Shiv Sena: Basic Divisive Ideology

 

Shiv Sena: Basic Divisive Ideology 

(Attack on Kangana Ranaut defines Shiv Sena)

                                                                                                                                       Lalit K Kaul

Sri Amitabh Bachan made his name in the world of Hindi cinema as ‘Angry Young Man’, but that is world of fantasy. Incidentally, he was not the first one to get that Khatab for, earlier to him there had emerged an ‘Angry Young Man’ in the real world who had made the transition from being a cartoonist. His name was Balasaheb Thackrey.

The Motivating Factor for Disruptive Agenda:  

A cartoonist’s transition to being a politician was motivated by his perceptions that non Bombayites are devouring the jobs of Bombayites and that Bombay was only for ‘sons of the soil’. Therefore, the ‘outsiders’ had to be thrown out of the Bombay city because that was the only way for securing jobs for the locals. Now, this kind of parochialism was definitely against the very grain of the Constitution of India, but politics transcends all that. His publicly stated ideology attracted unemployed youth into his party’s fold and combined with the problem of border dispute with Karnataka, he became a sought after public leader almost overnight.

So as per his political agenda, even while India being a union of states, the states are to be disjoint sets with boundaries marked with iron grid/ brick wall to deny/restrict interstate movement of people. The seeds of divisive politics had been sown furthering an agenda that would pit one Indian against another only to create chaos across the territories and promote disharmony between multi ethnic groups.

The Indian National Congress, the predominant political force of the time, remained a mute spectator because divisive agendas always suited it for perpetuating its rule. There could not have been the hardest slap on the very concept of so called ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’. That what is real is politics and rest is all illusory, it had been stated very profoundly.

Shiv Sena Targets:

“South Indians, or “Madrasis”, as Thackeray pejoratively called them, were the first target of his ‘sons of the soil’ rhetoric. On October 30, 1966, Thackeray gave a fiery speech at his first Dussera rally in Shivaji Park (now an annual tradition), after which incensed Sena workers pelted stones at Udupi restaurants on their way out. Such attacks were to become part of the Sena's standard repertoire.”

According to Vaibhav Purandare’s book, The Sena Story, Shiv Sainiks often “barged into various offices, gheraoed top officers, delivered physical blows to ‘lungi wallahs’ and ‘bhaiyas’ who had ‘robbed’ their jobs, attacked Udipi hotels and did their utmost to hold the ‘unjust, exploitative and discriminating’ governmental apparatus to ransom”.

In the 2000s, Biharis became a specific new target for the Shiv Sena as well as its breakaway faction, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. Members of both parties routinely inflicted violence on Mumbai residents from Bihar, particularly auto and taxi drivers and students.

It didn’t take long, however, for Thackeray to incorporate an anti-Muslim, Hindutva stance within the fold of the Sena ideology. Few riots were engineered, but unfortunately very philosophy of Hindutva was degraded by the goons nurtured by Shiv Sena. I don’t know how Hindutva philosophy can promote hatred against people of other religions.

Violence as the Instrument of Expression:     

“Violence is not an unfortunate by product of the Sena's politics. It is its essential method. As the original Angry Young Man, Thackeray extolled the virtues of thokshahi, the rule of force, as opposed to lokshahi, democracy. In place of the norms of liberal-democratic politics of discussion and debate, what drives the Sena is a doctrine of direct action fuelled by feelings of masculine, virile energy. It seeks to achieve prompt attention to its goals by short-circuiting the political process”.

“No working through the institutions, no patient building of political support would suffice in securing the rights of the Marathi manoos. The cause demanded vandalising government offices and the physical intimidation of officials. It wasn't adequate to just oppose the communist ideology; they had to be physically destroyed. So, the Sena members allegedly murdered the CPI MLA and trade union leader, Krishna Desai, in 1970. The same year, Thackeray's inflammatory rhetoric preceded the violence directed against Muslims in Bhiwandi. And as the Sri Krishna Commission noted, Thackeray's combustive speeches and the Sena's actions played a role in the 1992-93 riots.”

 

The Inferiority Complex:

 

A political outfit sans civilized ideology placing itself at a podium no other mortal could reach had to eat a humble pie when it could not grow beyond urban/semi urban limits and ultimately ended up being a junior partner of BJP. Egoist people with egoist agenda sought to satisfy their vanity by robbing BJP of CM’s chair, breaking the coalition as also opportunistically adopted Hindutva, chose to join forces antagonistic to the very existence of the entity called ‘Hindu’. A 180⁰ turn to grab the CM’s chair had to have the fallout of total intolerance to any criticism directed at their government. Fundamentally, Shiv Sena and its government should have had nothing to do with SSR murder except for instituting an investigation into it, but it got involved raising doubts about Shiv Sena’s role in the alleged murder.

The arrogance, born out of inferiority complex within, led to an uncivilized and uncalled for attack on an actress because she had tweeted about SSR alleged murder. For a party that lives by violence, demolishing Kangana’s office would be seen by them as great achievement. Like a street goon feels triumphant after destroying property in an engineered riot; the Shiv Sena must be feeling like honour redeemed.

 

Degenerate Political System:

 

Shiv Sena and others like AIMIM are babies of a degenerate political system that was obtained by systematic demolition of democratic institutions in the post 1971 era; it no longer remained a democratic set up, but an egoist one driven by arrogance to serve aims of political vendetta and all the arms of the government were used to subjugate free voice, opinion and analysis. No institutions, including judiciary, remained independent.

Attack on Kangana is not surprising, given the subjugation of all the wings of the government, because no officer can take an independent decision in keeping with law. If Kangana succeeds it will not be before many heads roll.