Prevention of Demographic Changes: A concept against equality

I have been wondering about what demographics changes mean. It seems to me the most insulting thing on humanity. Over the period, since evolution of man kind, the species named homo sapiens have been traveling and settling to places. The current demographics does not mean they belong to the land. Rest of the man made segregations like caste, religion are very new. Mankind, with its quest for knowledge and conquest of land and power, have nomadic approach since long. And nothing has changed.

The people from regions, where people cry about Demographic Changes in their places and are not from untouched tribal belts, should immediately be barred from everywhere in the world.

Demographics changes everywhere, what's so special about you? If demographics are so important, stay at your place and cut yourself off from rest of the world. PERIOD. Sentinelese people from Andaman and Nicobar are proper example of protecting their demographics.

The argument is, the outsiders will ruin the places or change the demography. What do you mean by demographic changes? Race? Caste? Creed? Religion? Region? Sect? Color? These are all divisions and segregation. In Indian context, this has been implemented in many states. Who gives you right to discriminate a fellow citizen, that too an indian, against other? 

Forget ruining the place, historical facts suggests otherwise. For example, the city of Jamshedpur, also known as TATA or Tatanagar, was built by outsiders, and is one of the important entities responsible for development of the entire state of Jharkhand (then Bihar). From the owner to the cosmopolitan staffs, most of them were outsiders.

On the other hand, Bihar (and to an extent UP), never had outsiders flowing in. So Biharis have to flow out. Demography didn't helped them in 21st century. North eastern states face the same problem.

USA, the land of opportunities, was built by migrants, outsiders. Bombay, now Mumbai, was  built by people from all around the country. All the metropolitan cities, where people die to live in, are all built by outsiders. Newyork, Boston, Bangaluru, Hyderabad, Mumbai, entire California.

Had Jammu and Kashmir been treated like Maharashtra or Gujarat or Andhra, who knows, the issue they are facing may not have surfaced. The cosmopolitan population would have uplifted the mental bankruptcy posed by religious leaders and J&K would have been one of the most richest states, with the kind of potential it has.

You can build laws to prevent natural beauty, forced acquisition of lands, control land mafias, but discrimination against other fellow citizens in the name of demography is unconstitutional. It violates the equal rights of the people of Maharashtra, Andhra, Telangana, Karnataka, Gujarat, Odhisa, Rajasthan, where people from outside can change their demographic structure, but they can't in certain states.

I believe demographics laws are draconian, to keep the locals poor and help land mafias. When it comes to sell your land, it doesn't matter you sell it to people from your caste or religion or anyone else. You lose the control on the land. And it's belongingness to your community doesn't help your prospects. All that matters to you is the money you get after selling the land. The land mafia of Jharkhand and similar states, have been beneficiaries of "aadivaasi" land laws. Not the poor tribes.

Keeping demographics intact has served no purpose. It is just another division. It is racist in nature, where you promote hatred against outsiders and allege them for ruining your culture. 


Popular posts from this blog


My Golden Days ...

NDTV: Fabulists having Favorites