He's the original promoter of the 'son of the soil' ideology. That it caused incalculable suffering, mainly to the numerous south Indians at Bombay in search of work, in the late 60s and the early 70s is history. And the paradox about the whole thing was that he was funded by many south Indians - probably, it was their way of assuring their own survival despite being wealthy and doing well for themselves! Balasaheb and his men could bring the mightiest to their knees by their strong arm tactics.
As someone had articulated, the south Indian migrants had grabbed most of the job opportunities in Bombay and elsewhere. They'd sensed that their success would be in the hotel industry and consequently, many eating joints had sprung up, in quick succession, to satisfy the gastronomic needs of the factory/mill workers who're on the move continuously - from home to workplace and back, depending upon the shifts that they worked in! And for their eateries' inhouse support, the proprietors brought in their relations and good friends who're thrilled to find employment in the land of their dreams. With their earnings so accrued, many of them eventually decided to set up permanent homes close to their places of activity! Dadar, Matunga, Chembur are some of the early places, in Bombay, of migrant south Indian settlement.
That the local Maharashtrians were fast losing their jobs and relevance of sorts was observed by Balasaheb. Through novel methods, he advertised the need to rescue the 'marathi manoos' from his sad plight. The rest is history. He'd indeed brought about the resurgence of the 'sons of the soil' and in return they're ready to do anything for him. The consequential effect was that the trade unionism in Maharashtra, hitherto a communist monopoly, became his Shivsena's stronghold!
His strongpoint was that he never hankered for loaves of political office - eventhough any post was available for his asking - as he believed himself to be a trustee of the people's rights and hence, could not hold an office of profit! But he was the ultimate power behind the throne!! And as a politician, he was different from the rest of the pack, in that he took a stand - right or wrong! Probably, that sums up the reason for the huge number of followers and admirers that he has left behind.
A leader is supposed to take the entire society alongwith him, thereby accentuating the fact that he constantly works for each and everyone's betterment, where no division on the basis of caste, creed, religion or region has any relevance. From that point of view, Balasaheb's leadership will come under the scanner in the annals of history and it's for the historians to do their bit on that score.
But, for now RIP Mr. Thackeray.
Tailpiece.
(a) It's said that his surname is Thakare, which had undergone a metamorphosis during his growth in the political firmament as 'Thackeray'. Probably, it was his need to be different from the rest that showed, in the process!
(b) He sure must have been a worried man when his nephew upstaged him with his own version of the 'son of the soil' policy - more violent and vituperative against the thousands of poor migrant labourers from Bihar. Life, for him, had really come full circle!!
(c) I've seen people from all walks of life visiting him over the years. Was it out of reverence or was it out of fear, I wonder?
As someone had articulated, the south Indian migrants had grabbed most of the job opportunities in Bombay and elsewhere. They'd sensed that their success would be in the hotel industry and consequently, many eating joints had sprung up, in quick succession, to satisfy the gastronomic needs of the factory/mill workers who're on the move continuously - from home to workplace and back, depending upon the shifts that they worked in! And for their eateries' inhouse support, the proprietors brought in their relations and good friends who're thrilled to find employment in the land of their dreams. With their earnings so accrued, many of them eventually decided to set up permanent homes close to their places of activity! Dadar, Matunga, Chembur are some of the early places, in Bombay, of migrant south Indian settlement.
That the local Maharashtrians were fast losing their jobs and relevance of sorts was observed by Balasaheb. Through novel methods, he advertised the need to rescue the 'marathi manoos' from his sad plight. The rest is history. He'd indeed brought about the resurgence of the 'sons of the soil' and in return they're ready to do anything for him. The consequential effect was that the trade unionism in Maharashtra, hitherto a communist monopoly, became his Shivsena's stronghold!
His strongpoint was that he never hankered for loaves of political office - eventhough any post was available for his asking - as he believed himself to be a trustee of the people's rights and hence, could not hold an office of profit! But he was the ultimate power behind the throne!! And as a politician, he was different from the rest of the pack, in that he took a stand - right or wrong! Probably, that sums up the reason for the huge number of followers and admirers that he has left behind.
A leader is supposed to take the entire society alongwith him, thereby accentuating the fact that he constantly works for each and everyone's betterment, where no division on the basis of caste, creed, religion or region has any relevance. From that point of view, Balasaheb's leadership will come under the scanner in the annals of history and it's for the historians to do their bit on that score.
But, for now RIP Mr. Thackeray.
Tailpiece.
(a) It's said that his surname is Thakare, which had undergone a metamorphosis during his growth in the political firmament as 'Thackeray'. Probably, it was his need to be different from the rest that showed, in the process!
(b) He sure must have been a worried man when his nephew upstaged him with his own version of the 'son of the soil' policy - more violent and vituperative against the thousands of poor migrant labourers from Bihar. Life, for him, had really come full circle!!
(c) I've seen people from all walks of life visiting him over the years. Was it out of reverence or was it out of fear, I wonder?
No comments:
Post a Comment