Language, they say, is fundamental to social and cultural identities. In Mumbai, language, especially the place and use of Marathi, has been rendered more sensitive by the twists and turns of politicians and their agendas.
Suresh, aka Bhaiyyaji, Joshi, an ideologue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is not the typical provocateur politician, but he certainly spoke like one and stirred a hornet’s nest where there was no need to. In Mumbai this week, Joshi stated at a public meeting that Mumbai does not have a single language, as each part has a different one, and it was not necessary for those residing in the city to learn Marathi.
This was like taking an ember to a powder keg; the issue of Marathi in Mumbai and Mumbai in Maharashtra is fraught with intense emotions, has a blood trail of 106 language martyrs, and is best left untouched. The row that erupted, primarily led by the Shiv Sena (Thackeray) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, was a political embarrassment for the ruling BJP and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Shiv Sena’s Eknath Shinde, deputy chief minister. Before it could get awkward for both, Joshi retracted that Marathi is, indeed, the language of Mumbai and, for good measure, added that it was his mother tongue.
Marathi and its use in Mumbai, in fact in the larger Mumbai Metropolitan Region, is a contentious issue. Joshi would know this. Therefore, it would be proper to ask what agenda he had when he made that statement. While it is a fact that Marathi speakers have declined over the past two decades in Mumbai, going by available Census and other data, it is still the language most spoken in the city.
Hindi has seen a massive rise in speakers, while Gujarati speakers have remained constant. The number of Marathi speakers in neighbouring Thane, part of the larger MMR, has seen a phenomenal rise, perhaps because of working-class Maharashtrians migrating from the city as it gentrifies in areas like Parel and Girgaon.
The history of the tension between Marathi and Gujarati speakers, which sociologists have framed as a struggle between labour and capital, resulted in fierce verbal war and riots. Mumbai has not forgiven Morarji Desai, who, as chief minister of the then Bombay State, advocated for a separate city-state.
His dismissive “Mumbai tumchi, ata bhandi ghasa amchi” (Mumbai is yours; now scrub our utensils) still rankles many old-timers. Joshi’s statements, when seen against the attempts of the BJP governments in the state and at the centre to diminish the significance of Mumbai by shifting headquarters of institutions or luring traders to Gujarat, seem ominous. His words hid an agenda, a dangerous one that threatens to cleave the city again. Language is fundamental to cultural identity; ideologues should respect this if they do not have agendas to push.
