The Constitution gives its citizens the right ‘to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India’ and no political power should try to redefine it
The crass attempt by Shiv Sena to intimidate the national award-winning actor, Kangana Ranaut, and to demolish her property without adequate notice, must be condemned by all those who cherish democracy and rule of law in the country. It is also time to tell the Shiv Sena that it does not own Mumbai and no Indian will grant it the power to issue entry visas for the city. Mumbai belongs to India.
The demolition of the actor’s property in Pali Hill area on September 9 for alleged violations was preceded by repeated threats by party leaders and some goons, who warned her not to return to her home in Mumbai from Himachal Pradesh. Among those who adopted such a threatening tone was the State’s Home Minister. In addition, party leaders have hurled filthy abuses at her. Somebody should tell these worthies to read Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India which says all citizens shall have the right “to move freely throughout the territory of India” and “to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India”. The Shiv Sena must also be told that “we the people” are not going to give up these rights ever and give in to goonda raj.
The Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Jairam Thakur, has rightly taken up the cudgels on behalf of Ranaut and said that the attitude of the Maharashtra Government is “condemnable” and smacks of vendetta politics. This disrespect to “Himachal’s daughter” is intolerable, he said while ensuring “Y Plus” security for her. This should alert the Maharashtra Chief Minister to what lies ahead because nobody will tolerate this kind of behaviour by Shiv Sainiks towards citizens hailing from other States.
The Bombay High Court has rightly rapped the municipal corporation on the knuckles and said the demolition “smacks of malafide” and is “deplorable”. The court noted that what the corporation terms as “unauthorised” construction did not come up overnight. However, the corporation had suddenly woken up from its slumber, issued a notice to Ranaut when she was out of the city and proceeded with the demolition 24 hours later. Further, the court wondered whether the municipal corporation would act with “similar swiftness” in respect of other numerous unauthorised constructions. In its order of September 9, the court has recorded in detail the attempts made by the municipal corporation to stall the hearing and to prevent it from taking cognisance of the petition until it had completed the demolition. This is indicative of the arrogance of the executive and disrespect for the judiciary.
The Shiv Sena has to be told that it does not own Mumbai. Sainiks have lived in this delusion for too long. In fact, seven decades ago, there was a strong argument in favour of making Bombay a Union Territory in view of its cosmopolitan outlook and strategic location.
A memorandum submitted on behalf of the Gujarat Research Society in 1948 to the Linguistic Provinces Commission argued for Bombay’s independence. It said “Bombay has been an all Indian city with an international outlook and a distinctive non-provincial culture in which people from all provinces of India and even foreigners play their part…It would, therefore, be unfair to transfer an international port like Bombay to the province of Maharashtra ... created on the narrow ground of a provincial language.”
The Commission saw merit in this argument and said: “Nationalism and sub-nationalism are two emotional experiences which grow at the expense of each other.” It said Bombay “should receive special treatment and be disposed of in the best interests of India as a whole” and in its own interest.
The States Reorganisation Commission, which submitted its report in September, 1955, also warned of the pitfalls of regional chauvinism. “The Constitution of India guarantees common citizenship to all Indian people. There can, therefore, be only one nationality in India”, it said.
All this eventually convinced the Centre that Bombay should be a Union Territory and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made the announcement on January 16, 1956. SK Patil, the president of the Bombay Pradesh Congress Committee, said “the city would be an oasis in the desert of regionalism in India” and “a shining example of cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism”. It is, therefore, strange that India’s grand old party — Nehru’s Congress — which professed such liberal values, now shares power with the Sena but has no influence over it.
The Shiv Sena is trying to portray Ranaut as a person who is ill-disposed towards Mumbai, Maharashtra and Marathi people. This does not appear to be true although there can be issues in regard to her choice of words. Ranaut has not attacked any of these entities. Her attack is on the Shiv Sena for converting liberal Mumbai into a garrison of hate. Nor is the Sena the sole repository of Chhatrapati Shivaji’s legacy. Indians across the world adore him for his valour, his nationalism and for his invaluable contribution towards preserving India’s civilisational values. The attempts by the Shiv Sena to appropriate him and reduce him to an icon of Marathi pride must, therefore, be resisted.
Shiv Sena leaders are also talking about what Mumbai has given to different professionals, including actors, directors and others in the cine and television world. They seem to forget what these individuals have given to Mumbai. The city became what it is because the best of entrepreneurs and talented persons in business, trade, manufacturing, entertainment and hospitality gravitated towards this city, invested billions of rupees and generated employment for millions. People from different States — Gujarat, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Jammu and Kashmir and Kerala to name a few — arrived in this city chasing their dreams and made Mumbai what it is today. For example, what would Mumbai business and industry be if the Gujaratis and Marwaris had not made it their home? Or, what would Bollywood be without the Punjabis? Or what would eateries be without the Irani and Udupi restaurants?
It is indeed tragic that the Shiv Sena, which stood so firmly for Indian nationalist causes during the life of its firebrand founder, Balasaheb Thackeray, should now become a caricature of itself and metamorphose into a “Sonia Sena.” If it fails to appreciate and respect our constitutional dharma, many more States and Chief Ministers will call it out. Bharat Mata will never allow Mumbai, a jewel in her crown, to fall into unworthy hands.
(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. Views expressed are personal)
