EXTREME JINGOISM

1. The Growing Regional Chauvinism in India
I. Introduction:
India is a vast country with a highly diverse pluralistic society and a federal
state whose social dynamics since independence have been rather
complicated and difficult to analyse.
Regionalism implies love and loyalty for an area or region in preference to the
country. Its manifestations can be even within a particular state when a small
area puts forth its claim against the other areas or the state as a whole.
Regionalism is a highly parochial sentiment which blinds the people of a
region to the broader requirements of the nation or the community as a
whole. People place what they perceive to be in the interest of the region over
and above the national interest.
II. Causes for the growth of Regionalism:
The reasons for such sentiments are varied and can be too complex to be
simply categorized and understood. The most important cause for the
extensive spread of regionalism in our country is the imbalance in
development, coupled with political mismanagement, neglect by the
government which has led political and economic inequality among the
regions and feelings of psychological alienation among the people of several
regions in the country, particularly the North-east.
Unable to satisfy the aspirations of all people and areas, those in charge of
governance try to build vote-banks give preference to some over others. As it
is, India is a consistently growing nation in terms of population, while the
resources are finite. It is natural that some will have greater access to resources
than others. However, the schism in India has widened to dangerous
proportions. This alienates those who receive a raw deal in terms if
distribution of political power, economic resources and other patronages. In
the case if India, it has also been noted that due to the scarcity of resources
and the increasing pressure of growth in population, when the government is
compelled to focus on a few areas and segments of people at a given time, the
opposition parties seek to eke political mileage and whip up regional
sentiments in the areas which are left out.
1

2. In Maharashtra, for instance, while development took place in abundance in
Western Maharashtra (Pune-Munbai), areas such as Vidharbha and
Marathwada felt neglected. The parties in opposition instigated the people of
Vidharcha and led them into believing that an independent statehood alone
can solve their problems and promised them the carving of a separate state of
Vidharbha, if brought to power. First, the Marathi-speaking people were led
into believing by the local politicians that separation from the Gujarati
speaking people and a separate state of Samyukta Maharashtra will solve their
problems, and now within the state, the agitation continues for redrawing of
boundaries yet again. The same is true for many states in India. First, Andhra
Pradesh was created, and now within the State, some are dissatisfied and want
a separate state of Telangana. The agitations and demands and protests
continue unabated ever since independence. What happens to the nation and
its future and growth in the process is ignored. This is being ‘regional’ in
outlook.
The causes for the spread of Regionalism in India can thus be summarized as
follows:-
1. Lack of adequate economic and social development in
India:
During the struggle for independence, people all over the country were led
into believing that the rood cause of all their hardship was the colonial rule
which they were being subject to since centuries. People believed that all
their sufferings and hardships would end with the gaining of freedom. The
expectations of the people were immensely aroused, with the attainment of
independence. The new Constitution of the country assured the masses
that the government at the Centre and states would take steps to organize
village panchayats, provide work, take care of the old, the destitute, and the
unemployed, ensure just and humane conditions of work, provide a living
wage for workers and guarantee free and compulsory education, sanitation
and medical facilities for all.
People expected to be treated equally and since the makers of the
Constitution had committed the nation to principles of equity and
secularism—the people were content that religion or caste or class would
not interfere with policies, decisions and their implementation. Grand
Five-Year Plans were made, and optimal targets of agricultural growth and
industrial production were laid down. However, within a few years after
independence, the plans went awry and the expectations crashed. People
2

3. were disappointed, as their hardships increased manifold, and they had to
face greater exploitation and injustice. Feelings of ‘nationalism’ took a
back-seat and people began to think of protecting their self interest or at
the most, the interest of their region.
2. Distributive injustice:
The pace of progress was slow and numerous problems were encountered by
the newly set up governing authorities. The expectations of all could not be
met with limited resources. Not only were the precious resources diverted
towards carrying out the essential tasks such as maintenance of law and order,
ensuring the integrity of princely states and providing the basic amenities to
the millions of refugees—but also the resources were too scarce so as to enable
the government to fulfill all its lofty promises. As the government chose to
spend money on selective regions, the inequality in the distribution of
resources sowed the seeds of parochialism in the minds of the citizens.
Many regions felt that they were suffering more because the government was
neglecting their needs for education, sanitation, water supply for agriculture,
and employment. Those regions where dams could not be built, factories and
plants could not be set up, and sufficient funds not allocated annually by the
Centre, felt alienated and regional sentiments there grew faster than in other
areas.
3. Self-centered political leadership:
A shameless struggle for power superseded the noble ideas and principles that
had coloured our freedom struggle. ‘Leaders’ and ‘Statesmen’ soon
transformed into selfish and corrupt politicians with no sincerity or vision for
the development of the country. As plans began to go awry and the central
leadership weakened, regional leaders sought to fill up the vacuum thus
created and began to propagate regional beliefs. The creation of more and
more states meant more seats of power and authority. The scrambling for
positions of power acquired ugly overtones and busy as the politicians were in
satiating their lust for wealth and power, they found it convenient to project
and play the ‘regional’ card. By raising provocative slogans and arousing
passions, questions about their performance were conveniently sidelines, and
this suited all our politicians.
On minor pretexts, the politicians urged people to break the heads and
property of their fellow countrymen in the name of caste or religion or
3

4. language or region, so that the attention remained diverted from ‘what the
politicians and elected representatives were doing’. Our politicians began to
control us like puppets and began to plan the timing and proportion of violent
agitations, civic unrest and destruction of lives and property, depending on
when optimum mileage could be secured from fuelling such acts.
4. Failure of mainstream National Parties:
An important cause for the growth of regional passions in India is the failure
of mainstream national parties to perform well, fulfill even the basic
expectations of the people, and thereby, failure to secure a positive mandate
by the majority. The regional parties have therefore mushroomed all over the
country. Since the past two decades, there have not been too many occasions
when any national political party was able to form the government without
bargaining and trading with smaller regional parties for support. With the end
of the One Party Dominant System (OPDS), both—the Congress and
the BJP are more than willing to accommodate smaller parties—with all morals
and values, of course, taking a beating. Not only does the national party—
which forms the government ignore the hooliganism unleashed by such
regional forces in their respective regions but even encourages them to
thereby remain in the limelight. As the results of several polls have shown-- in
India, notoriety brings in more votes, and it is easier to be notorious than to
work hard and satisfy the needs of the citizens.
Regional chauvinism not only implies love for one’s region but love at the cost
of the well-being of other regions and of people from other regions. If one
loves his or her State over the nation, and places the interest of the region
over and above the national interest, one is being regional in one’s approach.
But, if one loves one’s region and hates the coming of other countrymen into
one’s region and objects to the sharing of the resources of the state by others,
then it is regionalism at its worst—which we have been increasingly
experiencing in India.
III. Growth of Regionalism in India after Independence:
Ever since the independence of the country, the rich ethnic and geographical
diversity which was to become the hallmark of our nationhood, instead
fostered a series of peculiar ‘identity crises’ in one group of citizens after
another. Every group was wary of the other groups and wanted its own
4

5. interests protected exclusively. The basis of insecurity was either language or
religion or caste or lack of economic growth in the region vis-a-vis the others.
Even after the division of India into ‘States’ on the basis of language, the
‘identity crisis’ suffered by the numerous linguistic and ethnic groups did not
get pacified. The process of fragmentation nd compartmentalization of the
society continued unabated due to the assertion of separate identities by one
or the other religious, caste, or class group.
It has been observed in our country that the demands for exclusive privileges,
rights and safeguards always had the tendency to resurrect, even as one or the
other sub-group moved towards isolation even after the attainment of
statehood by all major groups and regions. Majority of the disgruntled groups
never intend to integrate with the national mainstream even after their
demands are either fully or partially fulfilled. This has resulted in further
demands for splitting the already existing states from sub-regions and groups
which feel marginalized and distanced from the centre of authority in the
state.
After 1947, on one hand the country was consolidated by the integration of
princely states and on the other, the regional aspirations flared up and states
such as Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab,
Harayana, Tripura, Meghalaya and others were carved on the basis of
language, one after another. However, the regional aspirations did not
subside. The demand for creating Uttaranchal, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand,
Vidharbha, Telangana, Bodoland, Gorkhaland and Harit Pradesh continued
to rock the nation. Of these, Chhatisgarh, Uttaranchal, and Jharkhand became
new States in 2000. The demands for autonomy and statehood by other
regions continue to be exploited either by political parties (at convenience) or
by the other vested interests.
However, all throughout the country, wherever regionalism raised its ugly
head and regional outfits sprung up—the initial appeal and popularity is
inevitably traced to the contradictions of the economic structure and rising
levels of unemployment all over the country. Regional outfits served as an
outlet for the anxiety resulting from the growing competition for jobs and
other economic resources. In every region, and particularly the metropolitan
cities—economic underdevelopment and declining living standards motivated
people to seek a leader and an organization which will protect and promote
their interests as aggressively as possible. Existing mainstream political leaders
and institutions were proving incapable of redressing local grievances. The
5

6. political space, thus generated and the regional sentiments vigorously raised—
were thereby sought to be exploited by regional organizations. The middle
class is almost always attracted to and falls prey to regional sentiments owing to
the perception that by harboring regional parochialism—they would be able to
protect their economic and cultural interests.
IV. Two Sides of the Coin:
The process of succumbing to regional aspirations has takers as well as
opponents. One school of thought finds nothing wrong in yielding to
regional aspirations because it fulfills democratic urges, facilitates
administrative convenience, makes developmental goals relatively easier to
reach, provides greater access to the local people to the corridors of power
and enhances local accountability. This school also refers to events a few years
ago in countries like Canada, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Russia
and Pakistan—all of which suffered from unrest, instability and outright
recession by some regions because they did not accommodate the regional
demands of the people.
The other school of thought warns against the drastic consequences of
letting people place regional interests above national interest. Yielding to
slogans like ‘Maharashtra for marathi-speaking people’, or ‘Assam for
Assamese only’ forster agitations and violence which does not augur well for
our nationhood in contemporary times. The opponents of regional tendencies
believe that reducing or increasing the size of regions cannot by itself promote
peace and development. Rather, if regional tendencies go unchecked and
States adopt rigid postures over sharing water (Cauvery dispute: Karnataka,
TamilNadu and Kerala) or electricity (Punjab vs. Delhi), people cannot live in
peace.
While the grievances of some regions in terms of they having suffered neglect
leading to impoverishment, may be true—the vast majority of regional
agitations are largely politically motivated and aim at strengthening parochial
sentiments. The consistent upsurge in population aids the agenda of such
vested interests. The government too cannot use an iron hand on all occasions
and suppress regional sentiments. The gulf between ‘them’ and ‘us’ has to be
bridged wisely and through accommodation and compromises. The focus
must essentially be on ensuring efficiency in governance and a greater popular
participation therein. This should help control the fuelling of parochialism
and violence.
6

7. Those leaders who do not distinguish between fame and notoriety stoop to
frightening levels in order to grab headlines. They raise rhetoric and aim to
carve a niche for themselves by spreading hate and prejudice. Whenever the
sense of frustration mounts in the natives of any region, at losing out
economically and culturally to other social groups in the modern-age battle for
scarce resources—a new ‘enemy’ is chosen for bashing.
V. Regionalism Overtaking Nationalism:
Let us examine some of the instances of regional chauvinism threatening the
stability and security of India:
 Dravida Munetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu:
The first and most challenging form of regionalism that emerged in post-
independent India was the demand of the people of certain regions to secede
from the Indian Union and become an independent sovereign state. The fist
such demand came from the Tamils of the state of Madras. In 1960, the
Dravide Munetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Nam Tamil (‘We Tamil’)
organized a joint campaign throughout Madras state for the secession of
Madras from India and for making it an independent sovereign state of
Tamilnad. They publicly burnt the maps of India minus ‘Tamilnad’. The
programmes of and demands put forth by the DMK found wide acceptability
among the masses and the party’s campaign continued.
It contested the third General Election to the State Assembly on the issue and
it won 50 seats, as against the 15 seats which it had secured in the second
General Election. Its strength in the Lok Sabha rose from 2 in 1975 to 7 seats.
Its leader C.N. Annadurai maintained that the people of South were of a
stock different from that of the north. He alleged that the South had been
‘ignored’ and ‘neglected’ by the Union Government in the successive five-year
plans for India’s socio-economic development.
In view of the disintegrating trends in the country, Parliament adopted in
October 1963, the Sixteenth Constitution (Amendment) Bill which (a)
enabled Parliament to make laws providing penalties for any person
questioning the sovereignty and integrity of Indian Union, and (b) laid down
that a candidate for election to Parliament or state legislature would have to
7

8. undertake, by oath or affirmation, to bear true faith and allegiance to the
Indian Constitution and to uphold the country’s sovereignty and integrity.
Gradually, in 1970s, the emphasis of the DMK shifted from secessionism to
autonomy. However, being a regional party, the DMK always sought to pick
up local issues to incite passions of the people in order to stay on in power.
Taking cue from the DMK that upholding the regional banner pays rich
dividends, several such organizations sprung up and insisted that they were
more capable and aggressive defendants of the ‘Tamil’ cause. In My 1974,
Tamizhar Padukappu Peravai (Tamil Protection Organization) took out a
procession in Madras city against the ‘Malayalis’. They shouted anti-Malayali
slogans like “drive out Malayalis” and “give employment to Tamilians alone”.
They took an oath stating “not to allow any non-Tamilians like Malayalis” to
head any undertaking, political party or government in Tamil Nadu. The
processionists stoned theatres screening Malayalam pictures, damaged
hoardings and ransacked the auditorium of one of them, and indulged in
other acts of violence and lawlessness.
The DMK, though in power then, did not want to lose the status of being the
only effective champions of the ‘Tamil’ cause. The then CM Karunanidhi
declared that his government favoured reserving 80 per cent of the jobs in the
government and private sectors for local people.
Igniting regional passions and making parochial statements to that end,
continues till date. Whenever convenient, such rhetoric has been put to use,
with rich dividends resulting from thereon.
 Mizo National Front in Mizoram:
Another region of the country where secessionist movements were launched
with gusto was the north-east region comprising Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh—jointly known as the
‘seven sisters’.
The people of the Mizo Hill district of Assam with an area of 8,200 square
miles and a population of about 200,000 demanded secession not only from
Assam but from the Indian Union itself. They demanded the formation of an
‘independent Mizo state’ comprising also the Mizos of the contiguous areas of
East Pakistan and Burma. They formed the Mizo National Front (MNF) to
press their demand. The Union government naturally turned down their
8

9. demand and took to repression. The Mizos organized armed agitation and
commenced guerilla warfare. In the wake of the Chinese aggression in
October 1962, the MNF was banned, and all its operations were declared
illegal under the Defence of India Rules. Their activities, however, continued
and spread to the Cachar Hills of Assam and the then Union Territory of
Tripura. The Union Government alleged that the Mizos were in league with
the Nagas and the Chinese who were arming and training them.
In order to satisfy their political aspirations, the Union Government made the
Mizo Hills a Union Territory named Mizoram. The Union Government
spent crores of rupees to improve the living conditions of people there and
integrate them with the mainstream of the nation, but only limited success was
achieved. Many extremists who would be content only with an independent
state outside the Union continued their violent activities under the leadership
of the local leader Laldenga.
In December 1974, the ‘Mizo National Army’ issued a notice to the effect that
“all Indian nationals now in Mizoram are hereby ordered to leave Mizoram
before January 1, 1975. The responsibility for violation of this order shall be
upon the defaulters.” As the ultimatum expired, the MNF whipped up its
terrorist activities. The top police brass was attacked and assassinated by the
extremists. In retaliation, New Delhi launched intensive army operations to
repress the violence. The Union Government decided to suspend all talks
with the rebels unless and until they stopped all violent activities. The MNF
alleged that the atrocities being inflicted upon the youth of the Union
Territory by the security forces were pushing more and more of them into the
ranks of the underground secessionists. The truth, however, was that China
was extending all possible help to the Mizo insurgents, with the ultimate
objective of creating lawlessness and anarchy in the north-eastern region of
India. Pakistan too was colluding with the Chinese towards this end.
In order to deal with the grave situation, the Union Government devised
more and more stringent measures, one of them being the imposition of the
provisions of the deadly Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
Meanwhile, measures of peace were also initiated, accords signed, and
promises made by the Union Government as well as the rebels. But, violent
activities by the MNF did not lose momentum. In July 1979 the MNF
insurgents struck again and attacked with automatic weapons at the
transmission centre of All India Radio, Aizwal and the Mizoram police
complex. Several dangerous plans came to light about the terrorists trying to
9

10. assassinate VIPs—including the Lt. Governor, the CM, and senior police and
civil service officers. The MNF had also planned to blow up the AIR
transmitter, cut off water supply to the capital and to disrupt all
communications between Mizoram and the rest of the country. In response,
the central government again launched military operations with full force.
Joining hands with others in the North-Eastern region, the MNF too raised
the demand that the non-Mizos should quit Mizoram. In January 1980, the
Mizo leadership began negotiations with PM Indira Gandhi’s government in
order to bring peace to the Union Territory after 14 years of insurgency. A
‘cease-fire’ agreement was signed which provided that with effect from the
midnight of July 31, the Mizo insurgents would stop all rebel activities,
including fresh recruitment and collection of taxes and the revocation of the
‘quit Mizoram’ notice to non-Mizos, and the Government on its part, would
suspend all operations by its security forces against hostile elements.
But the calm that prevailed in the Union Territory proved to be deceptive.
Laldenga adopted a contradictory posture. On one side, he sought to
convince his erstwhile colleagues that Mizoram’s future lay with India and he
told the Government of India that he was sincerely trying to find a solution to
the vexed problem within the framework of the Indian Constitution. And, on
the other hand, the commanders of the MNF took full advantage of the
suspension of the military operations to regroup their forces, to restore their
communication links, to re-establish their ideological cells in remote hamlets,
to raise funds, to collect rations, to build up stocks of medicines, to establish
fresh arms and ammunition dumps and take refresher courses in guerilla
warfare for their rank and file. Thus while there were talks of peace, the MNF
and the Mizo National Army prepared for war.
In 1981 Laldenga demanded a greater Mizoram state which should include
large parts of Tripura, Manipur and Assam. He stressed that the Mizos were
different, that they were ethnically and culturally Mongolian and Christian by
religion, and that the majority of others were Indo-Aryan, governed by Hindu
ethics and philosophy. The parochial MNF leadership thus sought to
continued to ignite the passions of the masses afresh. The secessionist
activities were launched with fresh vigour and the security forces were
attacked, along with the civilians, government employees and the ‘outsiders’.
Talks between the government and Laldenga meanwhile continued and in
October 1985, a breakthrough was reached. An accord was reached on
10

11. modalities for laying down arms by the rebels and in the wake of this, a
coalition government was formed by the MNF and Congress (I), with
Laldenga as the Chief Minister. In February 1987, a new elected Ministry was
sworn in, with Laldenga as the CM and on the same day, Mizoram was made
the 23rd
State of the Indian Union.
 Stir in Assam against the non-Assamese:
Another serious manifestation of regionalism appeared in Assam, where in
the mid-1960s, the Assamese organized the Lachit Sena on the pattern of the
Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. It launched an agitation against the immigrants
from other states of the Indian Union, particularly the Marwaris from
Rajasthan who owned much of the industry in the state. First, the agitation
took the form of posters and leaflets asking the non-Assamese to leave the
state. Then, the Lachit Sena mobilized the students and provocated them to
boycott the Republic Day celebrations in January 1968, as a protest against the
Centre’s unwillingness to concede their demands and then they went on an
attacking spree—targeting the shops and industrial establishments of the non-
Assamese.
In the later half of the 1970s, an agitation against the inclusion of ‘foreigners’
in the electoral rolls developed in Assam under the leadership of two
organizations—namely, the All-Assam Gana Sangram Parishad and the All-
Assam Students’ Union. Between 1964 and 1971, about 1,000,000 people
had entered into Assam from what was then East Pakistan (prior to the
creation of Bangladesh), and about 2, 00,000 of them had been illegally
registered as voters. The above two organizations demanded the detection,
disenfranchisement and deportation of these “aliens”.
Although the agitations in Assam were initially launched on the issue of
“foreigners” pouring illegally into the state, the extremist groups eventually
took advantage of the aroused passions and started intimidating the non-
Assamese people on one hand, and accusing the Centre of neglecting Assam
on the other. Towards the end of 1978, posters exhorting the people of the
north-east to unite and recreate a “golden Assam” appeared in several districts
of Assam. The posters urged the people to disrupt transport links with the rest
of the country, so that tea and oil were not supplied to areas outside the
region. One pamphlet said: “Bye bye India” and it alleged that the Centre was
adopting a ‘colonial policy’ towards Assam. The posters spoke of a “United
States of Asom”.
11

12. Since the Bengalis living in Assam too were subject to intimidation, a counter
agitation against Assam was launched in West Bengal by the Youth Congress
(I) and the Chhatra Parishad – the party’s students’ organization, to make the
Assamese students realize the ‘folly’ of their ways and to ‘restore good sense’
in them. The agitation in Bengal also became violent, and at some point of
time, the two states appeared to be on a war-path. In the summer of 1985,
Assam became involved in a border dispute with Nagaland and this led to
exchange of fire, the displacement of more than 30,000 persons in Assam and
the halting of traffic on the Assam-Nagaland border. However, an accord was
soon reached on the intervention of the Union Government.
 Shiv Sena in Maharashtra:
The Shiv Senas agenda in Maharashtra has never had separatist undertones,
as the DMK or AGP had. The target has always differed for the Shiv Sena.
First, the South Indians were targeted, then Muslims, then Sikhs, and now the
North Indians—particularly, the Bhaiyas from UP and Bihar. In order to
mobilize its cadres, it has always been on the lookout for a ‘fresh enemy’.
Also, appealing just to the locals didn’t yield electoral gains. So, it appealed to
all Hindus and exhorted them to unite and rise against Muslims. When that
didn’t translate into electoral success either, it reverted to focusing on the local
marathi manoos.
The Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, even if it has acquired limited political power
in the State, has certainly played an influential role in the lexicon of regional
politics as one of the original and most durable nativistic movements in the
country. After witnessing its role in the Mumbai roots of 1992-93 and the
Marathwada riots in early 1994 and the recent spate of violence against North
Indians in 2008 by its foster off-shoot—the Maharashtra Nav Nirman Sena
(MNS)—its potential for mischief and violence cannot be underestimated.
Originally, Maharashtrian chauvinism appeared as the principal thrust of the
Sena’s ideology which projected itself as the sole guardian of the interests of
the ‘marathi manoos’. It looks at all ‘outsiders’ with suspicion and holds them
responsible for the overcrowding, and consequent lack of development in the
State, particularly Mumbai. Its agenda has always been dysfunctional and
disoriented and devoid as it has been of any coherent ideology—it has only
stirred primordial passions.
VI. Ongoing Issues:
12

13. Regionalism is an ongoing affair and has come to stay in Indian Polity.
In Andhra Pradesh, the rise of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) is attributed to
the callous manner in which the State was treated by the Centre. A party for
the Telugus—the TDP was formed by the glamorous N.T. Rama Rao (film
star turned politician) who convinced the people of his State that he will score
even with the Centre. He attained power soon after and from then one,
though the Congress did secure power on a few occasions—the regional tides
continue to sweep the state. Today, the demand for a separate State of
Telangana, to be carved out of AP is gaining momentum. Major political
parties do not hesitate to express support and solidarity with the Telangana
Rashtra Samiti (TRS) and its leader K. Chandra Shekhar Rao as and when it
is convenient to do so.
States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa too have joined the
bandwagon. Regional parties flourish in all the states, by appealing to narrow
regional ethos and irrespective of whether a common man feels a concrete
difference in his or her quality of life, they come to power with a bang. The
mounting dissatisfaction and insecurity amongst the people forces them to
harbour prejudices and a vision narrower than ever before. Neither the
Congress and nor the BJP calls the shots in Bihar or Up or Orissa. Regional
chauvinism and appeasement of religious and caste-based minorities dominate
the political scene in all three states. The Centrist, Rightist, and the Leftists
alike have had to take a backseat and wait for their respective regional allies to
throw a few crumbs at them during the seat-sharing arrangement bargains.
The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in Orissa, the Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD)
earlier and the Samata Party now in Bihar, and the Samajwadi Party (SP)
earlier and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) now in Uttar Pradesh have
wrested control from the nationalist parties and are treating their respective
regions as their personal fiefdoms.
The nationalist parties too do not overwhelmingly pursue a national agenda.
They are content with taking a back-seat position vis-à-vis their regional
partners in every state and draw as much mileage as they can from rhetoric
raised by their allies—with ministerial berths in proportion to their headcount
in the Parliament. Whether it is the DMK in Tamil Nadu, or the AGP in
the north-east, or the TDP in Andhra Pradesh, regional parties have occupied
a well-defined political space over the years. Except for minor variations in
13

14. their methods, they have all whipped parochial sentiments and followed a
chauvinistic agenda.
VII. Conclusion:
Despite regional interests threatening India’s nationhood, we remain a
democratic state—fully alive and kicking, primarily because street agitations
differ from electoral politics. Fortunately, the crowd which goes beserk during
such agitations and goes on a rampage is a miniscule minority and the number
which upholds the sanctity of the electoral exercise is the vast majority. The
majority exercises suffrage with wisdom and it is not very often that we find
parochial forces coming to power. Those who spread fear and insecurity
under the garb of championing the cause of the ‘sons-of-the-soil’ may get
instant recognition but not authority always.
Dissatisfaction with those in charge of governance is a universal truth. No
matter what a government of a country does or fails to do—there will be
sections of people who shall remain dissatisfied, frustrated and may feel
alienated. Governments all over the world are reeling under political apathy
and unrest. The extent of agitation depends on the condition of a country’s
economy, its demographic profile, the pattern of its development and the
agenda of its internal and external vested interests.
The most important causes of the rampant spread of regionalism are the lack
of maturity in the people and lack of sincerity in the ruling elite. India seems
to have the distinction of being one of those rare countries wherein all the said
causes of regionalism co-existed, were deliberately exploited and they today
sustain themselves.
Dr.(Ms)Navniit Gandhi
navniit_gandhi@yahoo.co.in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
I. Articles:
14

15. 1. ‘Extortion, Mafia Style’, See The Times of India, January 23, 1993
2. ‘Tantrums of a Tiger’, See Profiles in Sunday Times of India, October
27, 1991.
3. ‘Regional Chauvinism and Mushrooming of Political parties’,
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3135533-
regional-chauvinism-and-mushrooming-of-political-parties
4. ‘Regional chauvinism: Thackeray style’,
http://www.merinews.com/article/regional-chauvinism-
thackeray-style/129995.shtml
5. ‘India: Regional chauvinism growing and no one to stop it’,
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/21/india-regional-
chauvinism/
6. ‘Regional Chauvinism’,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fullcoverage/Fullcoverage.
aspx?Special=RegionalChauvinism
II. Books:
1. Gupta Dipankar: Nativism in a Metropolis, Manohar Publications,
1982.
2. Roy, Ramashray and Paul Wallace: Indian Politics and the 1998
Election: Regionalism, Hindutva and State Politics, Sage Publishers,
New Delhi, 1999.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15