राज ठाकरे

Raj Thakre (Raj) says that Marathi people have first right on resources in Mumbai. The outsiders from UP and Bihar (Bhaiyya land) should be driven out or be given secondary preference. Let us analyze why Raj had to take such a stand and what are the implications and how rational is it to take such stand.
Let us start with a little background of Raj. Raj is nephew of extremely powerful politician from Mumbai, Mr. Balasaheb Thakre (BT). He is also referred as Hindu Hriday Samrat (Supreme ruler of the Hindu hearts). BT became a very popular leader in late 70s and early 80s in Mumbai, because of his very flamboyant and ruthless writing against and south Indian immigrants, Muslims etc. He rose to popularity in early 80s, because of his (and shiv sena’s) anti-South Indian Campaign, where he gave a slogan “Uthaao lungi bajaao pungi”. This campaign was started to counter the huge number of South Indians coming to Mumbai to take up jobs and find different business opportunities. BT was trying to safe guard Marathi population from influx of Southies. Ironically the slogan he gave was Hindi (non-Marathi). Now coming to Raj, he started his political career as a Student leader in BT’s Shivsena. Raj was president of Vidyarthi Sena. BT’s son Uddhav was made president of SS. This made Raj furious. Raj thinks/claims that Uddhav is inefficient and has not done any ground work and cannot run SS well. He showed his dissent and parted ways with SS and started his own political party called Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (Army for rebuilding Maharashtra). Most of the folks joining his political party were leaders of Vidyarthi Sena, mostly young chaps(student leaders) from various parts of Maharashtra who dream to make it big in Maharashtra’s politics.
When MNS was started there were already 4 major and well established political parties in Maharashtra, namely, NCP, INC, BJP and SS. To make a mark and gain popularity Raj had to come up with an issue which would appeal to masses and give him immense popularity. Following footsteps of his guru/uncle BT he started Anti-Bhaiyya Campaign. Bhaiyya are North Indians, especially from UP and Bihar. They normally take up all labor and blue color jobs in Mumbai and its suburbs. They normally migrate to various parts of the country (Delhi, Assam, Rajasthan, Jammu etc.) in search of livelihood, since UP and Bihar are traditionally under developed and have very less job opportunities.
Raj made a statement against the most popular icon in Indian Cinema, Amitabh Bachchan who hails from UP. AB has settled in Mumbai for more than 30 years and has been working in Indian cinema for more than 30 years. AB coincidentally shares very close ties with BT. Raj said that AB has become brand ambassador of UP and has neglected Mumbai and Maharashtra to which AB owes his success. This enraged Amar Singh (close friend of AB and big politician from UP) and he made statements against Raj. This move by Raj shot his popularity (positive popularity as well as negative) to leaps and bounds. Raj’s statements were covered by major TV channels. Suddenly a local leader from Maharashtra was known to every Indian.
Raj proposes that Marathi people should be given preference in all jobs in Mumbai and Maharashtra, and Bhaiyyas should be driven out of Mumbai. There should be a cap on number of people migrating to Mumbai. His party members and supporters carried out violent attacks against Bhaiyyas in various cities in Maharashtra. An FIR was lodged against Raj but he was not arrested by Mumbai police.

There are some fundamental questions which need to be answered before we analyze this agitation or proposal made by Raj.
Who are Marathi people? : One who speaks Marathi is Marathi Manoos (man).
Who are outsiders? : Those folks who are not domicile/citizen of Maharashtra are outsiders.

Using the above two statements I have a question, if at all we reserve some job quota for Marathi manoos in Mumbai/Maharashtra, would we consider a Marathi speaking person from Bhaiyya land as a Marathi manoos? Would we consider a Bhaiyya born and brought up in Mumbai/Maharashtra as Maharashtrian?
By doing all this are we not marginalizing the society? Why is Raj claiming that Mumbai has been over crowded by Bhaiyyas, when there are millions of Gujaratis, Marathis and people from all across India? Mumbai is truly cosmopolitan City.
If we are intolerant about Bhaiyyas coming to Mumbai, would Bhaiyyas be tolerant about Marathis in Jhansi, Kanpur and Allahabad? We are unnecessary creating rift amid already marginalized society and all this for publicity and launching pad for a new budding politician?
Other implications of his violence and protests were that lot of Bhaiyya workers and laborers from Nasik, Pune and Mumbai fled back to their native places. They went back in thousands per day. This affected day to day business in these cities. The laundry business was affected, because of which my laundry man who used to get my Ironed clothes 3 times a week could deliver only once a week because of labor shortage. The factories which employed Bhaiyya workers had to cut down the productions. The construction sites having Bhaiyya laborers had to stop construction activity. Raj might have gain popularity but has certainly not gained many friends in Business fraternity for sure.
Raj also claims that Bhaiyyas are involved in Criminal activities in Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra, but my question is do we have a statistic to prove that there are more Bhaiyya criminals than other communities? No he has not produced such statistic

So is Raj’s statement/stand wrong altogether? Not really, Raj is correct to some extend. But then he is trying to solve a wrong problem. If the locals (Marathi manoos) are not able to find enough jobs/business opportunity because of large scale migration by Bhaiyyas, this also implies that Marathi man is not resourceful and hard working enough. Marathi man is not opportunistic and is not able to utilize the opportunities in Mumbai and Maharashtra.
Asking Bhaiyyas to leave is not a solution; you are going against the basic provisions of constitution of India. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and right to vote are some of the fundamental rights given by constitution of India to every citizen of India. The protest by Raj it self is illegal. Let us put aside the legality issue. But when I say he is solving the wrong problem, I mean that we should address why do these people migrate? Why can’t they find livelihood in their own state? The problem lies there, most of the industrialization happens in southern India (Tamilnadu and Karnataka) and western states of Gujarat and Maharashtra). Raj should have taken a shot at Bihar and UP governments, and questioned them why were they not trying to create jobs in their respective states. If there are enough jobs in Bhaiyya land I am sure nobody will migrate to Mumbai/Maharashtra.
If Raj thinks Mumbai is over crowded and its resources are being over utilized then he should plead to government to make a legislation against granting any new ration cards, any new building licenses and granting licenses to any new businesses in Mumbai, which is practically impossible and would have resulted in negative publicity for him.
If Raj thinks that Bhaiyyas are involved in criminal activity, he should question the home ministry of the state, which coincidently is the rival political party.
Raj has tried to gain quick and easy popularity, by raking up an issue which has no easy solution and to some extend is not a problem at all.

There are serious and grave problems which Maharashtra faces today. Maharashtra the most industrialized state, state with maximum FDI et al, is not able to provide 24 hours electricity to its people. Cities like Pune which boast of being IT hub don’t get 24 hours electricity. The roads across Maharashtra are pathetic and can bring shame to any citizens. There is lots of law and order problem, murders, loots and thefts are a common sighting in any news paper. The farmers in eastern Maharashtra are committing suicide due to bankruptcy. These are problems which need immediate attention.
Raj is focusing on a situation which is more Mumbai centric and may not appeal to masses across Maharashtra. He has support of youth who are keener on action, because of young hot blood. But as a leader he should lead this young hot blood to things which are much more constructive and can solve problems which affect the whole state. Mumbai has about 15 million people, while Maharashtra has more than 130 million people. If he wants to Rebuild Maharashtra then he needs to solve problems of Maharashtra and not Mumbai alone. He has most good qualities of a leader, like he is a good orator, he is charismatic and he is young and commands lot of youth. He needs to identify that he is potentially very powerful and should focus his resources and energies on issues which affect masses; this will not only solve problems of Maharashtra and make him a bigger leader but also reduce the rift in the society.