Perils of the fear psychosis and rebellious spirit
ANANDA MUKHERJEE
|
When denial of the basic tolerance level in different parts of the country creates chasms in the society
|
The unfortunate incident of gunning down a Bihar youth in a Mumbai bus has thrown up an imminent question. How far does the damage inflicted on a community prepare the ground for rebellion in the most unexpected way?
The whole debate seems to be focussed on whether or not the police could have captured Rahul Raj instead of gunning him down. The danger posed by a man roaming with a pistol and gesturing frenziedly can lead the police force to act in a certain percei
ved manner. The concern for passengers of the bus was quite practicable. In this case, the voice of the police has been matched by the statements of leaders in the Maharashtra government. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the incident drew fuel from the recent attack on working-class Biharis and the Railway board examinees.
Sense of insecurity
In that sense, the incident is issue-centric rather than a hardcore criminal case that calls for encounter as the only way of rescue. The collective harassment of a particular group and the sense of insecurity caused by the loss of livelihood can create extreme repercussion in the minds of its representative individuals. The result can be an outburst of anger and frustration and the consequent loss of lives.
Such planned suppression of communities is not rare in our country, though. It only gains new significance with changing times. As the country sets redefined benchmarks of social welfare and the awareness of harmony is spread from various platforms, the denial of the basic tolerance level in different parts of the country creates chasms in the society.
The metros in India are largely known for the cosmopolitan contour of their workforce. Mumbai, in particular, has this distinctive feature among all Indian metros. The perceived threat to Maharashtrian culture and livelihood is not justifiable under the present structure. Job diversity and mobility within the workforce according to economic conditions have always accommodated the willing and the competent. The choice of profession and the absorption in a particular field, more than anything else, drives people from one place to another. The attack on the economically weaker sections shows clearly that a fear psychosis is easily infused in them because they are less protected by their jobs and important social entitlements such as access to legal aid.
Differential treatment
The higher a person is placed in the hierarchy of workforce, the more capable he is of holding his position when faced by impending threats and discrimination. His educational capability is likely to enable him to diversify his income and keep the economic condition unaltered.
Bihari workers engaged in various sectors and working as taxi drivers and servicemen are vulnerable because they are less privileged. They can be easily driven out since holding on to jobs does not give them much incentive when assaulted away from home.
The most unfortunate part of the scenario is that they have been targeted as part of a perceived strategy in which they have no role — the capturing of Maharashtrian vote bank. This kind of mindset cannot be the representative of a state which thrives on people’s productive capacity.
When a community is represented, even for a political cause, it has to be represented across all professions. How can the perceived preference theory be justified in fields like the media, advertisement, film technician’s jobs, pharmaceuticals and some other fields where skilled people are needed?
A non-Maharashtrian is equally likely to outshine a Maharashtrian in the selection procedure. The basic knowledge of productive efficiency suggests that selection has to be made on the basis of competence. In fact, this seems to be good for the state at large.
The vandalism indulged by Raj Thackeray’s party is justifiable by no means other than political expediency and compulsion.The snatching of livelihood from one group and substituting it by potential voters is a political hara-kiri full of precarious consequences. Extreme provocations can damage the country’s social fabric.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
