Introduction

pdc

Political Discourse

2395-22292582-2691

Prof. R S Yadav

Kurukshetra, Harayana

pdc-2-2-007

10.5958/2582-2691

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Politics of Regionalism in India: A Study of Shiv Sena and MNS

Tiwari

Trivikram

¹Trivikram Tiwari, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra-136119

1122016

226980

2016

IndianJournals.com

Introduction

Maharashtra is a paradise for travelers and is famous for its scenic beauty. Maharashtra occupies the western and central part of the India and has a long coastline stretching nearly 720 kms along the Arabian Sea. Maharashtra has a population of 96,752,247 inhabitants making it the second most populous state in India. The Marathi-speaking population of Maharashtra numbers 72,481,681 according to the 2011 census.¹ Maharashtra's urban population stands at 42.4%. Its sex ratio is 922 females to 1000 males. 77.27% of its population is literate, broken into 86.2% males and 67.5% females.² Maharashtra is the wealthiest state in India, contributing 15% of the country's industrial output and 13.3% of its GDP.

Talking about Mumbai, although geographically the city is very much a part of Maharashtra, Mumbai is a true mini-world where people from rest of the country and even the world live in keeping the Marathi speaking population at less than 50 percent. The city, over the years, has seen an influx of people from the rest of the country and even different parts of the globe for making a career, business exploration, development consultancy etc.

Amidst of these interesting figures it is a hard truth to accept that this beautiful state is not immune from the clutches of regionalism. The rage of regionalism has unleashed its wrath on this beautiful state and particularly incidents in Mumbai have often proved to be a central hub for appraisal of rage of regionalism.

Recognition of Statehood of Maharashtra

After India's independence in 1947, the princely states were integrated into the Indian Union, and the Deccan States including Kolhapur were integrated into Bombay State, which was created from the former Bombay Presidency in 1950.

There was persistent demand in 1950s for creation of separate Marathi speaking state. Gradually, the demand gained momentum under the guise of Samyukta Maharashtra Movement. In the Lok Sabha discussions in 1955, the Congress party demanded that Bombay should be constituted as an autonomous city-state.³

Resultantly, in 1956, the States Reorganisation Act reorganized the Indian states along linguistic lines, and Bombay Presidency State was enlarged by the addition of the predominantly Marathi-speaking regions of Marathwada (Aurangabad Division) from erstwhile Hyderabad state and Vidarbha region (Amravati and Nagpur divisions) from Madhya Pradesh (formerly the Central Provinces and Berar).

Finally, on 1 May 1960, following mass protests for the creation of a separate Marathi-speaking state and the subsequent deaths of 105 protesters, Maharashtra came into existence when Bombay Presidency State was split into the new linguistic states of Maharashtra and Gujarat.

At the time of Independence, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was of the opinion that linguistic reorganization of states should be done on a “One state – One language” principle and not on a “One language – One state” principle. He submitted a memorandum to the reorganization commission stating that a “single government cannot administer such a huge state as United Maharashtra”.⁴

Politics of Regionalism and Rise of Shiv Sena

The political ideologies affecting regionalism had its inception in Shiv Sena. It was founded on 19 June 1966 by political cartoonist Bal Thackeray. The party originally emerged out of a movement in Mumbai demanding preferential treatment for Maharashtrians over migrants to the city. The party operated as a network of street gangs and has a powerful hold over the Bollywood film industry.⁵

Although the party's primary base is still in Maharashtra, it has tried to expand to a pan-Indian base. In the 1970s, it gradually moved from solely advocating a pro-Marathi ideology, to one supporting a broader Hindu nationalist agenda,⁶ as it aligned itself with the Bharatiya Janata Party. Its critics have described it as a “Hindu extremist” party.⁷ The party has taken part in numerous Maharashtra state governments at several times and was a coalition partner in the National Democratic Alliance cabinet that ruled India between 1998–2004.

Terrible programs have been incited against the Muslims in 1971, 1984, and 1986.⁸ Prominent from 1966 until 1975, it subsequently fell into decline during a period of working class militancy,⁹ to then regain prominence after 1981 with the expansion of what has been termed the ‘saffron wave’, the revival of militant Hinduism.

Between 1975 and 1985, slowly evolved a regional perspective towards a national vision at the same time as it relativised, without neglecting, the employment problems to foster themes of a more religious nature. It also gained respectability with the middle class, with its ‘beautify Bombay’ program.¹⁰ The Hindu militant wave during the 80s owes much to the aforementioned RSS¹¹ and its related organizations but this national development fortified also the Shiv Sena, which had begun to establish itself in the rural zones. It continues to unflaggingly propose its solutions to India's actual social problems: the expulsion of Muslim foreigners (Bangladesh, Pakistan), the prohibition of strikes and ‘negative’ unions, and the militarization of youth.

In the 1980s, the party was able to extend its support base beyond Mumbai and other urban centres by combining its communal rhetoric (which reified religious community identities and interests) with the need to address the lack of development in the rural areas of Maharashtra. In other words, it successfully exploited local level contradictions to its own advantage, producing a new kind of what Hansen described as “vernacularised Hindutva”.¹² This new rhetoric also appealed to the lower middle classes in Bombay city, who were affected by rising urban unemployment.¹³ The strategy of the Shiv Sena was to consolidate the Hindu vote through an anti-Muslim tirade. However, it was more successful in weaning away the middle castes from the Congress/Nationalist Congress Party, while upper caste voters alternated between support for the Congress/Nationalist Congress Party or the Shiv Sena/BJP, depending upon their assessment of which would best serve their interests.¹⁴

Exodus of the people of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and other states from Maharashtra has proved that even after more than six-decades since independence, the Maharashtra is treated as a separate block in India, which is only accessible to Marathi Manus. Miscreants targeting only the people of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh after the many instances violence in Maharashtra brings to the fore the question that is too embarrassing. Has it not exposed the ugliest shape of regionalism in present India? Who nourishes regionalism: the Activists in Maharashtra or mainland India? Before going to strategic and other aspects of recent atrocities, these are the questions that haunt everyone in the Maharashtra who likes to live with dignity.

The spurt of attacks on any public figure who reiterates that any citizen can live anywhere in the country (and that therefore no one can be kept out of Mumbai) and the use of the language of threats against migrants from the northern states are reminiscent of the 1960s when the Shiv Sena first went after the trade unions, and then launched its “sons of the soil” movement targeting south Indians.

Thus, even in this case, when the religious identity-based party was able to set the political agenda, the dominant religious community did not act as a homogeneous entity in the electoral process. The point again is that a religious majority does not readily translate into a political majority, placing some constraints on religious and cultural majoritarianism. To some extent, these limits occur because all communities are internally divided along the lines of caste and gender, which are important because they often influence the capacity of an individual to access resources and opportunities. Hence, even when voters share religious and cultural concerns, they may differ on other counts and such differences can be important in competitive electoral politics; indeed, in India, all the political parties use the spaces provided by such multiple identities to consolidate their electoral support. In this respect, there is little difference between the political parties, be they secular or religious. This becomes even more evident when we turn to lower caste mobilisations among different religious communities in Punjab and Maharashtra.¹⁵

During the 1990s, the Shiv Sena gave up its strident regional politics and turned to more lucrative political pastures by adopting the politics of Hindutva. Today, it is trapped in a dilemma – its breakaway Sena.¹⁶

It is also pertinent here to point out the impact of recent demise of Bal Thackeray¹⁷ on Maharashtra equating it with the activities of Shiv Sena thereto. Mr. Thackeray was known for his opposition to domestic and foreign migrants, which was directly at odds with the reality of India's cosmopolitan business capital, and his tight grip on Mumbai, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s. Soon after Saturday's announcement some party members started enforcing a bandh—a ban on all economic transactions—as a mark of respect. “They were shouting ‘shut down, shut down, pull the shutters’,” said one Mumbaikar, recalling how Shiv Sena boys on motorcycles appeared on his street in a quiet suburb.¹⁸

MNS and Revival of Identity Politics

In July 2005 Narayan Rane was expelled from the party, which sparked internal conflict in the party. In December the same year Raj Thackeray, Bal Thackeray's nephew, left the party.¹⁹ Raj Thackeray later founded a new party, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS). Although the MNS is a break-away group from the Shiv Sena, the party is still based Bhumiputra ideology. When unveiling the party in an assembly at Shivaji Park he said, that everyone is anxious to see what will happen to Hindutva.²⁰

Practically, the MNS has appropriated the political agenda in Maharashtra. There is no paucity of serious issues facing politics in Maharashtra. If one takes a quick look at the period from 2004 onwards, the ‘Khairlanji massacre, farmers’ suicides, localised agitations caused by “SEZs”, and the disquiet occasioned by the demand for reservations for the Marathas could be listed as pressing issues. After parting company with the Shiv Sena, Raj Thackeray formed the MNS with a somewhat ambiguous objective of navnirman – one does not know what he knows about the political history of that word in the Indian context, but in any case, given his training in the Shiv Sena, he was unlikely to give up either parochialism in approach or a sub-democratic style of operation. It all began when Raj Thackeray burst out against the cultural domination of the north Indian community in early 2008. This was followed by an agitation insisting that name boards of shops and establishments should be in Marathi (in Devnagari script).

All this followed the pattern set by the senior Thackeray. It is more spectacular and cinematic.

Therefore, the MNS then took on Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan and ensured that its balance in the bank of publicity would soar.²¹ And the apology by Amitabh added to the cinematic strength of the MNS in the eyes of its followers – the lesson was that its strategy pays. Today, when the MNS and Shiv Sena indulge in identical posturing of an intimidating nature, the state Congress and state government not only ignore it, they collude with these parties hoping perhaps that this would make them popular among the Marathi manoos.

The MNS’ story about Mumbai is not new; Raj Thackeray's uncle scripted it originally in the 1960s. It is appropriate to remember the mutuality of interests between Bal Thackeray and the then Congress Chief Minister, Vasantrao Naik, for which the Shiv Sena used to be caricatured as “Vasantsena”. Like a remake of Hindi movies of yesteryears, the nephew is rescripting that story today and getting away with it.

One of the difficult issues in forming the state of Marathi people was the status of Mumbai. It was not only about the claim by Gujarat over the city; more than that, it was about maintaining Mumbai's traditionally diverse character transcending linguistic barriers. The demand that Mumbai should belong to Maharashtra met with much resistance and that resistance and its tragic outcome in the form of deaths of over 100 persons in the course of police firing shaped Marathi sensibilities about the city.²²

The party was founded on the ideology of being the benefactor of the local Marathi Manoos (Marathi people), an ideology that the party members felt the Shiv Sena had abandoned. Keeping in line with this, Raj has repeatedly demanded special job reservations for Maharashtrians.²³ He has blamed the large-scale immigration of people from these economically backward states for causing a shortage of jobs for Maharashtrians.²⁴

If the content of MNS politics is sub-democratic, the form it adopts, too, is not less so. The impunity with which newly elected MLAs of the MNS physically assaulted the Samajwadi Party leader and MLA, Abu Azmi, inside the legislative house, only dramatically showcases its politics. The leader of the MNS might have been copying from his uncle when he publicly appreciated his MLAs for this attack.²⁵ Thus we are confronted with another distortion of the idea of democratic politics. This distortion emanates from the ideology and content of MNS politics. The other distortion is that political actors are encouraged to take action that effectively negates the possibility of argument.

To be sure, strong-arm politics is not new and not the monopoly of the MNS. Yet, in assessing the MNS and in responding to it, this dimension deserves mention. Like in the case of the Shiv Sena and many other more recent practitioners of strong-arm street politics, the state government consistently handled MNS with kid gloves.

MNS has focused on intimidating migrants from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, in particular, trying to fan feelings of hatred among vast sections of Marathi-speaking working people in Mumbai. The party has also gained the support of a section of the upper and middle classes, who share the majoritarian impulse propounded by it. Raj Thackeray's anti-Bihari invective, in the same vein as his rant against ‘outsiders from north India’ at the MNS public meeting in August, 2012, should surprise no one. After all, the MNS has learnt its political style from the Shiv Sena. Its portrayal of the Bihari or “bhaiyya” from Uttar Pradesh as dirty and criminal is reminiscent of the way “Madrasis” were once caricatured by the Shiv Sena.

After months of lull in the anti-North Indian offensive, on 19 October 2008, MNS activists beat up North Indian candidates appearing for the all-India Railway Recruitment Board entrance exam for the Western region in Mumbai.²⁶ Lalu demanded a ban on the MNS, and described its chief Raj Thackeray as a “mental case”.²⁷ Angry students in various parts of Bihar damaged railway property and disrupted train traffic, as a protest. The police said the protesters targeted Patna, Jehanabad, Barh, Khusrupur, Sasaram and Purnia railway stations in the morning. The protesting students reportedly set afire two AC bogies of an express train at Barh railway station. They ransacked Jehanabad, Barh, Purnia and Sasaram railway stations. According to the railway police, at least 10 students were detained in the morning and extra security was deployed to control the situation.²⁸

It is very hard to digest the fact that such activities still awaits effective tools to combat such evils. It is relevant here to point out the observations of Supreme Court in this context. In March, 2008 a bench comprising Justice H. K. Sema and Justice Markandey Katju said, “India is not an association or confederation of states, it is a Union of states and there is only one nationality that is Indian. Hence every Indian has a right to go anywhere in India, to settle anywhere, and work and do business of his choice in any part of India, peacefully.”²⁹

The Apex court made the observation while upholding the Ahmedabad municipal corporation's move to ban the sale of meat in the town during nine-day “Paryushan” festival observed by the Jain community. The court expressed its concern over the growing violent chauvinistic tendencies. Thus, the tendencies which are still prevailing does not seem justifiable in the wake of Judgments of Supreme Court and our Law of Land, the Constitution itself.

Apart from the issue mentioned above, another one which seems to crop up amidst of these is the linguistic disparity and issues connected thereto. The attacks on Hindi speaking communities in Mumbai by the members of Raj Thackeray led Maharastra Navnirman Sena (MSN) clearly indicates how selfish, irresponsible and anti-people our leadership can be to reach the chairs of power. It's only for a quick reach to the corridors of power that Raj Thackeray has put the state of Maharastra on a linguistic divide in the name of protecting the rights of ‘Marathi Manush’.³⁰

Language has the power to both create and destroy as the way it is used. Political leaders of the state must understand this fact. Instead of sparkling hatred towards each other, the leaders must work to bring people of different communities and linguistic fraternity together and mobilise them to work for collective development. Otherwise, the linguistic disparity would become the greatest threat to the national identity and integrity of India. Instead of falling into linguistic tensions, we should rather realize the fact that we all belong to India - a country that takes pride in Unity, and not Enmity, in Diversity.

Notion of Ownership viv-a-vis Notion of Diversity

The idea of ownership gives rise to claims of preferential treatment and demands for exclusion. City spaces are seen as belonging to one (linguistic) community and while realistically speaking, one cannot drive out the “others”, various exclusionary strategies are propounded and practised. When the MNS says that jobs in Mumbai or Maharashtra should go only to the Marathi people, this is certainly not a new demand at all. This is a majoritarian position that cuts at the root of diversity.

Diversity does not mean museumising institutions and social universes.³¹ Similarly, diversity should not and does not mean denial of any regional aspiration or sentiment. In other words, a prodiversity policy would refer to our social resolve not to privilege one identity or cultural practice or interest of one community over any other. The MNS refuses to subscribe to this resolve and hence it is antidiversity. And the MNS is not alone in this respect. Cynical politics and raw understanding of regional claims have allowed regional identity to slip into nativism, not just in Maharashtra, but in other parts of the country too. As a society, we have not given enough thought to the meaning of and possible response to such “nativist” demands. Existing policy wisdom seems to believe that it is a good strategy to ensure that the locals will get a certain proportion of jobs (or admissions). Governments and semi-government establishments including colleges and universities all over the country practice this strategy of preferential treatment to locals, or “domiciles”. In a vast and diverse country like India, we need to appreciate that the idea of the local does achieve some resonance – not only because the country is so large but also because the principle organising our political life is governed by the idea of linguistic community. Hence, just as the “nativist” platform is anti-diversity and untenable, the idea of diversity that does not imply a balance between the competing interests of locality and translocality is also untenable.

Apart from nativist demands about preferential treatment in jobs, the MNS (and perhaps other similar political formations too) would like to establish the majoritarian norm in the sphere of culture and social life. This allows the MNS to draw support not only from semi-skilled, semi-employed youth, but also from the middle classes. The post-poll survey of voters in Maharashtra conducted after the assembly election of 2009 shows that over 80% of MNS supporters come from the upper and middle class backgrounds.³² This support is obviously not based on concerns about employment opportunities but on majoritarian sensibilities that these sections share with the MNS.

Having begun with an attack on north Indians for the celebrations of chhat puja, the MNS has been speaking frequently about the legitimate domination of Marathi language and Marathi people in the state of Maharashtra. This language is different from the aspiration that Marathi may prosper or Marathi may become richer in its vocabulary. Here, the emphasis is on forcing non-Marathi people to learn and speak Marathi – “make Marathi compulsory”.Such ideas emerge from within a majoritarian view of society and politics. Most arguments supporting or opposing the MNS appear oblivious to this larger context.³³

Hinduism and Political Approach

Moving further, it is relevant here to note that MNS and Shiv Sena both had a common agenda with reference to their approach of Hinduism. The basic tenets of their approach, thereof, in this respect are imminent for elucidation because such approach has always been a ‘power house’ to rise regionalism in Maharashtra. The style of the different pramukhs at earlier stage was very disparate. For instance, Heterogeneous ideological and historical references are employed V D Savarkar, a founder of the Hindu Mahasabha³⁴; the martyrs of the struggle for independence; partisans of violent methods such as Chandrashekhar Azad or Bhagat Singh; but also J P Narayan; and even the Naxalites. None of these men or symbolic movements is vertically religious. This apparently in coherent corpus of references contracts with the manner in which the RSS organizes its gallery of heroes: Shivaji, Vivekananda, Tilak, Hedgewar, Gandhi and now Ambedkar are presented as elements of an historic continuity. There is no such discourse in the

Shiv Sena.

As far as Hinduism and Shiv Sena is concerned, the Sena worked as an activist organisation which exists from one mobilization campaign to the next: the collection of bricks for the Ayodhya temple; the march on the Babri Masjid; the collection of funds for the families of martyrs³⁵; the violent fight against conversions to Christianity.

One speaks of ‘imperiled Hinduism’, as others have evoked the motherland with the same intention at other places and times. For the Shiv Sena, Hinduism is the motherland. It has views connecting continuously both, extremely simplified and emotionally charged ones. One evokes with varying seriousness the perspective of a great social upheaval entailing riots, a day of liberation on which “the traitors will pay their arrears”.

It is quite simple to make India Hindu Rashtra. To achieve this, pride must be restored to the Hindus, strength and organization be provided, and the Muslims and other minorities relegated to the subordinate place which befits them. There is not a great deal of conceptual reflection, not even simple attempts to thoughtfully elucidate this theme, largely taken from the theoretical repertoire of the RSS and from the Hindu Mahasabha.³⁶

With respect to specific problems, as for example public intervention occasioned by a given event, the usual practice is not to refer to written documents, but rather to elaborate on, and even improvise, the major principles and objectives in the most confused manner. One generally provides onself in the common haunts of chauvinistic culture (a culture which could be likened to the stock of anti-semitic jokes and prejudices in pre-war Europe).

As far as comparison of Shiv Sena and MNS is concerned there is not much scope of difference in modus operandi of fulfilling their objectives. The continued use of illiberal politics and vandalism, the lukewarm reaction by the state government and the mild response by members of civil society in the recent past have only emboldened the MNS and the Shiv Sena. Seen in this light, the remarks by popular actors and sports personalities, of late, against the Shiv Sena and the MNS politics appear like strong positions. But that is not sufficient to take on the entrenched politics of exclusionism practised by these parties or the cynical opportunism of the ruling parties that has helped sustain it.³⁷

Therefore, the incidents which had been discussed earlier though not completely encompass the entire parade of this menace. As the paucity of space dose not allows to critically evaluate each and every violence which have resulted as an outcome of this ‘rage of regionalism’ in Maharashtra. However, the picture of Maharashtra is to a considerable extent clear on the point which has been raised by this paper. The incidents are characterized by an image of tumultuous violence. In milieu outside the organization, rather than attempting to elucidate the concrete aims, which are often unknown to the people on the streets, its methods are more frequently discussed, Numerous Shiv Sainiks also have this perspective, and the leadership is often quite alone in recollecting that the party does in-deed have an objective.

Conclusion

To conclude under this subhead it is pertinent here to point out the overview of the entire scenario and the underlying theme behind the rise of regionalism in Maharashtra. Firstly, the prevailing situation in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar was such that people were attracted to Maharashtra which had better and robust working conditions in terms of money and environment both. Secondly, in response to huge migrations there was a feeling of resentment among the locals of Maharashtra as they were under the impression that they were denied of opportunities due to such influx of work and labour force in Maharashtra. The resentment among local taxi drivers and vegetable sellers received nationwide acknowledgment and hardly needs to be over-exaggerated.

Finally, the major turmoil in the situation arose when the political parties instead of addressing to unemployment and other issues gave force to the menace of regionalism. The reason for them doing so is crystal clear i.e. to gain political benefits and vote politics which can be aptly remarked as the phase where the problem of unemployment and mass poverty is derailed into the dirt of regionalism. The point where fuel is added to the fire of regionalism is probably the moment when the government's role to address such kind of issues is rendered nugatory. After all, the ruling party has also shown instances of acquiescence over such “politically created regionalism”.

The aspects mentioned above are so much intertwined and connected that one can hardly ascertain the starting point. But in an analytical approach to this issue it may be submitted that these situations derive their cause and authority from the other and addressing them in water-tight compartments is impossible.

Moreover, to state that today regional parties define how the governments are formed and conducted both at the centre and the state level. It is very clear that every Indian is a son of this soil. A Bihari becomes Mumbaikar when a bomb explodes in Mumbai and a Mumbaikar becomes Bihari when Kosi wrecks havoc in the plains of Bihar. We are united by an idea called India and that unity is imperative. According to the Constitution of India, an Indian citizen is free to move around and settle down peacefully in any part of the country. So they go to places where jobs are available, and get them on the basis of merit.

This gives the political parties absolutely no reason to accuse them of stealing anything, or criticizing their language and culture, or for that matter, instigating violence against them. Their want for limelight and votes ends up being a nightmare for the common man. This is not the solution to the problem of excessive migration. It can only be solved by development and creation of jobs in other states, and tackling the issue of overpopulation. If this unnecessary propagation of hatred continues, it will solve nothing, and only divide the people more. Today it is the division of states. Tomorrow it will be the division of districts, and so on.

References1.

Economic Survey, 2010–11, Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Government of Maharashtra and Census2011.

“Countries”, India: World Bank, Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/india.

Guha

Ramachandra

(1342003). “The battle for Bombay”, The Hindu, India, Archived from http://hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2003/04/13/stories/2003041300240300.htm.

Ambedkar

Dr B R

, ‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’, Retrieved through http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/05C.%20Thoughts%20on%20Linguistic%20States%20PART%20III.htm.

Dean, Nelson. “Author Rohinton Mistry slams Mumbai University after book ban”. telegraph.co.uk

“Know Your Party: Shiv Sena”. Rediff.com.

Jeff Haynes (742011). Religion, Politics and International Relations. Taylor & Francis. pp. 150–. ISBN 978-1-136-73753-4

Dange

S A

(1969), Shiv Sena and the Bombay Riots, New Delhi: CPI Publications; (1984), ‘Bhiwandi Again, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XIX, Nos 20-21;

Engineer

A A

(1984), ‘Bombay.Bhiwandi Riots in National Perspective, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XIX, No 29,

Engineer

A A

(1989), Communalism and Communal Violence in India: An Analytical Approach of Hindu Muslim Conflicts, Delhi: Ajanta Publications;

Engineer

A A

(1988), ‘Aurangabad Riots: Part of Shiv Sena's Political Strategy, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXIII, No 24.

When the so-called ‘Samant wave’ receded with the failure of the textile strike, a new period began with the terrible Bhiwandi riots (1984), Read Rajni Bakshi (1986), The Long Haul Bombay: Build Documentation Centre.

10.

With the slogan ‘Sundar Mumbai, Marathi Mumbai’.

11.

About the RSS, read: Andersen

W K

and Damic

(1987), The Brotherhood in Saffron, New Delhi, Vistar Publications;

Gangadharan

(1970), op cit;

Golwalkar

M S

(1966), Bunch of Thoughts; Bangalore: Jagaran Prakashan;

Jayaprasad

(1991), RSS and Hindu Nationalism, New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications;

Malkani

K R

(1980), The RSS Story, New Delhi: Impex India Private Limited;

Seshadri

H V

(1988), RSS A Vision in Action, Bangalore: Jagaran Prakashan.

12.

Hansen

T B

(1996): “The Vernacularisation of Hindutva: The BJP and Shiv Sena in Rural Maharashtra”, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 30.2. 177-214.

13.

Palshikar

(2004): “Shiv Sena: A Tiger with Many Faces”, Economic & Political Weekly, 39, 34, 1497-1507.

14.

Palshikar

and Deshpande

(1999): Maharashtra: Electoral Competition and Structures of Domination (Pune: University of Pune, Department of Political Science), Occasional Paper Series 2, No 1.

15.

Mahajan

Gurpreet

& Surinder

S Jodhka

, (2012), Religions, Democracy and Governance: Spaces for the Marginalised in Contemporary India, Economic & Political Weekly, EPW january7, 2012 vol xlviI no. 1.

16.

Suhas

Palshikar

, In the Midst of Sub-Democratic Politics, Economic & Political Weekly, february13, 2010 vol xlv no 7 EPW.

17.

1117, 2012.

18.

“Bal Thackeray: End of an Era”, The Economist, 1118, 2012.

19.

Mahendra

Gaur

, Indian Political Parties Annual, 2006, P. 1048.

20.

“Raj Thackeray launches new party”, Press Trust of India - Updated: Thursday, 309, 2006 at 1914 hours IST.

21.

“Big B draws Raj Thakeray's ire over ‘UP interests”. The Times of India. 222008.

22.

For details of this movement and the incidents leading to police firing see Phadke, Y D (1979): Politics and Language (Bombay: Himlaya).

23.

“MNS wants job quota for Marathis”. The Times of India. 942008.

24.

“Raj Thackeray arrested in Mumbai”, gets bail”. Reuters. 1322008

25.

“Azmi attacked over Hindi oath, four MNS members suspended”, The Hindustan Times. 119, 2009.

26.

Rahi

Gaikwad

(20102008). “North Indians attacked in Mumbai”. The Hindu.

27.

“Raj Thackeray a mental case, ban MNS: Lalu”. The Indian Express. 20102008

28.

“Anger against Raj Thackeray rages in Bihar”. The Times Of India. 22102008.

29.

“SC upholds right to settle anywhere in the country”, The Economic Times, 315, 2008.

30.

Lisa

Pradhan

, “Linguistic politics grows regional disparity in India”, 11, 2009 Retrieved from http://hotnhitnews.com/linguistic_politics_n_regional_disparity_in_India_09001.htm.

31.

Palshikar

Suhas

(2008): “Of Democracy and Diversity”, Seminar, 581, pp 83-87. (2008a): “Nimitta Marathichya Swabhimanache; Mudda Sarwajanik Vivekacha” (Marathi, in the name of Marathi self-respect – but the issue of Public Reason) serialised in a fortnightly, Parivartanacha Watsaru and a weekly, Sadhana in November- December2008.

32.

Palshikar

Suhas

, Rajeshwari Deshpande and Nitin Birmal (2009): “Maharashtra Polls: Continuity amidst Social Volatility”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 54, No 48, 2811, pp 42-47.

33.

Suhas

Palshikar

, In the Midst of Sub-Democratic Politics, Economic & Political Weekly, february13, 2010 vol xlv no 7 EPW.

34.

Savarkar

V D

, (1969-first edition 1923), Hinduiva, Bombay: Veer Savarkar Prakashan.

35.

Known figures of casualties on the Ayodhya site vary from 45 to 60. One must add to that total the 680 people killed in riots during the L K Advani's Yatra.

36.

Raghavan

T C A

, “Origins and Development of Hindu Mahasabha Ideology”, Economic and Poliiical Weekly, Vol XVIII, No 15, 1983.

37.

Competitive ‘Exclusionism’, Economic & Political Weekly, EPW, 213, 2010, vol. xlv no 7.