On page 9 in the Hindustan Times yesterday (Sunday Oct 11), I found this nugget from an interview with Raj Thackeray, referring to "outsiders" coming to Bombay to live:
"But why can't they hold their local politicians responsible for the pathetic situation in their states? What about those useless leaders in their states who have failed to create employment there? It is their failure for which we are suffering here."
All right. Two reactions.
1) On page 11 in the same paper, I read this: "According to the Mumbai Human Development Report 2009 prepared by the National Resource Centre for Urban Poverty ... most of Mumbai's migrants are not from the north, but from other, neglected parts of Maharashtra ... Maharashtra accounts for 37.4 per cent of the city's migrant population."
(Clearly that word "most" really should have read "the largest fraction", but the point remains).
What should we conclude from that 37.4 per cent? Going by Raj Thackeray's logic, such as it is, we should conclude that the "local politicians [of Maharashtra] are responsible for the pathetic situation" in Maharashtra. That Maharashtra has "useless leaders who have failed to create employment". Etc.
2) By a rough calculation, there are about 120,000 Maharashtrians living in the US. (See this comment for how I came up with that number. Others in Australia, the UK, South Africa, etc, but let's focus just on the US). All of these Maharashtrians emigrated from this state in search of a better life.
What should we conclude from this number? Again, going by Raj Thackeray's logic, we should conclude that they emigrated because Maharashtra's "local politicians are responsible for the pathetic situation" in Maharashtra. That Maharashtra has "useless leaders who have failed to create employment". Etc.
Are these conclusions valid? And if so, who are the leaders and politicians he is referring to, especially considering he is a leader and a politician himself?
Or is the logic itself flawed? Your thoughts welcome.