The migrant as scapegoat

By Kalpana Sharma

RECENT EVENTS and discussions in India's commercial capital should concern everyone in the country. For suddenly, there have been a number of discussions, even at government level, on finding ways to curb the entry of `outsiders' into Mumbai. The Maharashtra Government is seriously talking about checking the influx of migrants into the city of Mumbai. The Congress-led State Government argues that the problems Mumbai faces - overstretched infrastructure, inadequate housing, shortages of basic services - can all be laid at the feet of the thousands of people from other parts of India streaming into the city.

This conclusion is not based on any new data or survey but is prompted by the advent of an election looming on the horizon. For the copyright for the anti-immigrant theme song rests firmly with the Shiv Sena, which currently sits in the Opposition. The Congress and its allies are clearly attempting to upstage the Sena before the elections to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in February 2002.

How easy it is to make the migrant the scapegoat for all the city's ills. The Shiv Sena started the trend with its anti-South Indian tirade in the late 1960s. In the 1980s, when the problem of the growing population living in informal housing and slums became evident, once again there was talk of checking the influx. On an unforgettable day in 1981, at the height of the monsoon, the Mumbai police - at the behest of the State Government - demolished hundreds of pavement dwellings. The poor, dishoused people were filled into buses, taken outside the city limits, and asked to `go back' where they came from. Most of these people had lived on the same spot for several decades and had no contact with their ostensible `home State'.

That was the decade when imaginary figures of the numbers coming into the city were floated - 300 families a day was the favourite figure. How such a statistic was arrived at was never clarified. But by frequent repetition, by politicians and the media, it became sanctified as the unchallenged truth. Today, there is talk of 700 families or 15,000 people coming into the city every day. Once again, there is no explanation offered of how such a calculation was made.

There is no disputing the fact that Mumbai grew because of migration. All cities do. Mumbai needed labour for its industries and the port in the last century. This initial migration escalated many times over in the years after Partition. In the decade 1971-81, the migration into the city was even more noticeable. This was the decade that saw major droughts in Maharashtra and elsewhere in the country. Migration was inevitable and Mumbai an obvious draw for the impoverished villager. But in the following decade the inflow of migrants decreased and most of the growth in the city's population was attributed to natural growth. This decade also saw industry moving out of Mumbai, thereby closing avenues for employment.

As for the nature of the migration, repeated surveys have established that the majority of the migrants coming to Mumbai were from rural Maharashtra. Despite this, the bogey that the majority of the people coming into the city are from outside the State persists.

Facts, of course, never matter when political parties want to find scapegoats for the problems they create through bad governance. Thus, talk of `influx' has surfaced again as the city copes with the very real problem of dealing with the dire housing needs of 60 per cent of its residents who live in slums. And rather than involving all sections of society in dealing with the problem, the `outsider' has become the target of the ire of the politicians; in particular, migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Biharis and U.P.-wallahs were targeted by the Shiv Sena chief, Mr. Bal Thackeray, in response to a remark made by the Prime Minister during a visit to Mumbai. Mr. Vajpayee had pointedly stated that Mumbai belonged to everyone. To which Mr. Thackeray responded by saying it was people from the Prime Minister's home State and neighbouring Bihar who were responsible for Mumbai's problems.

The matter could have rested there, dismissed as one of Mr. Thackeray's usual rants. But the Democratic Front Government did not want to be left behind. So the Chief Minister, Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh, called a `high level' meeting on July 10 to discuss what to do about the influx. He is reported to have said that the Government could take steps to restrict access to certain facilities by new migrants. For instance, there could be tighter checking of ration cards before they are issued, admission to schools could be restricted and even treatment in public hospitals would require proof of domicile.

Even as such suggestions are mooted, there are constant voices reminding the Government and other advocates of checking the influx that this is not possible under the Indian Constitution. Yet, even this has not deterred the supporters of checks on entry into the city. It is like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. Everyone is talking nonsense, but with the utmost seriousness.

Some lawyers argue that a curb could be imposed as ``a reasonable restriction'' despite the rights guaranteed every citizen in the Constitution. A lawyer, Mr. Nitin Pradhan, is quoted as saying, ``Two such restrictions can be imposed. One, the city resident should have proof of owning property here. Two, he/she should also prove that he/she has a job and a flat or a house to stay''. If this is read alongside the suggestions made at the Chief Minister's meeting, it is clear that curbs are intended only to restrict poor migrants. The well-heeled and professional migrants, who also come to Mumbai to seek their fortune, will not face any such restrictions, even if they are from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar.

Ironically, Maharashtra's current Minister of State for Home is himself a migrant. Mr. Kripa Shankar Singh came to Mumbai in 1972 from Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh and survived selling potatoes and onions. His fortunes improved greatly when he found a home in politics and the Congress. And today that has given him a very nice roof over his head, in a ministerial bungalow on Malabar Hill. Predictably, the Shiv Sena has attacked him for defending migrants from his State.

However, while the talk of migration and `influx' is an obvious red herring, the need to find additional resources for Mumbai is a clear need. When the Prime Minister said that Mumbai belongs to everyone, he was touching on a fact that should translate itself into rupees and paise. For if indeed the commercial capital of India is contributing so greatly to the rest of the country, in terms of the revenues it generates and also the livelihood opportunities it creates for people from all over the country, then the Centre should provide financial assistance for the city. Mumbai's problems should be a national concern, and not just that of the State Government.

Of course, any talk of seeing Mumbai as a city with a special status immediately rings alarm bells in Maharashtra, and particularly in the Shiv Sena. ``Mumbai belongs to Maharashtra,'' is the constant refrain. Yet, the rest of the State is not able to find the funds to meet the needs of Mumbai. So Mumbai has to belong to India in the true sense of the term and the financial investment in its growth and maintenance must come from outside the State.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : India and the great powers
Next     : This is not religion