I was reading an article in Yahoo about some issues related to immigration in Germany. The issue which was being discussed to be precise was about the Turkish Muslim immigration into Germany and how many Germans feel that a multi-cultural society cannot exist there. This does sound pretty much similar to many incidents which has occured in India, which by itself is an example of a country which has a huge and diverse multi-cultural society. This is one of the reasons which attracted me to this topic and which made me write this article.
I started with asking myself some questions – whether this issue is just related to religion? Or is it something beyond religion? How much does politics play a part? How much does economics play a part? Are there other reasons which we need to think deep into? Are there other issues which emanate from the basic cause of this issue?
The first aspect which I tried to explore was the link between this issue and religion. Religion has played a big part in separating people. This has been the case in Lebanon where the Maronites and the Muslims fight against each other to gain more ground. This has been the reason which has lead to many violent activities in our own country, where religious harmony was disturbed many a time. This also has been the case, to an extent, with the issue of Palestine. But then there are cases where religion is not involved as well. When I was living in Bangalore, I have heard a lot of times, people frustrated at non-kannadigas cribbing about Bangalore, and non-kannadigas’ reluctance to learn Kannada. Recently, similar incidents have happened in Mumbai as well. Bal Thackeray came out publicly against migrants from Bihar, who were allegedly, as per Thackeray, destroying Mumbai’s culture. But then this allegation was irrespective of religion or caste of the migrant. However, I do agree that, there is a communal flavor attached to whatever comes out of Thackeray’s mouth. A similar example of this would be anger towards rising Hispanic population in the US., and also the Tamil civil war in Srilanka.
So even though religion does come somewhere in some of these stories, the fact that this issue has much more depth than what we have thought and that at times, the tussle is between two parties who are distinguished by factors which do not include religion, makes me ponder. Then may be it’s due to the fact that politicians play a role in stirring up the masses by cooking up reasons. However, that reason alone does not seem convincing to me. It should be something beyond that. It should be something which is embedded inside human nature. What is it?
This led me to an article which I read about the history of Middle East. The article mentioned about why the ME countries have a brutal method of punishment. ME countries never had a concept of country. They had tribal affiliations as to a country affiliation. Since a good portion of ME is a desert, resources used to be scanty. Due to this, tribes used to very shrewd to make sure that their resources are not exploited by other tribes. This led to tussles, and even wars. Again in this tussle, the issue always used to be with multiple parties trying to occupy a certain geographical area. So the point is – it’s necessarily not religion. It’s more than that.
The above para does bring in a different angle to this whole discussion. I believe that this issue is about resources. And hence human beings form groups to have exclusive rights over certain resources. A manifestation of this is religion and caste. Obviously there are certain basic beliefs which tie them together. But then the ultimate purpose of this would be to distinguish one to get rights and exclusivity to certain resources. It’s all about economics. It’s funny that this has a lot of similarity with object oriented programming. You are a part of a certain group and you inherit certain properties and thereby you inherit some rights.
When Germans feel that their resources are being eaten away by outsiders, this issue arises. Same is the case with Mumbai. When Mumbaikers see that their resources are being eaten away by foreigners they resent. But then the whole concept of maximum city is that it belongs to all people and not just one. But here is where Bal Thackeray tries to gain mileage by exploiting the well hidden emotions by raising the issue of opportunity loss. He says that the opportunities which should have otherwise gone to Maharashtrians are going to others because they are trying to eat the part of the same pie. But it’s another fact that this is just an issue of supply demand equations. But then the fact that he tries to point out is that, irrespective of the fact that Mumbai is a maximum city and it has grown because of the business opportunities provided by immigrants, the system should have made sure that each one gets to protect his portion of the pie. Or in simple words, the land should exist as silos and each one should never lose an opportunity. This concept is not practical as business exists in this globalized world only because of exchange of ideas, cultures, concepts and needs.
Coming back to the topic, we just understood that the issue roots back to the basic problem – resources. Why do people want to be affiliated to a certain caste? Why do people want to be affiliated to certain parties? Again, why can’t they exist without any kind of affiliations? Is it just because their ideologies unite them or is it beyond that? Is it the same case with a group of friends?
May be in case of a group of friends, it’s only the ideologies which unite them. But there are cases where people join a peer group for getting specific access to resources. It need not be ideology in some cases. But when it comes to religion, caste, parties, the history has many indications that it has always been related to resources. A group of strong people called themselves Kshatriyas and tried to make sure that they always remained in power. They did fool other segments by propagating thoughts which made sure that submissive mentalities got embedded in other segments – for eg Shudras. The groups called Brahmins ensured that this societal set up is well cemented. But ultimately when you analyze the end result, it was always exclusive rights to resources that were the corner stones of this societal set up. It was never about what God said. It was always about preserving the privileges over years to come. And after all who doesn’t like to be born with privileges?
This is the case with Mumbai as well or for that matter Bangalore. Shiv Sena says Maharashtrians should get privilege and reservations in corporate. Some kind of similar uprising has been spotted in Bangalore as well. When Mumba Devi says that she has enough resources to feed whoever comes in, the question which arises in Bal Thackarey’s mind is – “After all its our resources that these fellas are eating into. Should I allow them to?” That’s the same question which is occurring in some of the political circles in Bangalore as well. And this sense of rejection or aversion towards others eating into our own resources is manifesting itself as a slogan – “Be like us, because we cannot accept the way you are”. And this again raises a subsequent question – “What if they become like us? Should we accept them then?”- Its well answered. Because the earlier said slogan is inflammable enough to burn a dozen houses and hence the subsequent question is never going to be answered. It’s difficult to change affiliations for human beings. The Turkish Muslims won’t change their identity and adopt Christian values as per Germany’s demand. It’s not whether its right or wrong – it’s about what all should I lose to gain something? What if I am left with no identity? May be these are just my thoughts, but I guess we need to think further on this question of multi cultural diversity.
