its nature.
I strongly object to the idea the countries developed under absolutism regimes. If anything people suffered more than usual under them. I do not know when the US or UK had absolutist regimes last? Perhaps you are referring to the monarchy? The Magna Carta was signed in England in the 13th century – one of the earliest countries to move away from the absolutist models. I can think of other countries in Europe which did not break way from absolutist models and what happened to them – The French Revolution (lots of bloodshed), the Spanish Revolution (lots of bloodshed), World War II (lots of bloodshed – Germany being absolutist) And what of the periods before that? Historically the people suffered the most under absolutist regimes.
Only China and Cuba come to mind as modern absolutist governments. China’s economy has taken off only after great relaxation of those absolutist rules. And Cuba? I have certainly met several Cubans who have all independently spoken of the suffering of Cuban people.
As for German Jews and the world wars, I think you will find that anti Semitism much older and much deeper rooted than that. Your argument seems to propose that the Jews were to blame for what happened to them. What a terrible thing to say!
If you followed my main post, part of the intent was to show that it wasn’t just the Jews who were segregated and who suffered. Many people from many communities this. Hatred is not stopped at religious or communal boundaries.
And as for “our” hatred towards Pakistan, please speak for yourself. I harbor no such hatred. India and Pakistan have had deep differences, leading to espionage and full scale war on a few occasions. It would better for both countries to try and resolve them. If there is hatred, it is not a good thing. It is time to get past it.
When you speak of the land that people grow up in and our love for it – What defines the edges of this love? - The state boundaries created post independence? Perhaps unlike some, my love for soil and tolerance for uneducated and illiterate workers does not stop at state boundaries. Maharashtra has as many indigenous illiterate, uneducated, unskilled (and even uncultured) workers as any state or part of the country. Why tolerate them and not others?
I disagree when one says that “their” employment or status quo does not increase. Who is “their?” Who is “them?” What defines a “North Indian?” Where is this psychological Mason-Dixon line that some people are drawing? As individuals progress, their lot in life is improved. Unfortunately in a country like India, there is no shortage of poor people. Thus, as the condition of some people improves, others migrate to take their place.
Your whole argument is summed up in the word you use again and again – immigration. The word immigration when used in common parlance usually refers to he process of going to another country, not moving to another part of your own country. (I suspect what you mean is ‘migration’) Perhaps some people do not look at other parts of India as their own?
Post a Comment