What if Modi had Rescued 15,000 Gujaratis...?

After the flash flood came the war of words among the politicians! It was reported that Narendra Modi, the CM of Gujarat, had rescued 15,000 stranded Gujaratis from the flood hit Uttarakhand. Criticism poured in saying Modi should not have rescued only the Gujarat; he should have rescued Indians. BJP went onto a defensive mode and began denying that such a thing was never claimed by Modi or any BJP leader. Well, it was purely the creation of the anti-BJP camp in the media or whether the news was first planted by Modi, I don't know. But suppose Modi had acted like a Rambo and indeed rescued 15,000 stranded Gujaratis, is there any problem? 

Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of Gujarati. It is his job to care for the people of Gujarati. He is responsible for the welfare of the people of the state he rules. He is not the CM of Uttarakhand. And so his primary focus should be for the Gujaratis, not those from UK or UP or TN. He is also not the Prime Minister or Home Minister of India and therefore it is not required of him to be equally concerned for all the people of India. It is the office that is centered in Gujarat that gives him the power and position, and therefore his primary concern should be that of the people of Gujarat. 

So, is it really a problem if he had rescued 15,000 Gujaratis on the basis of 'Gujarati first'? I see no problem here. 

Suppose, two children are drowning and one is your child and the other a stranger, and you can save only one: which one would you save? Of course, your child. Suppose, a ship that carries 500 Indians and 500 Pakistanis hit an ice-berg; and Indian Govt has time and resources at that point of time to rescue only 500 passengers: would it save the Indians first or the Pakistanis or toss a coin? Well, Indians first! That's my take. The idea of solidarity: family, state, country... insists that the priority goes that way. Of course, if all the 1000 passengers could be saved, and if only 500 Indians are taken on board that is immoral; that is wrong. But when both the parties are deserving, but one is "your people" and the other party a "strangers", and you have resources to save only one party, then it's really fair to give priority to "your people".