RSS |   Samvad   |   Vital Infotech Ltd.

August     Last updated: August 12  5:00 p.m.

There can be no two opinions about it. After all that has happened since first the Maharashtra Government—in effect its joker of a Home Minister Shri Bhujbal—announced its decision to have the Shiv Sena leader arrested on the basis of certain statements he made inciting people to riot in December 1992-January 1993, there is only one thing open to Congress-NCP government: accept Bhujbal's resignation if he has offered it, or sack him, if he hasn't. He has done everything wrong: he has boosted the Shiv Sena leader's sagging image, he has put the entire city of Mumbai into a state of panic for over 10 long days, he has caused damage to industry (the Sensex went down by over a hundred points) and losses to government which had to invite additional police help from neighbouring states.

What is more he has had the impertinence to say that he will pull out state reserve police force personnel guarding Central Government installations like the nuclear complex and the airport if the Union Government did not concede the State's demand for additional companies of security forces in case they were necessary to tackle law and order problems in Mumbai. In other words this man is willing to risk the nation's security in order to pursue his vendetta against his former boss. This is an intolerable situation, and a stern view must be taken of it. Bhujbal is a disgrace— irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case, against the Shiv Sena leader.

But having said this, the further question arises: did Bhujbal take his decision to have the Shiv Sena leader arrested all on his own? Did he consult his party leader Sharad Pawar? Did he consult his own Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh? And if Shri Deshmukh agreed to his subordinate's rash action, did he, by any chance, consult his own party leader Smt Sonia Gandhi? Where does responsibility begin and where does it end? It is often said that the Shiv Sena leader has been behaving in a manner that indicates that he is a law unto himself. Can't the same thing be said of his former protege, Bhujbal? Why are Sonia Gandhi and Sharad Pawar keeping quiet? It is Sonia Gandhi's man who is Maharashtra's Chief Minister and it is Sharad Pawar's man who is the deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister. Are they law unto themselves? Do they owe anything to their respective parties? Why are the leaders of the Congress and the National Congress keeping mum? Don't they have any responsibility for the behaviour of their proteges? Bhujbal now says that he will take the matter to a higher court. He must be stopped in his tracks.

Mumbai has gone through enough uncertainties for wanting to live through another few days of panic. In any event, Bhujbal should be the last man to point an accusatory finger at the Shiv Sena leader. It was Bhujbal who said: “If the Shiv Sena chief is arrested, Mumbai will go up in flames.” This was when he was a devoted chela of his leader. It was the same man who, as Sena shakha pramukh in early 1969 who orchestrated violence in Mazagaon and the surrounding areas when the Shiv Sena leader was first put behind bars. Times certainly have changed. But the point has been raised that irrespective of the Court's decision, the fact remains that the Shiv Sena leader did incite people to rioting. It is fashionable in secular company to call the Shiv Sena ‘fascist’ and its leader a ‘feuhrer’ in the best Nazi style. It gives them a wonderful feeling of being on the right side of politics and law. “They”—meaning the Shiv Sainiks—are outlaws and “we”—meaning the secularists—are God's good children. Nazis and Fascists, of course, need to be dealt with strictly.

 But isn't it time for our secularists to ask how come Nazis and Fascists are born in Mumbai? Unlike God, the Shiv Sena and its leader are not swayambhu—self-born. They are the product of the times, even as Nazi Germany (and Hitler) and Benito Mussolini (and his Fascists) were products of their times. If there was no Treaty of Versailles that humiliated the Germans there would have been no Hitler. If Congress—yes, the very same secular Congress—had not encouraged sub-nationalism there would have been no Shiv Sena. The Congress has to accept its responsibility for nurturing the Shiv Sena during its early formative years. And just as the German industrialists sustained the Nazis during the formative years of that miserable party, Mumbai's industrialists must bear a fair share of guilt for keeping the Shiv Sena going in order to contain communist labour unions. It was not the BJP which strengthened the sinews of the Sena.

Credit for that should go entirely to the Congress. According to Vaibhav Purandare, author of The Sena Story, as the 1974 elections began to draw close “the Sena, in a sudden reversal of stand, chose to join forces with the Indira Congress” because “the Jana Sangh had opposed the Sena in the mayoral polls and the Congress, on the other hand, had endorsed its call for an agitation on the border issue”. The seeds of sub-nationalism had been watered not by the Jana Sangh but by the Congress. Writes Purandare: “As the collaboration between the Sena and Congress increased, Bal Thackeray who had earlier been scathing in his criticism of Indira Gandhi, discovered numerous qualities in her and went to the extent of saying he had tremendous faith in her leadership. When Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency on June 25, 1975 and began her rule by suppression and imprisonment, Bal Thackeray declared his complete support of her...” It suited the Congress and Mumbai's industrialists to strengthen the Shiv Sena because it fought the CPI on its own grounds—the textile mill labour. Where were our ‘secularists’ when the Shiv Sena was running amok in Mumbai's industrial belt? Now the chicken are coming home to roost.

 Why did the Shiv Sena gain strength? It did so because it played up to the fears of the Maharashtrian middle and lower-middle classes in Mumbai, who were being told that ‘outsiders’ were taking jobs from Maharashtrian mouths. The Shiv Sena did not invent itself. It is the result of the sub-nationalism that the Congress supported in the formation of linguistic states. And why did the Shiv Sena riot in 1992-93? The answer is simple: because our ‘secularists refused to see sense over the Ram Janmabhoomi issue, which could have been amicably resolved if the Muslim leadership was told to bend a little. Instead, our ‘secularists” in their deep hatred of the BJP, egged the Muslims to adopt a confrontationist attitude. And we now know with what results. If blame for the Mumbai riots of 1992-93 has to be apportioned, a fair share has to be allotted to the Congress and the ‘secular’ and highly irresponsible press. It may warm the cockles of our secular hearts to point an accusatory finger at the Sena, but may it be suggested that it would do all of us a lot of good if we all indulge in a little self-examination. And the “we” includes the Congress, the Mumbai industrialists and our ‘secular’ media.