I strongly condemn the usage of the words "my Maharashtra", "your Bihar" and "Biharisation" in this article.
The author could have expressed his concerns for Maharashtra without using Bihar as a metaphor to describe the decline of "his" state. This article carries the implicit gross disrespect for an Indian state and its people. There are many journalists who don't think twice before portraying the negative image of Bihar. And why not, when senior experts like the author of this article sets such a precedent for them?
I wonder what the journalists would do if Bihar becomes as rich as other developed states. Will they have the guts to criticize Biharis with the same impunity? We condemn western media when they try to portray India as a land of naked sadhus, beggars and snake-charmers.
The same “fascist” ideology is manifested by the Indian English media when it comes to Bihar.
Unfortunately, the journalism today is restricted to news-telling and organising debates. How many times have we seen the journalists coming up with the solutions?
Why am I protesting? Read this reaction - "Bihar will never become Maharashtra. We don't want to be. In the future if Bihar overtakes Maharashtra in the race of development and Marathis come to Bihar in search of jobs, we won't thrash them in public, they would be given fair and equal opportunity to compete with us.”
This reaction carries the message of Biharis being of higher values and tolerance than Marathis, which again may be a "fact". But, what if this fact became a "rhetoric" one day and people started using "Maharashtrisation" as a symbol of fascism and moral decline?
I end this protest with Kabir's couplet: Bura jo dekhan main chala, bura na milya koi...