I am an Indian and I am proud to be one, after being an human being my next identity is being an Indian. But seeing some of disturbing pictures of Mumbai, I sit back and think what is a definition of India, a country which calls it self as the largest democratic of the world. But now we need to debate civil rights and the good the bad and the ugly every thing is on TV.
But what seems to be most disheartening is that, in an age of open economy, outsourcing, globalization, a section of political activists says who is from where, who is allowed to stay where, who is not allowed. Mumbai or formerly Bombay, the first things comes to mind is city of dreams, city of reel life, city of business, a fascinating journey. Some one comes and say it belongs to only one section of people and some one coming from other part of same country is labelled as outsider. It creates a doubt in mind why is this dysfunction. On the contrary same political outfit warns not to allow Aussies play in India due to racial attack in Australia. Is not it same racism inside house.More accurately regionalism , but how can we withstand this.
If Mr Shahrukh Khan give a statement which oozes the sentiment of billions of Indian, there should not be some one threaten him to leave the country. Its unfotunate that Indian Premier League will miss some best of world players but that is more due to kind of time we are leaving. If Mukesh Ambani says Mumbai is for all, he has reasons to say. The business tycoons knows that if economy has to run in a city like Mumbai then it needs to embrace every one from each corner of India and even from every part of world. If Sachin Tendulkar says that he is an Indian first, then a Mumbaikar, he speaks the heart of a nation. He is a prodigal son of the city whom every Indian has made a part of their own family.
Few mob mislead by some opportunist politician can not question the sovereignty of the country. First thing comes to mind that there should be a complete media black out to all these nonsense speeches and press statement. If people willing to use media then media should be more stringent in the coming to terms with these people. Media plays a vital role to bring the correct depiction of all that happening. But sentimentalization may work for these people. Media should be cautious enough to not to make these people icon in the mind of common man.
But what seems to be most disheartening is that, in an age of open economy, outsourcing, globalization, a section of political activists says who is from where, who is allowed to stay where, who is not allowed. Mumbai or formerly Bombay, the first things comes to mind is city of dreams, city of reel life, city of business, a fascinating journey. Some one comes and say it belongs to only one section of people and some one coming from other part of same country is labelled as outsider. It creates a doubt in mind why is this dysfunction. On the contrary same political outfit warns not to allow Aussies play in India due to racial attack in Australia. Is not it same racism inside house.More accurately regionalism , but how can we withstand this.
If Mr Shahrukh Khan give a statement which oozes the sentiment of billions of Indian, there should not be some one threaten him to leave the country. Its unfotunate that Indian Premier League will miss some best of world players but that is more due to kind of time we are leaving. If Mukesh Ambani says Mumbai is for all, he has reasons to say. The business tycoons knows that if economy has to run in a city like Mumbai then it needs to embrace every one from each corner of India and even from every part of world. If Sachin Tendulkar says that he is an Indian first, then a Mumbaikar, he speaks the heart of a nation. He is a prodigal son of the city whom every Indian has made a part of their own family.
Few mob mislead by some opportunist politician can not question the sovereignty of the country. First thing comes to mind that there should be a complete media black out to all these nonsense speeches and press statement. If people willing to use media then media should be more stringent in the coming to terms with these people. Media plays a vital role to bring the correct depiction of all that happening. But sentimentalization may work for these people. Media should be cautious enough to not to make these people icon in the mind of common man.
How does one square growing metropolitan multiculturalism with the linguistic basis of states which supports the idea of a single predominant regional culture? Should the major cities stand apart from the states they govern, islands of multicultural churning rising from mono culturally flat hinterlands? A lot of people in Mumbai believe this has already happened, and they are willing to defend their new habitat from the violent, monocultural Senas through political debate.
But when civil rights are attacked, debate becomes redundant. Mumbai should rather insist on legal action, with the vehemence with which it demanded security after 26/11.
But despite cynicism, the civil society and media have growing voice against the Sena and the MNS.Will this signal a change in the fight against exclusivist politics? Or, will it be back to the usual politics after all the rhetoric dies down?
And Every one in this country will proudly say I am Indian.
And Every one in this country will proudly say I am Indian.
1 comment:
Hmm..a new blog !
I was listening to the debate today. Though Udhhav Thackray is good for nothing but he had a point that every state Government is responsible for its citizens. I kinda agree with him. There is a problem in Mumbai because of people who have come from outside India.
It is entirely wrong to classify them as outsiders but we have to accept that economics and the countries/states have failed to find a solution to this problem uneven growth and hence job growth.
I would feel that I have cheated if am given a job ahead of a Mumbaikar in Mumbai. This gets into question of merit and whether that Mumbaikar had access to resources as I had..it goes on and on.. I dunno the solution yet..
Post a Comment