Insider Vs. Outsider
*Saumitra Mohan

Just when we thought that the Indian State has been consolidating its foundations and that the idea of India is slowly but surely becoming a reality, the ilks of Raj Thackeray make us believe otherwise. The petty and divisive politics of a few for their own vested interests as witnessed over the ‘Insider Vs Outsider’ debate and its subsequent aftermath including the targeting of cine star Amitabh Bachchan in Mumbai has exposed further contradictions in our nation-building process.

The debate as couched in the ‘insider vs. outsider’ cant has surfaced in all the plural societies from time to time across the world and India is definitely no exception to it. Such incidents laced with regionalist overtones as witnessed in Mumbai recently have invariably been seen in many parts of the country, often with sanguinary consequences. All the separatist and fissiparous forces resort to such ploy either in their bid to incite passion or to garner cheap popularity towards the realisation of their own narrow objectives. The gullible hoi polloi occasionally respond to such incendiary politics, often with insidious consequences.

But before we actually go on to discuss other related issues, let’s first discuss the implications of Mr. Raj Thackeray’s outpourings against north Indians including Amitabh Bachchan.

One needs to realise that Mumbai is what it is today only because of the fact that it welcomed everyone from all around and allowed them to compete and succeed on equal terms. It’s the survival of the fittest and if there was a lebensraum for outsiders in Mumbai, they accordingly occupied the space left by the not-so-efficient and effective. Mumbai’s character and culture have been developed and enriched by all the inhabitants. If one tries to interfere with the same, this cosmopolitan city would lose everything it has been known for.

Be it noted that no Mumbai or similar cosmopolitan city with cognate advantages and opportunities could be built anywhere in the country, at least, not in the way Mr. Raj Thackeray visualises. Such an enterprise presupposes the infusion and utilisation of new ideas, better know-how, entrepreneurships and hard work from the best possible sources. If all the emigrant technocrats including Indians were to withdraw from US, UK or Europe, then the economy of these cities may very well collapse. The very fact that no Mumbai could be built elsewhere in Maharashtra points to the creative contributions and hard word put in by all including the ‘so-called’ outsiders.

It’s well-documented that outsiders/emigrants/refugees are always more hard working because they have a point to prove. Their insecurity also make them put in extra effort than others. Mumbai’s success has definitely to do with its cosmopolitan character and with the fact that it gives precedence to hard work, efficiency and creativity over any parochial considerations.

If Amitabh Bachchan consented to be the brand ambassador of Uttar Pradesh, it was but natural. After all, it remains his home state and one always has and ought to have some fondness for one’s home land and as such, when he was offered to be a brand ambassador, it should have been the obvious course of action for him. After all, it’s an honour and a human being loves to be recognised. The fact also remains that Mr. Bachchan was never offered the same by the previous UP governments and it is likely that his proximity to Mr. Amar Singh and Samajwadi Party actually had the offer coming. It is believed that there was no way for him but to accept the same given the fact that Mr. Amar Singh is said to have his close friend and has stood by him in his thick and thin.

Also, there was no similar offer from any other state, definitely not from Maharashtra. Had there been many offers including one from Maharashtra and had Mr. Bachchan denied the offer and accepted only UP offer, one could have levelled the disloyalty charge, which is not the case.

Again, Mr. Bachchan deciding to contest an election from Allahabad also has to do with his friendship with the then Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. After all, there was no such offer from any political party to him nor has there been one after that. Having realised his unsuitability to politics, he immediately withdrew from the scene. However, the Constitution of India has given an Indian citizen the freedom to contest an election from any place in the country and Mr. Bachchan is entitled, like anyone else, to decide for himself. People should desist from perceiving regionalist bias in individual choices.

If people from UP and Bihar are immigrants in Mumbai and the so-called ‘outsiders’, the same goes for people from other parts of the country who are also outsiders in one or the other parts of the country. So, if people from one region are targeted in one state, the chain reaction may be seen in other states as well. And if that happens, it would be a very sad day for our fledgling nation.

One should really laud Indian political class that they have conducted themselves in very mature way in the aftermath of such expressions of regionalist jingoism in one or the other parts of the country. Thanks to the sagacity of Indian citizenry, no reactive targeting of population has been seen anywhere in the aftermath of such incidents.

Talking again about this ‘insider vs. outsider’ debate, are not a predominant majority of Indians said to have come from outside including Central and West Asia and as such are outsiders. Ethnologically speaking, it is very difficult to determine as to who is ‘indigenous’ and ‘son of the soil’, hence this whole debate being useless and futile should be immediately stopped.

Today, when we have been imploring the ‘Pravasi Bhartiya’ i.e. non-resident Indians and people of India origin (PIOs) to make investment in their country of birth/origin, how can we think otherwise in our own country? Successful people from any place are society’s role models and as such, their place of birth or origin has equal right to their patronage, if not more. If we expect NRIs/PIOs to do so, won’t they also be accused of the same disloyalty to their place of domicile as north Indians are being accused of today in Maharashtra.

The bottom-line is very simple. If this argument of ‘insider vs. outsider’ is taken to its logical conclusion, then Indians anywhere in the world should be subjected to the same fate, as north Indians are. Thankfully, people with such vision and wisdom are still in minority and shall continue to do so.

In this age of globalisation, when we are talking about open borders and a World State, such divisive politics would only take us to the moth-balled iron age of the past. Such retrograde regionalism beyond a point should not be encouraged at all. A healthy regionalism, which encourages others to compete and do better than others in a healthy spirit should, however, not be frowned upon.

It is with a view to promote national integration and to have a national outlook in government and administration that our founding father created an All India Service. Today, in every state and at every level including at the Centre, the senior officers, invariably outsiders, are supposed to administer with the help of a retinue of subordinate officers and staff members who are the local people. So, it is the constitutional framework of our body politic which envisages such a mixing of population not only with a view to have larger vision for better administration, but also with an aim to further consolidate the Indian nationhood.

The politics of hatred and intolerance as typified and symbolised in the persecution of the Jews by Hitler’s fascist Germany remains the most poignant image of such parochial politics and has been universally denounced. In fact, many Indian political parties who started their political odyssey with a divisive agenda have later realised the futility of the same and have gone on to revise the same in favour of a more inclusive politics. One hopes that Maharashtra Navnirman Manch shall be no different.

We should, however, ensure that those on the fringes of national politics are not allowed to dictate and set our political agenda. If that happens, which is what our enemies want, the idea of India shall be on the retreat. One just hopes that Indian nation shall only come out stronger of this entire debate.
*Saumitra Mohan is an IAS officer presently working as an Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly in West Bengal.
(The views expressed here are author’s personal views and do not reflect those of the Government.)
Address for correspondence:
Saumitra Mohan, IAS, Additional District Magistrate, Office of the District Magistrate, Hooghly-712101.
E-mail: saumitra_mohan@hotmail.com.
Phone: 033-26806456/26802043(O)/26802041(R).
Fax: 033-26802043.
Mobile: 91-9831388803/9434242283