In his last video address, Thackeray appealed to the Sainiks to “take care” of his anointed heirs—son Uddhav and grandson Aditya—once he exited the scene. It was a pitiable sight: the patriarch, who once held his audience in thrall with his vitriolic oratory, now appeared to be frail and exhausted as he gasped for breath while he searched for the right words. The critics had therefore concluded that he was well and truly a spent force.
But by the time the funeral ended, the critics began to sing a different tune. The presence of lakhs of people, as well as that of political leaders from several parties, corporate heads and leading film stars, they acknowledged, contained a message about Thackeray’s enduring appeal, which had thus far eluded them. It related partly to his great capacity to strike bonds of friendship even with his rivals in the spheres of politics, the media, sports and cinema. He castigated them in the most acerbic terms in his public speeches, but in private, treated them with much warmth and courtesy.
Partly, too, the critics argued, Thackeray’s candour—a marked penchant to always call a spade a bloody shovel—set him apart from politicians who can rarely, if ever, mean what they say or say what they mean. The Sena patriarch’s forthrightness, often expressed in a language that bordered on the obscene, outraged his adversaries, embarrassed his allies and compelled his party leaders to squirm in their seats. But, the neo-converts claimed, it was music to the ears of his followers. They revelled in every sentence he uttered for, in their reckoning, Thackeray dared to articulate their very own sentiments.
The neo-converts to identity politics went on to assert that throughout his public life Thackeray exploited these insecurities with such consummate skill that an average Maharashtrian readily looked the other way when he promoted his political agenda with a brazen, often callous, disregard for constitutional niceties. They knew that the Sena patriarch’s single obsession was to instil a sense of pride in the Marathi manoos, to seek his social and economic advancement and to give him the confidence to face the dreaded “outsiders” with courage and fortitude.
It is these virtues that Thackeray’s once-strident critics extolled as they witnessed the scenes at Shivaji Park. The thought did not cross their minds that the grouses of the Maharashtrians had little to do with the malignant “outsiders”. If few of them were at the commanding heights of trade and commerce, the all-India civil services, the English media, Bollywood, PSUs, the armed forces, the academic world or even the cultural one at the pan-India level, the reasons had to be sought in their own character and attitude and in the neglect of quality education in the state.
The neo-converts couldn’t summon the nerve to admit that Maharashtrians lacked—or had failed to exhibit—the entrepreneurial skills of the Gujaratis, Marwaris, Kutchis, Jains, Sindhis and Parsis; that they didn’t venture out of their towns and cities to earn a livelihood in distant states as south Indians, Punjabis, north Indian Hindus and Muslims and the bhadralok Bengalis did with gusto; that their innately cautious, understated nature did not allow them to engage in the highly competitive market of arts and ideas.
The neo-converts to identity politics also chose to ignore two other factors. Few, if any, thought it fit to point to the terrible cost Maharashtra had to pay for Thackeray’s brand of politics: a lethal mix of regional chauvinism, communalism and rank opportunism. Its victims weren’t heard in TV studio discussions or in the columns of newspapers. Nor was another, younger breed of Maharashtrians, who are carving a niche for themselves in just about every field, ranging from food and fashion to scholarship, business, media and the arts. They don’t suffer from a sense of victimhood. It is therefore a matter of time before the newly minted admirers of Bal Thackeray—most of them “progressives”—are forced to eat their words.
That time may indeed have come much sooner than any of them would have anticipated. Even as the mammoth crowd had begun to disperse from Shivaji Park, a group of Shiv Sainiks flexed their muscles in Palghar. They forced a 21-year old woman, Shaheen Dhada, to tender an apology for a comment she had posted on her Facebook page. Her crime? She had raised questions about how and why Mumbai had shut down in the wake of Thackeray’s death—without naming him once. This perfectly innocuous comment had riled the Sainiks for, in their eyes, Shaheen, like her friend, Rini Srinivasan, who had endorsed the comment, had insulted their leader. After some reluctance, Shaheen did post an apology on her Facebook page, but that brought her no respite.
The Sainiks vandalised a hospital run by her uncle and roughed up staff and patients alike. Late that night, the police, instead of hunting for the vandals, took the two young women in custody and next morning pressed charges against them for “outraging religious feelings”. The charges were subsequently whittled down and the women were released on bail. Such was the nation-wide outcry against the conduct of both, the Sainiks and the police, that the state government was compelled to order an inquiry.
But their reputation was in tatters: the former, because they had demonstrated how they proposed to uphold the legacy of Thackeray; and the latter, for making it obvious that, faced with the wrath of the Sainiks, their spine was akin to the spine of an eel. They had shown this propensity to kowtow to the Sena time and again in the past. Not once did they seriously press charges against Thackeray for his inflammatory speeches against “Madrasis”, Muslims, Biharis and against artists, writers, film stars and journalists who had questioned his policies and tactics. Will the recent adherents of the Shiv Sena patriarch’s brand of identity politics now run for cover? This is far from certain. No long-time practitioner of a faith—religious or secular—can hope to match the zeal of a neo-convert to sap the foundations of the republic.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
the tenor of Dilip Padgaonkar's article is somewhat scornful. The maharashtrian he says has no grouse and Thackrey was barking up a non existant tree.
Forget what Thackrey said, the truth is Mumbai is a filthy little island and too many people have been crammed on top of each other. Outsiders are partly responsible but no state should have allowed the overcrowding and attendanat problems year on year.So Thackrey and the state have conspired to keep the status quo.
Incidentally inspite of the abuse it is subjected to, Mumbai still has beauty, but in this geography has helped.
Bal Thackrey's failures have amply been supported by the state government. The tiger's roar has always been amplified because the state was ineffecient or incompetent or as suggested by many, complicit, in tackling the menance.
Frankly as long as you have other twisted politicians around and I mean the sugar, education and other barons in the state, the Dawoods, the Tigers and other flora and fauna will flourish once again.
Its probably just the beginning of a new era, not the end of one.
It seems, Bombay Presidency under the British, had a problem with agriculture. It could be apparent, that Gujarat, Maharashtra, etc., developed industry, because agriculture was not widespread. Vidarbha did not have this problem, and people feel that it is an agricultural belt. There seem to be reasons why there was little rainfall, in the recent past, we don't know. It is pretty apparent, the more dry the air, the more the monsoon develops. It used to rain pretty heavily in December, in my town, some years ago.
You know, there is a certain idea of the Maharashtrian person, which I value. These people were employed in the administration, and were seen to be incorruptible. They were not seen to have the trappings of culture, but people had great respect, when they interacted with them. I mean, in Modern India, people aren't supposed to wear, a certain type of dress, and jewellery, in normal interaction, and this is perfectly o. k. These people lived simply, in Mumbai. People didn't know they existed, and then, only knew when they were aquainted, for some reason. In Mumbai today, what is an administrative personnel not supposed to be? Not corrupt. People take it for granted, that he or she, epitomises corruption. The people I referred to in the beginning, I see them a lot, even in my town, and I admire them. The sad part is, that they were not of a particular time, or even an era. You don't dress in their dress, for any time, and you don't speak or converse like them for any reason. They were dispassionate. They felt no emotion. I don't refer to any community, among the Maharashtrian people. But, they were peaceful, cherished peace, and made people around them feel some assurance. Believe me, people like such people around them, they are perhaps appreciated just being in the vicinity. I hope I was not inaapropriate, in my expression. I had a famous gentleman who was a cricketer and played for India, in the flat opposite where I stayed. I did meet him once, a very long time before. And, then I didn't meet him, when I stayed opposite his flat, at all, later in time. It didn't make me feel anything, but happy. Such people are not around in Mumbai. People feel, Marine Drive belongs to them, and some people, it doesn't occur they are on that road. It appears, today, one is a problem for the other, not because of any particular reason, but it helps, that the other person has a different idea.
Bal Thakeray always taken disadvantage of weakness of Marathi . people.From historical time Marathi people are remain narrow minded, they have no tradition of business or higher education because lack of capital.Geographical location is not favourable to them for farming,.so they naturally jealous to outsiders.Bal Thakaray incited these people that outsiders are real culprit who are prevented their progress.so they follow him blindly
2/D-61 - Just Joe King,
In India, we have different meanings for every term and meanings vary by geography too..
So, if Kashmir gets Article 370 that bans outsiders from settling it is secularism..
But if Bal Thackeray demands special treatment for Marathi Manoos, it is fascism..
If a religious place of worship in UP is abutting a 3000 year old place of worship of an older faith, it is a symbol of tolerance.
But if a religious place of worship in AP abuts a 400 year architectural icon, it is considered a "Ugly Pimple" that must be destroyed..
If Son In Law of the nation's supreme leader indulges in shady business deals, it is quickly forgotten by media..
But similar deals done by the businessperson leader of leading opposition party are forever in front pages...
The genocide of 2000 people in a western Indian state 10 years back is remembered. But the genocide of 200000 people and more in a neighbouring island, of people related to a southern indian state, just 3 years ago is not even talked about.
That is India...
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT