Firstly, the author does not quote any rhyme or reason why the natives vs. migrants argument should be eliminated. Why should it be eliminated? What are the implications of eliminating this argument? Has he given any thought to what sort of an argument this is, in reality? I refuse to use the world locals; the word natives is a more accurate representation because these people are the original inhabitants of the states - like the Red Indians of America. Trying to eliminate the Red Indians vs. Europeans argument is nothing but legalizing imperialism and the use of force and governmental machinery to eliminate human diversity. Yes, it has been legalized and the United States of America is now erected. Yes, the Red Indians have been sent to their graves together with their cries for justice. But is that license for the same crime to be repeated in India? Should India be built on the graves of nearly a billion native Indians who live in their own states, graves which resonate with muted cries for justice, liberty and equality?
Please note that I am not against the admixture of the different peoples of India at a cultural level - in celebration of the spirit of Tagore's societies. In fact, such admixture is beneficial to all. What I am against is the entry into these matters of the Indian Nation with its skewed political and commercial interests and the consequent harm done to the native inhabitants of India's states. It is when the wrongly defined Indian Nation enters the scene that organic evolution turns into forced juxtaposition, cooperation and harmony into non-cooperation and hatred. I have argued earlier that the very concept of Nation need not be ulterior; we at Banavasi Balaga dream of a truly federal Indian Nation where life and liberty are upheld in all participating states. The Indian Nation need not be wrongly defined.
The political and commercial interests of the Indian Nation today are skewed for three reasons: (1) because the Indian constitution itself accords a higher status to the speakers of Hindi and languages close to Hindi, and (2) because the central government is not truly federal in nature, and (3) because of rampant corruption in politicians who operate from the Indian parliament - politicians from both the Hindi states and the non-Hindi states. No system of politics or commerce has the right to dislodge the native inhabitants of a state or snatch away their right to life and liberty, to education and employment. Yet, Indian politics and commerce today have been granted the right to indulge in this crime. Biharis being paid handsomely by the the Govt. of Bihar to migrate to Bengaluru the night before the interview to obtain jobs in the Railways is not the mating dance of two well-meaning societies intending to develop ideals in cooperation with one another! It is a perfect example of the greedy Nation goading neighbouring societies in greed of material wealth (in the case of India, the goading is internal and the greed is of a sub-nation, that's all)! This is not right or ethical from any established definition of right and ethical.
Secondly, it is utter disregard for the interests of the masses, together with a flawed idea of India which drives people like Mr. Raghavan to prioritize the unreasonable whims and fancies of migrants over the rights of natives. Why should political and commercial systems be built which prioritize the unreasonable whims and fancies of migrants over natives? Who said only migrants are real Indians? Who said natives are Indians of a lesser God? In reality, these migrants - who form a trivial percentage and who must form a trivial percentage in non-barbarian, non-nomadic countries - are the fringe, and the native inhabitants of India's states are the non-fringe or the core.
While people like Mr. Raghavan feel they're contributing to India's unity by dancing to the whims and fancies of migrants at the cost of the rights of the natives (possibly because of being migrants themselves), they are in reality only aiding to the disintegration of India and unknowingly becoming signatories to the very crime committed by Europeans in the USA about two to three centuries ago. They are unknowingly becoming party to the crime of forced juxtaposition and endangering the process of organic evolution. The way to unite India is not by legalizing ethnic crime. The way to unite India is not to position migrants as children of a greater God and natives as children of a lesser God.
Again, I am not against migration in general. There is nothing wrong in migration which is free from systemic/political/constitutional encouragement or the sanction of a polluted Nation (to use Tagore's terminology), where the interacting groups themselves uphold or reject whatever is perceived as worth upholding or rejecting - even in the realm of commerce (Tagore wouldn't license commerce like me here, though). However, what I am completely opposed to is the use of governmental machinery to accelerate the forced juxtaposition of one people on another. I am against the use of governmental machinery to legalize the upholding of the whims and fancies of migrants over the rights of natives. Anyone thinking with a clean mind ought to be against it, too. After all, India is not just its trivial migrant population. Systems of governance, education and employment which are detrimental to the natives and beneficial to migrants are not worth building.
Natives aren't any less Indian. Nor are migrants any more Indian. However, a flawed idea of India and disregard for the native masses and the diversity therein can turn anybody into a non-Indian, even anti-Indian.
|Note: I will post a follow-up article on Mr. Raghavan's statements about the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike (I believe this is what he means, not Kannada Rakshana Vedike as referred to by him) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and his two "solutions" for eliminating the natives vs. migrants argument - an argument which I have shown should not be eliminated at all. Stay tuned.|