The Indian constitution has been amended many times. The rights are subject to being curbed, even the right to life and liberty. During the emergency (1994-1997) the attorney general had averred before the supreme court in effect that the people had not right to life during an emergency and the court accepted it. What it means is rights are not sacrosanct. If UPians and Biharis have the right to flood Mumbai and also have the right to keep their cultural identity, why are Maharashtrians being denigrated if they say that this deluge is drowning out our identity and taking away our livelyhood. Our constitution does not grant us full right to expression and right to equality is on paper, even after sixty years we cannot have a common civil code and the ulema are lauded if they say the use of condom is acceptable in their religion. That's for the anomalies in our behaviour and interpretation of the constitution, then how can the PM and the Home Minister tell the downtrodden, needlessly maligned Maharashtrians that their state is to be home of anyone who walks in? to imply that Maharashtrians have the same rights is 'no go', why should we leave our home state in our millions, go a thousand miles away to do petty jobs? These leaders like Lalu, Maya and mulayam should bring some constitutional order to their own home states and the PM and the HM should guide them rather than making threatening noises to Maharashtrians.
