“Barriers break when we talk” goes the tag line of a mobile telephony service provider. But judging by the kind of hysteria and frenzy that the media unleashed a few weeks back over some remarks made by Raj Thackeray, that breaking of barriers bit seems to be true only about kids. And now with the media acquiring the capability to launch high voltage hysteria at the drop of a hat, one can be certain that the first things that will fly out of the window whenever an important emotive issue crops are reasoned dialogue and intelligent debate. So where do you go from here? To a police state where freedom of speech and expression are considered dangerous and anyone who raises inconvenient issues is promptly gagged and incarcerated?

It all started with Raj taking a dig at Amitabh’s brand ambassador status for U.P., and his largesse toward his home state. Amitabh has had an on again off again relationship with the media depending on his equation with the media’s presiding deity at the Delhi durbar and they were not really on the best of terms following some media wallas getting roughed up by the security at his son’s wedding last August. The mediawallas getting it from the Uttar Bharatiya Bollywood crowd is par for the course. In the70s Dharmendra beat up a lady journalist Deviyani Chaubal. With the rise of the brats like Sanju Baba, Salman Khan, Saif Ali etc, all of whom are known to pack a mean punch, covering the Bollywood circuit has become a dangerous affair. But that changed suddenly with Raj Thakeray posing a few questions to Amitabh. The entire media fraternity rose like one man to defend Amitabh and flay Thackeray, never mind the fact that the questions which Raj had posed made eminent sense. But the mediawallas love it. Lessons there for Raj – kick them in the butt and they fall at your feet, pull your punches and they will walk all over you.

So what exactly is wrong with Raj’s objections to Amitabh’s Maharashtra unfriendly ways? Well – two things. First you don’t question Uttar Bharatiyas. In yeh mera India, that is just not done. Second Raj is wrong because he is applying the wrong standards to the wrong people. Sharing your good fortune, wealth etc., giving back to society, the people from whom received in such bountiful measure are not Uttar Bharatiya virtues. After all the Uttar Bharatiyas can hardly be expected to relate to such ideas that are integral to Maharashtrian culture as articulated in Dnyanpeeth awardee Vinda  Karandikar

Denaryani det rahave, ghenarayne ghet rahave,

Gheta Gheta, Eke divishi denaryache haath ghyave

The giver should go on giving, the receiver should go on receiving

Then one fine day, he should take the givers hands.

Excuse the poor translation, but the point is there is a pay back time and those who have received in such full measure should have no problems about paying back. Amitabh, Shatrughan Sinha, Shekhar Suman, and others who have come to Maharashtra and made their zillions accept that Maharashtra has given them a lot. But the point is what have they given back to Maharashtra? Let us make a list - bomb blasts, casting couch, indignities heaped on ordinary citizens from slaps to physical assaults, drug culture along with the patronizing of drug mafia and underworld. On the other hand take the example of Shivaji Gaikwad, Rajnikant bus conductor from Bangalore who made it big in Tamil films. Rajni I understand, gives back a lot of his wealth and earnings to Tamil Nadu. Has anyone heard of Rajni talking about his Maharashtra origins? Will the Tamilians like it if he were to fund schools and colleges in Maharashtra while doing nothing for his karmbhoomi?

Now we understand that Amitabh has initiated legal process to take repossession of the land he had donated. Would it be wrong if Raj Thackeray were to paraphrase his dialogue from Trishul -  “Amitabh tumhare pas subkuchh hai, jameem, jaidaad, gadi bangle, even kheti bari, lekin tumhare jaisa garib Maharashtra ne aaj tak nahin dekha.”