Weaponising linguistic pride

Weaponising linguistic pride

The assault by activists of a political party on a Thane shopkeeper for allegedly not speaking in Marathi and the ambiguous response of many politicians to the deplorable act are disconcerting. It threatens to revive a violent nativist politics that kept Mumbai, then Bombay – and Maharashtra – on tenterhooks for decades in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Some activists of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) were detained on Friday for the assault, but what was disturbing is the absence of a firm condemnation from the political class: State Home Minister Yogesh Kadam’s response to the incident was that “action will be taken” against anyone who “disrespects Marathi”. There was no mention of the men who had taken the law into their hands.

PREMIUM Experience tells us that administrative inaction, against even minor party functionaries who try to polarise by weaponising language, leads to a bigger governance crisis. (HT Photo)

Thursday’s incident is straight from the playbook of nativist politics that the Shiv Sena has deployed for decades. With elections due for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and 28 other municipal corporations in the state, no party wants to risk being seen on the wrong side of the language pride matter. Experience tells us that administrative inaction against even minor party functionaries who try to polarise by weaponising language leads to a bigger governance crisis that can damage not just the social fabric but also business and industry. And its repercussions are not always limited by geography.

Like all great cities, Mumbai was built by migrants. The city’s deep natural harbour offered economic prospects that attracted talent from across the country. Everything from business and industry to education and entertainment thrived because of this inflow of talent, which, in turn, created more opportunities, resulting in a virtuous cycle that transformed a group of fishing islands into one of the world’s great cities. The rise of provincialism in the 1960s and after, however, stunted its growth. Despite electoral marginalisation, groups that grew out of nativist politics continue to feed on it. This politics neither serves the cause of Mumbai nor Marathi. The government should not give any leeway to those who weaponise language sentiments to disturb civic order.

There are multiple takeaways from this episode. One, language is a sensitive political issue in Maharashtra, as it is in many parts of India – as evident from recent events in Karnataka. Policymaking around it must consider local sensitivities, and no language should be imposed. The Maharashtra government realised this when it faced a backlash to its move to introduce Hindi in primary classes. The resolution to the effect was quickly withdrawn just as the Opposition rallied around the subject. Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) and the MNS have spotted an opportunity to revive their electoral base over Marathi pride: the parties are holding a victory rally (together) to claim credit for forcing the government to retract the Hindi resolution. Second, language pride should not be weaponised for petty political or parochial gains for this will invariably take an anti-migrant turn, though the long-term political dividends are suspect.

Monoculturalism hurts the growth of cities. Great modern cities such as New York, London and Singapore are aspirational destinations for talent because they encourage multiculturalism. When cities turn parochial, they lose their charm and decline into mofussil places, lose out on business and industry, and fail to generate jobs. Mumbai is on the cusp of expanding its public infrastructure and reinventing itself as a global city. Political hooliganism should not be allowed to derail the journey. And elsewhere in India, Bengaluru would do well to take note.