Posts
In a recent
article
in Business Standard, columnist Mihir Sharma has expressed concerns
over growing ‘parochial attitudes’ in major Indian cities like
Mumbai. What is surprising in the article is, the author considering
India’s diversity as a barrier, and the author’s definition of
parochialism in this regard. The author questions -
Why is it that so many of India’s cities, which could be locations for the dissolution of the many barriers that divide us, instead replicate and strengthen them?
What are these barriers that the
author is talking about? It is evident that he is referring to
linguistic, cultural, ethnic, religious, regional, and many other
differences. But are they really barriers?
The world is naturally
pluralistic and several diverse peoples, have co-existed for several
millennia. So, when does diversity become a barrier or even appear as
one? When one wants to force juxtaposition of different peoples, does
diversity appear like a barrier. But then, diversity is only
natural. The topic of forced
juxtaposition has been discussed previously in Karnatique. There
is no “natural antipathy” between any two given culturally or
linguistically different groups, and when there is need for
interfacing between the two they organically evolve methods of mutual
cooperation. But forced juxtaposition is what creates unease and
friction.
Major cities of today’s India are
laboratories of forced juxtaposition. In the past when people moved
to a region that was culturally or linguistically different they
would integrate into the host society, first by picking up the
language of the land. In fact, even to this day, many developed
nations, such as those of the European Union encourage migrants to
learn the local language as a policy. Unfortunately, independent
India has dumped this policy of multilingualism. With English
available as a language of administration and official communication
across all states of India, and with the gradual promotion of Hindi
as a pan-India language, the natives and migrants are expected to use
these two languages for mutual interfacing, with special emphasis on Hindi. Any talk of encouraging the native languages is immediately
condemned as chauvinistic or parochial.
Massive migration to major cities
has resulted in forced juxtaposition, and a policy of mono-lingualism
and the attitude of condemning anything native as parochial have been
detrimental to any possibility of integration.
While calling Mumbai as parochial,
Mihir Sharma also adds that Delhi is free of the ‘poisonous’
natives-vs-migrants politics. But this is not a coincidence or not
an unusually tolerant character of the city.
The promotion of Hindi use through
administration and legislation by the Union Government of India, as a
pan-India language, coupled with little encouragement to
multilingualism, has worked in favour of Delhi, which is part of the
Hindi heartland. Migrants, whether they are from UP and Bihar, or
from the non-Hindi states eventually learn the vehicular language of
Delhi and integrate.
The same kind of integration is
absent in Mumbai or Bengaluru. State patronage to Hindi means that
the natives are expected to speak to migrants in Hindi, and the
migrants shall never be expected to learn the native tongue. This
attitude is considered liberal, and any attempts to protect the
linguistic rights of the natives are immediately condemned as
parochial or chauvinistic by voices of the Delhi establishment.
Referring to the ‘parochial
politics’ of Mumbai, Mihir Sharma says that this model if
replicated across the Indian Union, “would doom the emergence of
more liberal, inclusive and prosperous India”. But the chauvinistic
and patronizing attitude of the Union is the root of all language
chauvinism, which the Delhi establishment has hardly acknowledged.
The columnist also accuses the state
and its politicians for the lack of improvement or development in
Mumbai. He says:
It has become ever more subservient to the state that it nominally rules. No state government or politician can afford to let Mumbai improve; as it stands, it is too powerful a source of funds and power. Mantralaya’s restrictions and regulations strangle the city and its amenities, but are exactly what the state’s politicians need.
The state of Maharashtra is the top
contributor to the Union Government’s revenues, with direct
taxes from Maharashtra alone amounting to a whopping Rs. 40 lac
crore a year. The city of Mumbai contributes a major chunk of this
revenue but only a fraction of this revenue makes its way back to
Maharashtra, let alone Mumbai. Much of these funds are used to fund
the special packages for other states and the centrally sponsored
schemes. Why not return a major chunk of the revenue to the state or
even let the state collect and manage the revenue all by itself? It
is not the state of Maharashtra and its politicians that are holding
back development in Mumbai, but it is the Union Government by taking
away the city’s and the state’s major chunk of revenue.
The author advocates decentralization to the urban bodies, but keeps mum on the
much bigger need to decentralize from the Union to the states.
Consider the subjects that the
states and the Union have jurisdiction over. There are about sixty
six subjects on the state list, whereas the concurrent and the union
list together number a hundred and forty seven. The states do share
the concurrent list with the Union but the ruling of the Union can
override the legislation or orders of the state in those subjects.
So, in effect, the Union holds jurisdiction over more than twice the
number of subjects that the states do.
Frequent
meddling with the state subjects by the Union Government through
centrally sponsored schemes further impinges on the powers of the
states. Considering the many diverse linguistic and ethnic groups
across India, such over-centralization of power at New Delhi robs
them off democratic empowerment. Hence the Union Government should be
a much thinner entity retaining only the portfolios of common
interests like external affairs and defence, and devolve the rest to
the states. Why is the columnist who calls Aam Admi Party’s “idea
of radical decentralization” as a “real political innovation”
silent on the devolution of powers to the states?
The Union should devolve as many
subjects as possible to the states, and should retain the ones like
foreign affairs and defence. The states shall decide on devolution of
powers to municipal bodies. As each state is different, the
devolution model shall be different. There cannot be a single model
of devolution of power from states to municipal bodies across India.
