Dhananjay Mahapatra
If physical features or language of an Indian becomes the reason for directing suspicious looks or violence against her/him, then the country must urgently take steps to prevent the ugly head of regionalism and linguistic parochialism making fresh attempts to tear national integrity apart.
A few months ago, students from the northeast were targeted in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. We also saw the spectre of regionalism in MNS chief Raj Thackeray's recent speeches. Given the turbulence in northeast over illegal migrants, the fear of a vigorous agitation looms large in Assam and its neighbours. Past experience shows such agitations do not distinguish between an illegal migrant and an Indian coming from states other than the northeast.
In another instance of misplaced regionalism, Tamil Nadu thought it would endear itself to Sri Lankan Tamils through protests against tourists from Colombo. Did it anticipate the adverse impact on the lives of Tamils living in Sri Lanka? They had to down shutters to express solidarity with Lankan tourists.
National integrity is inseparable from sovereignty. After achieving independence through a non-violent movement, India became a Republic in 1950. The first election to Parliament was held in 1952. Elected representatives were mostly freedom fighters aware of the hard work that had gone in to unite people for a common goal and the importance of the country's integrity for keeping its sovereignty intact.
Within a decade, it was felt that people's representatives were drifting away from important lessons in fraternity taught during the freedom struggle and were indulging in regionalism and linguistic parochialism, which fostered sectarianism that, in turn, threatened national integrity.
The Committee on National Integration and Regionalism recommended that every candidate for membership of Parliament or state legislatures, Union and state ministers, MPs and MLAs, judges of the Supreme Court and high courts and the comptroller and auditor general of India should take oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The Union government accepted the recommendation and introduced the 16th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which after being passed by Parliament came into force on October 5, 1963. The Act added a line to the oath taken by each MP and MLA (also the PM and CMs) which read, "I will uphold sovereignty and integrity of India".
If the elected representatives are constitutionally bound to uphold India's sovereignty and integrity, how are they tolerating threats to the very thing they have promised to protect? Should they not face disqualification for breach of oath?
The threat of regionalism and linguistic parochialism to the integrity of India brings to mind the fears expressed by first PM Jawaharlal Nehru, who had said, "Who dies if India lives? Who lives if India dies?" We the people of India gave ourselves the Constitution and embodied in the Preamble what we expected to achieve. Its importance -- in words and practice - was lucidly explained by the Supreme Court in Dr Pradeeep Jain case [1984 (3) SCC 655].
More than 25 years ago, the court had felt that India as a nation was threatened by the divisive forces of regionalism and communalism, which were gaining ascendancy and conspiring to tear national integrity apart.
"We must realize, and this is unfortunate that many in public life tend to overlook, sometimes out of ignorance of the forces of history and sometimes deliberately with a view to promoting their self-interest, that national interest must inevitably and forever prevail over any other considerations proceeding from regional, linguistic or communal attachments," it had said.
We know India is not strung together by a common linguistic thread. Possibly, the common cultural ethos, practice and fraternal feelings helped the diverse country forge a union among States.