|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Feb 06, 2008 3:34 pm |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Aamchi Mumbai |
Ashish Gorde
| |
Sameer,
I respectfully disagree with the assertion north Indians have to 'assimilate' with the culture of Maharashtra if they have to stay in Mumbai. Why should they? Why cant they maintain their individuality and preserve their culture? Do they have to be more-Maharashtrian just find a foothold in this state?
Let's remember that our country India is a multi-cultural, multi-lingual country, and the constitution of India explicitly gives the right to every citizen the 'freedom of movement'. In other words, they have constitutional right to live and work in Mumbai and Maharashtra... and you have the same right to go to the North, South, East or even just stay where you are.
I didnt quite understand what you mean by 'exploiting resources'... do you mean to say that the Biharis and the UP-walas have exploited Maharashtra's resources or something? What resources are these? Could you please elaborate more? And talking about resources being exploited... actually Biharis have a much bigger right to complain about exploitation. Bihar is one of the richest states in India as far as natural resources are concerned (uranium, iron and steel), and yet THAT state and its people have not benefited a bit from it. Blame the situation on bad politicians or bad policies but truth is, Biharis have not benefited from their own natural resources.
But coming back to the earlier point, you see, everyone has a right to earn their living... as much as you have the right to do so. We can either complain that jobs are being taken away. Or you can do something about it... something positive. You can either polish your own skills and make yourself more employable than the 'others'. Or you can think of starting something on your own. Remember how the Sindhis and Punjabis improved their lot after partition when they came with 'nothing'... it's not like it cant be done. It can and it has been done.
You might say that Maharashtrians are laid back... well, maybe, it's time for a change of pace... maybe it's time to be more proactive in a positive way. Raj Thackerey's approach is not proactive but stupid. That kind of approach is not going to benefit anyone at all... except maybe himself.
Besides, Mumbai has always been cosmopolitan and accommodating... and we must respect and cherish this quality of that city. And let's not call it a Maharashtrian city... why not call it an Indian city? One of the few cities where everyone from the country feels a sense of belonging.
And if you go back historically, the original inhabitants of Mumbai are 'kolis' and 'east Indians'... all the others are 'outsiders' even the marathi speakers from Pune, Vidharbha or wherever, and so let's be careful about who we call 'outsiders' in Mumbai.
And still further back in history, Mumbai was an archipelago of seven or so islands that was given as a dowry to King Charles II when he married Catherine Braganza of Portugal. Suppose Mumbai was not given as a dowry to King Charles, and it had remained under Portuguese occupation till... say 1961 when we kicked the Portuguese from Goa? Would Mumbai have been what it eventually became? Urbs Prima Indis?
Think about it.Private Reply to Ashish Gorde (new win) |
|
| |
|
