What’s wrong with Mumbai? A city known for its cosmopolitan culture has become a victim of parochial, divisive identity politics. Is Raj Thackeray right in his violent objections to having ‘outsiders’ take up jobs and make a living in the city? Should it be compulsory to have an understanding of Marathi to live in Mumbai?
Author and editor Shobhaa De fields these questions on Devil’s Advocate and is clear about one thing – while what Raj Thackeray stands for isn’t wrong, it’s how he says it is a problem too politically-incorrect for comfort.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. After a week of violence and mass arrest, everyone’s asking a crucial question: What’s happened to Mumbai? That’s the issue I should raise with renowned author and editor Shobhaa De.
Shobhaa, millions and millions of Indians symbolise the cosmopolitan, broad-mindedness, the excellence and success of Mumbai. And yet today the city seems associated with Raj Thackeray’s attacks on Biharis because he thinks they are outsiders; with Bachchans because they speak Hindi; with shopkeepers because their signboards are not in Marathi – How do you respond to this?
Shobhaa De: With enormous sadness but also with a great amount of introspection. Because what’s happening in Mumbai is, in a great way, symbolic of change within the city and in the psyche of the people. Being a Maharashtrian myself, it’s distressing to see what the general audience – internationally and locally – make of this. I think we haven’t analysed enough as to why this is happening and why Raj is being portrayed as the monster.
Karan Thapar: I want to come to the analyses but let’s talk about Bombay itself – or Mumbai as it should be called. Today, when people come from outside Maharashtra to live in Mumbai, do they have as much a claim on the city as Maharashtrians or is it Maharashtrians first and everyone afterwards?
Shobhaa De: In fact it’s quite to the contrary – it’s Maharashtrians’ last and everyone else’s first. I don’t blame the ‘everybody else’ and I don’t look at them as outsiders. I think Maharashtrians need to do a great deal of inward thinking and inward looking to figure out for themselves as to why the city’s complexion has changed the way it has and why it has been hijacked – in their minds – by outsiders who are laying claim to it.
Karan Thapar: You’re saying two very interesting things – it’s been hijacked in their minds and that today Mumbai is every one else’s first and Maharashtrians’ last. Are Maharashtrians being discriminated against?
Shobhaa De: I would, to some extent, agree that they are being discriminated against in terms of job applications like the Railways – we saw last week what happened there – because Maharashtrian himself/herself has not perhaps fought for their rightful position within the state or the city. I say that with a great amount of compassion, not just for Maharashtrians but a system that seems to not recognise the dreams and ideals of the locals.
Karan Thapar: Before I come to why they haven’t fought for their rights, you are really seriously saying that today in Mumbai – the capital of Maharashtra – Maharashtrains are getting a raw deal?
Shobhaa De: I am definitely saying Maharashtrians get a raw deal which does not mean that I, in any way, support violence or endorse what Raj Thackeray stands for. What I am saying is that the raw deal has a lot to do with the Maharashtrian way of asserting or not asserting themselves.
Karan Thapar: They are not assertive enough?
Shobhaa De: They are not assertive enough.
Karan Thapar: They are too laid back?
Shobhaa De: They are too laid back and also there’s a certain intellectual arrogance which means Maharashtrians will not do the kind of jobs like dhobis (washermen), darbans (attendants), bhel-puri waala (street-food shop owner), taxi driver – which they consider, may be, a little demeaning and beneath themselves. But there are articulate, intelligent, educated Maharashtrians who are also not getting a shot at jobs. I can really understand their peeve too.
Karan Thapar: You are saying that because they are laid back and perhaps a little indignant in their attitude and also because – as you said – they are arrogant and won’t do certain jobs they consider demeaning – for both those reason they are losing out in their capital to people who come from elsewhere.
Shobhaa De: Definitely. And they are not as hungry and as aggressive in moving out of their Capital or their state.
Karan Thapar: So they lack a certain ambition as well?
Shobhaa De: It’s the lack of that killer instinct. They can go to Bihar and look for jobs, they can go to Punjab or West Bengal to look for jobs. Why do farmers in Maharashtra starve and not farmers in other states?
Karan Thapar: So you are saying something very interesting. You say strip Raj Thackeray of the violence associated with his cause – which you don’t support – and the underlined reasons that have motivated him are the reasons you do not just understand but feel a great sympathy for.
Shobhaa De: I can understand what he is trying to tap into. I can understand what he is exploiting. I can understand the reason why he is succeeding to the extent that he is because he may have tapped into something very real in an average Maharashtrian – some of whom may articulate it, others may not.
Karan Thapar: So you’re saying it’s real frustration turning into anger and he is expressing and reflecting it.
Shobhaa De: Or may be also leveraging it to gain political brownie points for himself, which any politician would do.
Karan Thapar: Let’s come to the two big issues he has taken up in – as some would say – exaggerated way while some would say in a focussed way. First, the people who live in Mumbai should speak Marathi. Do you agree with that?
Shobhaa De: Well, if you go to West Bengal, Karan, do you hear anything but Bengali being spoken? Does anyone mind? You go to Karnataka, do you hear anything but Kannada being spoken? If you go to Tamil Nadu, do you hear anything but Tamil being spoken? So in that sense, may be a disconnect is happening in Mumbai. People think Mumbai belongs to all of India and therefore not parochially bound.
Karan Thapar: They are forgetting it’s a Maharashtrian city?
Shobhaa De: In a way, yes. Also, it’s a Maharashtrian city, people who choose to live there should learn and speak Marathi. If I were to make West Bengal my home, I jolly well learn Bengali. If I choose to live in Punjab, I should learn to speak in Punjabi. All the signages, all over India, happen to be in two languages, sometimes in three. You go anywhere in India, the signages are in local script. Why is it that Mumbai is being picked on for insisting on both signages – Devnagiri, which is also Marathi, and English.
Karan Thapar: Except in an interview that he gave you, Raj Thackeray said earlier this month that Ratan Tata is an exception to this. He said, ‘Tata belongs to India and it’s not confining’. Why then exempt Tata and not the poor UP-Bihari taxi drivers or the poor Punjabi guard? Isn’t there a sense of discrimination?
Shobhaa De: There is. I think he talked himself into a bit of a corner by making that statement because, of course, Ratan Tata – like Sachin Tendulkar – is a national icon belonging to the country.
Karan Thapar: But he’s lived all his life in Mumbai. Mumbai is where his headquarters are, the centre of Tata sons. If anyone should speak Marathi, Ratan Tata should be the one.
Shobhaa De: I completely agree, and we don’t even know if he can or cannot. According to Raj, it doesn’t matter.
Karan Thapar: He’s given an exemption to Ratan Tata – that is wrong.
Shobhaa De: I definitely think that Raj was being political when he answered that question. At the same time, Ratan Tata chose Gujarat over Maharashtra to move the Nano. So are we doing something very wrong there or does Ratan Tata speak Gujarati?
Karan Thapar: So Ratan Tata, because he live in Mumbai, should have brought the Nano to Maharashtra rather than take it to Gujarat, or for that matter take it to Bengal in the first place?
Shobhaa De: No, I wouldn’t look at it quite that way. I wouldn’t go that far.
Karan Thapar: Another issue that Raj Thackeray has raised in a big way is that Grade 3 and Grade 4 jobs – particularly because they don’t require specific education qualifications – should be given to local people of Maharashtra rather than finding recruits from other states. Do you agree with that?
Shobhaa De: I agree with that. Because very state seems to follow that policy and issues are raised. It seems to be just Maharashtra where the last people to get those jobs seem to be Maharashtrians.
Karan Thapar: Tata Institute of Social Sciences points out that between 75 to 90 per cent jobs in organised industry in Maharashtra are held by Maharashtrians. In fact, in the important construction industry, where you have the single largest component of daily wage labour, the figure is as high as 65 per cent. So facts suggest that Raj Thackeray’s concerns are not borne out.
Shobhaa De: But if you go to any construction site, chances are people on those sites – I passed five myself on way to the interview – there’s not a single Maharashtrian in sight.
Karan Thapar: Isn’t that a false impression? Facts suggest 80 to 90 per cent jobs are held by Marathis. You may not notice them.
Shobhaa De: You don’t hear Marathi in Mumbai anymore. You just don’t hear it. You try and ask for directions – stop anyone on the road – and chances are they’ll say we have no idea because we’ve come from UP or Bihar or wherever. Where are the Maharashtrians? Have they been pushed out?
Karan Thapar: So this, in a sense, irks Maharashtrians – the fact that in their capital you don’t hear Marathi, that UP-ites, Biharis and Punjabis seem to dominate irritates them.
Shobhaa De: I would definitely say so because the educated may think it politically incorrect to state as much but the feeling lingers. It is there. There are enough voices of course, who believe we live in a democracy and there should be complete and total freedom of movement and in seeking jobs.
Karan Thapar: But not to the extent of dominate Maharashtrians in Maharashtra.
Shobhaa De: And pushing them out of their own capital.
Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you what Raj Thackeray said in March to mark the anniversary of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. ‘A Bihari who tries to humiliate a Marathi will get a tight slap. A breakfast, lunch and dinner’. You concur with that?
Shobhaa De: That’s political rhetoric that appeals to the lowest common denominator. I would think that he has managed to say the unthinkable and the unspeakable.
Karan Thapar: Was it necessary to say?
Shobhaa De: When you have slogans written all over the walls in Mumbai saying, ‘UP hamari hai, ab Maharashtra ki baari hai’ (UP is ours, now for Maharahtra), I would love to know if Maharashtrians were to go to UP and write Maharashtra is ours, UP is next , how would the response be? Would the politicians be passive? Would they think of it as a little in-joke they are playing with locals or would they feel somehow offended and threatened. I think what was a great challenge. It was said to provoke and it did provoke.
Karan Thapar: But you’re also saying something else. You are saying it needed to be said. It needed to be said because it expressed in a sharp way something that Maharashtrians wanted to hear and wanted to hear badly.
Shobhaa De: Certain segments of Maharashtrians, yes. Maharashtrian intellectuals, I am afraid, have been silenced, which I cannot understand.
Karan Thapar: They’ve been more than silent. Maharashtra academics circulated a statement shortly after this statement of Raj Thackeray and said, ‘We would like to place on record that Raj Thackeray does not speak for all Maharashtrians, he certainly does not speak for us’. Let me ask you bluntly, does Raj Thackeray speak for Shobhaa De?
Shobhaa De: Definitely not. But the point is that he has the right to say what he has and we have the right to challenge, protest and to show our complete disdain if we choose to. Why has it not happened? Why have these intellectuals suddenly gone into a diplomatic, guarded and safe response? It could have been a much stronger response. Where is it?
Karan Thapar: It was a strong response. When I asked you if he speaks for you, you said definitely not, yet right through this interview you have sympathised with him, you said there was a need to say those things he said and that a large number of Maharashtrians agree with the issues he is raising.
Shobhaa De: The point is not if I endorse what he is saying. It is for the English-speaking elite to have him express himself the way he chose to so that he could be heard. Because all this while, it was he speaking in Marathi at sabhas and the English press getting the version of it. Right now, we’ve heard him the way he says it.
Karan Thapar: And it’s important that he be heard?
Shobhaa De: It is important that everyone in a democracy be heard.
Karan Thapar: But in Maharashtra, the section he represents, it’s important that the voice be heard?
Shobhaa De: By non-Marathi-speaking people, yes. So that they can form their judgments on what he has actually said and I think I provided him with a very fair platform and I drew him out in way it needed to be.
Karan Thapar: Shobhaa De, people will be surprised by the fact that you seem sympathetic towards the issue Raj Thackeray is raising. Are you representative of Maharashtra’s intellectual?
Shobhaa De: First of all I must say I am sympathetic to the people of Maharashtra and Mumbai, not to Raj Thackeray personally because I am not his advocate or defence counsel.
What shocks me, hurts me and what I am really astonished by is that Maharashtian intellectuals, our thought leaders who were at the forefront of the Independence movement – where are their voices? Are they bound by conspiracy of silence? Are they scared? Or are they just making the mewing, non-committal protest that really don’t count.
Where are the Vijay Tendulkars? I want to see protests, I want to see street plays, I want to see literature, I was to see Maharahtrian journalism raising its voice and saying we don’t agree with this. But that’s not happening.
Karan Thapar: May be they do agree with him, like you are sympathetic with them.
Shobhaa De: Well in that case, have the courage to put yourself in the line and say so. Don’t hide behind a smokescreen of being politically correct and yet pretending to protest.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying that intellectuals either support Raj Thackeray or oppose him but don’t stay silent.
Shobhaa De: I am saying speak up, whatever your point of view is. You agree or you don’t, it’s not Raj Thackeray who’s the issue, it’s the pride of Maharashtra that’s at stake.
Karan Thapar: Let’s broaden our discussion and talk about Bombay itself. Two months ago, Shabana Azmi said in this programme that she and Javed Akhtar couldn’t buy a house in Mumbai because no one would sell it to them as they were Muslims. Does that surprise you?
Shobhaa De: It astonished me but by the same argument if I were to go to a predominantly Muslim locality in Mumbai and book a flat for myself, I am equally sure I won’t get it, which just goes to show there is a polarisation in the city and we shouldn’t kid ourselves about it. It’s there.
Karan Thapar: Mumbai is getting divided – as you suggest – into areas for Muslims, areas for other communities, and there’s a certain intolerance for each other.
Shobhaa De: I think everything pretty much changed for the worse after the blasts and to restore the city to its original cosmopolitan colour, it’s going to take a lot more than political meddling which is what we are experiencing and political manipulations which the city is at the receiving end of.
Karan Thapar: The Hindu suggests that the divisions that have emerged out of this intolerance may be even worse in Mumbai. The paper says, ‘People are rejected not just if they are Muslim, but even if they eat meat. There are entire areas in Mumbai where restaurants serving meat cannot operate’. Are Maharashtrians divided by even small things as what people eat?
Shobhaa De: I don’t think it’s about Maharashtrians, it’s about the Jain community which is very large in Mumbai. If there’s a building society, they have their own rules. By that logic we must challenge every club for its rules of membership. So if a Jain society decides they only want vegetarians, they have a right to do that.
Karan Thapar: Isn’t that cutting the very roots of cosmopolitanism, the broad-mindedness that Mumbai represents?
Shobhaa De: It’s happening across the board, not just Mumbai but we like to make Mumbai a prime example of this ghettoisation of our minds. It’s a question of identity, a question of stepped-up regionalism. It’s happening everywhere but Mumbai seems to attract a lot of media attention on the account of this. It’s happening because the question of identity, deep down, is what is troubling all of us as Indians.
Karan Thapar: When we looked at Mumbai from outside the city what we saw was this image of cosmopolitan avant garde modern India. What we thought was going to be our New York. Now Mumbai has become like the rest of India and in fact it is now more and more like Patna rather than New York.
Shobhaa De: Patna! I strongly object to that! But yes, it has become part of the old mythology that Mumbai is this cosmopolitan, electrifying city like New York. We are still very electrifying and energetic which is why we seem to get families from all over India, who come here and never want to leave, which is part of the problem of Mumbai to begin with.
Karan Thapar: But still attracting people who see Mumbai as this city where sky is the limit and where you can fulfil your dreams.
Shobhaa De: It is true.
Karan Thapar: But there is also the other reality where there is increasing intolerance. There are pockets in the city which have anti-Muslim prejudice. So Mumbai is internally divided and still remains the city of dreams. It’s two contradictions that exist side by side.
Shobhaa De: In a way they always have. It is just part of the popular imagination that we imagined or loved to think of Mumbai that is distinct from the rest of India. It never was. And that has come into sharp focus. But where are these avant garde people? Why aren’t they raising their voices if they find the change in Mumbai that disturbing?
Karan Thapar: Maybe they have become a minority.
Shobhaa De: Or it is a conspiracy of silence that is binding everybody. And when someone does speak up he is dubbed communal.
Karan Thapar: Are there two cities in one city – a Mumbai and Bombay?
Shobhaa De: I think there are several cities in this city and the Mumbai-Bombay divide is also something that has always existed except that we didn’t identify it as much earlier. Today, it is so polarised that we cannot shut our eyes to it and pretend.
Karan Thapar: Is Mumbai winning over Bombay?
Shobhaa De: As of now I would say my money is on Mumbai, whether it is a good or bad thing is not upto me to judge or say. But it is Mumbai and it seems to be the way of the future.
Karan Thapar: Shobha De, a Bombayite or a Mumbaikar?
Shobhaa De: I am an Indian.
Karan Thapar: You are ducking the question.
Shobhaa De: No, I am Indian, first and last.
Karan Thapar: A pleasure talking to you on Devil’s Advocate.
Shobhaa De: Thank you.
