Raj Thackeray, leader of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), has once again stirred controversy with his remarks targeting migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. His speeches often frame these communities as outsiders who “snatch jobs” from locals, and he has threatened to drive them out of Mumbai.
Such rhetoric raises fundamental questions:
- Is Maharashtra a separate country?
- Are fellow Indians from UP and Bihar not entitled to live and work in Mumbai?
- Why do authorities, including the Election Commission, allow such divisive politics to continue unchecked?
⚖️ Constitutional Reality
- India is one nation. Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar are states within the Union.
- Under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout India and reside in any part of the country.
- Migrants from UP and Bihar are not “foreigners”; they are Indians contributing to Mumbai’s economy and culture.
๐ Why Such Hate Speech?
- Vote-bank politics: Raj Thackeray has long used anti-migrant rhetoric to mobilize Marathi voters, especially during municipal elections.
- Divide and Rule: His strategy mirrors colonial tactics—pitting communities against each other to consolidate power.
- Identity Politics: By portraying migrants as outsiders, he appeals to regional pride and fear of cultural erosion.
๐จ Government & Election Commission Response
- Law on Hate Speech: Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC prohibit promoting enmity between groups. Yet enforcement against powerful politicians is often weak.
- Election Commission’s Role: The EC regulates elections but does not disqualify candidates for speech unless it violates the Model Code of Conduct during election periods.
- Why No Action?: Political clout, legal loopholes, and slow judicial processes often shield leaders from accountability.
๐ Broader Implications
- Unity vs. Division: India’s strength lies in diversity. Targeting fellow Indians undermines national unity.
- Economic Contribution: Migrants from UP and Bihar are the backbone of Mumbai’s construction, transport, and service industries.
- Dangerous Precedent: If unchecked, such rhetoric could normalize discrimination against Indians in their own country.
๐ Conclusion
Raj Thackeray is not Pakistani or foreign—he is an Indian politician exploiting regional identity politics. His problem is not nationality but political opportunism, using hate speech as a tool. Maharashtra is not a separate country; it is an integral part of India. Every Indian has the right to live there.
The real issue is the failure of authorities and the Election Commission to curb divisive politics. Allowing hate speech unchecked risks reviving the colonial “divide and rule” formula, weakening India’s unity from within.
