Retributions  

Understanding cultural wars

Writing in the Rediff, Saisuresh Sivaswamy mounts a defence of the Marathi Manoos. He argues that unlike his native Chennai, Marathi culture has been swamped in Mumbai by the arrival of outsiders who have refused to ”assimilate” and attempt to retain a distinct identity. Therefore, it is inevitable that the ”mild-mannered” Maharashtrians would rise against the outsiders and it is incumbent upon them not to spurn the city which has embraced them.

Let’s get the most obvious point out of the way: Raj Thackeray’s campaign must be opposed because it is founded on the bedrock of violence, intimidation and coercion–a point Sivaswamy conveniently ignores. Constitutional democracy and rule of law would be meaningless if the state does not retain a monopoly on violence and private retribution becomes the order of the day. Thackeray has not launched a campaign for preservation of Marathi culture or attempted to promote Marathi literature. He has coerced shopkeepers into following his private unlawful orders utilizing his well-earned reputation for goondaism. And pray, who has given him the right to speak for Marathi pride? Considering his party’s poor performance in elections, he cannot even claim popular support.

But are Marathis justified in fearing a loss of their culture? Two points need to be considered here. First, as winds of globalization sweep across the world and brings us all closer, homogenization is the price it will extract. Already, in technology, there is a strong movement towards standardization. Now, human beings cling strongly to their culture affinities since it helps define their own identity. Hence, a a degree of angst at the perceived loss of their culture–however minor or irrational it may seem to outsiders–is inevitable. Equally, it is inevitable. The world may lose many languages and myriad cultural groups.(Or will it? See this.) What will survive may simply be a function of power–economic, political, cultural and demographic. Is it a price worth paying? This blog believes so for the benefits of globalization far exceed the cost. Others may not agree. Unfortunately, they may not have the means or wherewithal to extract themselves from this process. Hence, conflict is also inevitable. But the question is this: Should this conflict play out on the streets or should this battle be fought in theaters, movie halls and on bookshelves?

Second, is culture constant? Thackeray’s demands amount to a puritanical yearning for Marathi culture of yore untouched by outside influences. But if human societies evolve, does culture needs to be measured by periods of times extending into centuries. Or does it evolve–drawing from the past and yet ephemeral. if it is the latter, then Mumbai culture–a potpourri of influences–has much claim to the Marathi heart as cultures of old. It need not be a deliberative assimilative process but merely an evolutionary one. In New York, perhaps the most cosmopolitan city in the world, there is simply no defining culture anymore. Does that make New York a lesser city? It simply may be necessary for cities like Bombay and Bangalore which visualize themselves as global destination to forsake local affiliations or leverage them into a more welcoming package.

Mumbai can be a global city as well as a Marathi city and a Gujarati city and a Parsi city. What it cannot and should be is an exclusionary city. That is what Thackeray wants. And that is why he needs to be opposed.