February 4, 2010

HATS OFF TO SHAH RUKH KHAN FOR STANDING HIS GROUND! IT’S NOW TIME TO END THIS HOOLIGANISM ONCE AND FOR ALL AND MAKE MUMBAI A UNION TERRITORY!

SRK is great! Not just because he is such a star, but because he genuinely is the most amazing person and has such a logical and sound brain. And now the entire nation idolizes this man all the more because he has become a symbol of sheer courage as well! And I think all it required was someone like him to stand up coolly and say, “This is not right, I’ve done nothing wrong and I won’t apologise.” When he was saying this, one could almost see the schoolboy rebel in him – not ready to cow down to an illogical man trying to act as the school headmaster. I am writing this editorial immediately after coming back from a show on NDTV 24x7, which was on the topic, “Is Sena the real power in Mumbai?” I was one of the speakers. It was sad to see Uddhav Thackeray, who was another speaker in that show, sticking to a stance that cannot be defended by any sense of logic. When questioned on the show by the NDTV anchor on his tendentious comments against SRK, Uddhav’s reply was that one should ask the average man on the streets how many times had he (Uddhav) troubled him on similar issues. True, he hasn’t. Then why now? Uddhav’s answer was an illogical “everyone should do their own work rather than commenting on everything” – implying that SRK should keep acting instead of speaking on issues! What a joke! We live in a democracy – and look at what we are saying! That we don’t have the right to speak on subjects of national interest? Unbelievable! And then, there was Gul Panag too on the show, who, in a most apologetic manner, kept stammering that after all, Shiv Sena had the people’s mandate, so they should be respected; and that issuing these kinds of threats wasn’t fair on the Sena’s part. It’s unbelievable we don’t realise that in an illiterate democracy, many people get the so-called “people’s mandate” often; but that doesn’t automatically make them or their actions right!

And then, we had a few others on the show giving exactly similar diplomatic answers. It’s so sad that despite seeing that someone had taken a brave stance and decided to stand up to illogical hooliganism, no one was ready to speak forthrightly in his favour! What’s more amazing is that the entire Bollywood is standing like a mute spectator virtually. It’s sad... Very sad... They make us really feel as if the real power is with the Sena. But the truth is that it isn’t! The real power rests with the State and the intellectuals. Unfortunately, with the intellectuals abandoning their duty and most people more interested in protecting their personal interests, it all becomes an illusion.

Barring once, the Sena has never ever won the assembly elections in Mumbai; and never got more than a 25% mandate in the state! Despite that, we not only see the film fraternity – filled with security-less individuals – not coming forth, but also notice a similar shameful behaviour from the State. It’s time for the State to show its power. And with Rahul Gandhi showing a clear tilt against the Sena, let’s hope this will happen soon. However, what I want to say goes much beyond this.

I want to challenge the very concept of Bombay belonging to Marathi manoos – not just from the perspective of India being a democracy and the city belonging to everyone, but even from the perspective of history. Bombay, till 1960, combined Gujarat and Maharashtra till the two states were separated. What then came to be known as Bombay – that is, today’s Mumbai – was built literally by the Gujaratis and the Parsis, with the Marathi manoos playing a much lesser role. It symbolises the ‘city of the great dream’ – if we were to borrow this phrase from the Great American Dream – where people from everywhere came and chased their dreams. They made Bombay what it is today. Even today, fi ft y percent of people are non-Marathis who run this city – a city that is the backbone of the Indian industry. So even historically, this concept of Bombay being for the Marathi manoos, is incorrect. Of course, one doesn’t really need to care too much about history when the key question is about the democratic right of an Indian to live anywhere he wants and say anything he wants. It’s a shame that such an incident is actually happening... and there is still no guarantee that this will be stopped soon!

The solution is to make Mumbai a union territory. Give it independent statehood if required, because the heart of the Indian industry cannot be held to ransom by a few parochial politicians whose last hope depends upon dividing a great city on the basis of language and regionalism for no real cause. Of course, they are free to do so in a democracy, but the majority must come together and destroy such forces without a real cause.

If the cause of Marathi manoos was really so important, then the Shiv Sena should have been holding the state government to ransom for keeping the Marathi manoos hungry and jobless for years and forcing them to commit suicides. What a shame that when it comes to the real Marathi manoos, the Sena’s heart doesn’t seem to beat as aggressively. So Bombay needs to become free of Maharashtra and acquire a character of its own. The character of the great melting pot of languages, religions, values and beliefs. The character where every Indian is safe and goes on to fulfi ll his big dream! Something that SRK symbolises so well!

And till then, I would say the same things as my colleague Sutanu has written in his editorial in Business & Economy’s latest issue. It’s time for the Nana Patekars, Ritesh Deshmukhs, Madhur Bhandarkars and Ashutosh Govarikars (all Marathi manoos) to come up and show the same courage in real that their reel avatars are about. It’s time for the Marathi manoos to come up and repay the love that they have got from every non Marathi. And speak up! Get inspired from Sachin. Lataji where are you? You wouldn’t have been what you are without the RD Burmans and Yash Chopras. Speak up… Sing a song. Not just for SRK but for the cause of India and its democracy!

Share/Bookmark

126 comments:

basant said...

yes well said ,every indian should not only stir but open up a front in whatever capacity she may be ,these detterents are to be tackled forcefully ,these shiv sena people think they are the only one to have shaped the state of maharashtra ,they don't even think about the outsiders who have toiled extra hard to make it what it is today ,the very genious people like sachin tendulkar don't subscribe to their view. it is certainly right that the real maharashtrians should boldly stand up and say no to this ugly nuisancethat is giving a blotting to the nations integrity and unity

sushant said...

I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH MR. SRK ON HIS PRO PAKISTANI STAND HOW CAN HE FORGET THOSE 10 PAKIS WHO WAGED WAR AGAINST MY NATION WEL I DNT KNOW IF MR. SRK THINKS IT TO BE HIS OWN TOO, OR ITS JUST DAT INDIA IS HIS LOVE ONE DURING FILM LAUNCHES! DATS SHEER UNPATRIOTISM FROM HIM, I STIL WATCH AND CANNOT FRGET THOSE CONTINUES LIVE STREAMING OF KARGIL WAR AND MORE REACENTLY MUMBAI IN SEPTEMBER 08 , HOW CAN HE SUPPORT THOSE WHO CME TO OUR COUNTRY TO MAKE MONEY N USE OUR OWN MONEY FOS THEIR ANTI INDIA OPERATIONS 24*7 MY HEART FILS WITH WITH ENORMUS PAIN ANGER AND ANGUISH,WHEN I SE THOSE FILTHY PAKISTANI FACES, THE QUESTION HESE IS NOT OF HOLIGANISM OF SENA BT MR. KHANS PATRIOTISM HAS BEN PUT FOR A LITMUS TEST WHICH HE HAS KNOWINGLY N DIRELY FAILED!

simz_aolly said...

One of the best articles I ve read of you and you kept the stance right "Passionate About India".

Hats off to "The SRK" and you for voicing your honest views.

Jai Hind

Tan said...

I wanted to write on the same topic too and in total agreement to what you have written... Its not only for SRK, but for the whole nation who thinks rational and wants to make India proud in every step it takes...

Yes! Mumbai, for a decade to come, should be converted to an UT and the Sena gundas should be kicked out of it, if the Marathis really want to keep Mumbai and Maharashtra Clean & Clear!!

Liked your post bro...

Rajesh "P" Rao said...

Mr SRK has the pure Pathan blood running in his body....so obviously he is supporting the pakis..
Remember his US incident of being detained...that even americans doubt him...

SS was and is right in it's anti Pak stance and remember after the Mumbai attacks the paki comedy artists where asked to leave the country immediately or face the music and there is no chance for them to come back and perform again...

today films and cricket is pure business like your institution.

Will A Chaudari go to mumbai and support the comments of SRK openly??? think AC.....

Chetan Gupta said...

I love u Arindam Sir..!!!

Absolutely awesome article sir. I completely agree with you. Thanks for writing such a daring, fearless & honest article. The whole Bollywood fears to utter a word on these Hooligans.

First of all, each one of us need to understand that Pakistan government has no control on their own country. They(Few Pakistanis) try to bomb in India similarly their own people bomb in their own country. Everyday a suicide bomber(Pakistani) explodes himself with other Pakistanis in Pakistan also. But we cannot blame the whole country(Pakistan), each & every citizen of Pakistan. 10 Pakistani youngsters came to Mumbai & killed hundreds of Indians and became a world wide news. It's a big shame for India that 10 Pakistanis can easily make a plan, enter in our country & can kill so many so people so easily. Instead of getting into a blame game, Indian Government must try to fit the root cause i.e. lack of security in our country.

As long as Sena is concerned, they understand that people from UP & Bihar are easy targets. That why they always targets these 2 states only otherwise Bombay has people from all over India as Delhi has.

Love u Sir..!!
Chetan

DON said...

Dear Arindham,

Thanks a loads for supporting SRK.

And we alls hud support SRK coz he is right, he never said anything wrong.

mini said...

why you angry
KHALI - PILI
nobody fair
not sarukh and not bal thakre
so why you time west
they in equlibrem by self
so dude enjoy your life

mbafreak said...

SRK did nothing Anti-national act like Thackery brigade is doing - attempting to divide the nation on the name regionalism and linguistic ground!!! What the shameful act to a country who is known for his "Unity in Diversity" philosophy? These hooligans are serious threat to India. When we are facing serious problems like poverty, illiteracy et al all across the country do these Manoos has any vision for a prosperous India.
Integrated India is the reality, proud and power of every Indian. We should welcome all our countryman to take their efforts in making Mumbai a Shanghai of India and appreciate their contribution. No matter where they belong to U.P., Bihar,Orissa or HP etc. because we all share a common Identity to be an Indian. SRK, M.Ambani, S.Tendulkar, Big B all are saying a common thing WE ALL ARE INDIAN lets spread this msg to all across the world that HUM SAB BHARTIYA HAI and rest are secondary things!!!!!!!

For MNS lets borrow two line from two Khans like Aamir said ALL IZZ WELL-----let MNS people said WE PROUD TO BE AN INDIAN.

SANTOSH THE GREAT!!!!!!! said...

totally logical !! and on the right perspective . i believe tht everybody shld support shah rukh especially ppl from the industry where he belongs . i'm not a very ardent fan of shah rukh but i feel he deserves our countries support . its a democratic country and ppl hv there own rights. all these bal thackerey's n udav thackereys cannot dictate terms ...sorry .

dimpesh said...

Arindam sir,
i truly believe and stand by your opinion regarding the whole srk- shiv-Sena case and i appreciate your efforts to write such a daring and "slap-on-your-face" article directed towards shiv-Sena and challenging those all around SRK to come up for him rather than hiding in there places like mice and show shiv-Sena that they are not IMPOTENT enough to bare all what is happening and should react and stand for him.
respect and love
dimpesh

Madhu said...

Hats off to you too Mr. Chaudhuri for taking a stand and backing up for Mr. Khan...

Fiza said...

Hi All,
India needs some action and less words. baatein Kum kaam zyaada!!!!

Media reports, newspapers, tv news everything is filled with Bal thackray ne ye kaha phir SRK ne ye akaha, phir wo kaha.

Does our responsible media only focusing on entertainment. Nothing Good or bad actually happeining in India. What about welfare activities in India. WHo is doing it? Are they being focussed??

Debate is part of news. It's not the only thing in newspaper. make controversy, increase readership, more clicks on the controversial issues , earn more and be happy.

Friends controversy is subset of newspaper. Don't make controversy= News.

niyant said...

u said that Mumbai was built by Gujaratis and Parsis.get ur facts right.I m ur fan Arindam.But i would like to mention that Bollywood was started in mumbai because of Marathis .http://www.screenindia.com/news/the-m-factor/452983/This is the link where u all can read about contributions of Marathi Manoos.Please dont use such statements without facts Arindam.Thanks.

Raj said...

Hi mr Arinadam.

See these are actors and they know acting well .It doesn't mean they are really having same feelings what they pretend to be.
If you see reality our Indian film villains are some time better.
they have empathy .they have sensibility.They may be more helpful.
We should focus more on our real heroes than these actors and make our country a better place on the planet.
Jai Hind.

neo said...

would you dont think that its all publicity

i just can seance and you are guru but yet you supporting it...

Hemanth V said...

Very true, I completely agree everything you said against Shiv Sena and Thackeray guys. But I felt that you went a little overboard in praising SRK, I read the whole text of his show in NDTV which started all the furore , in one context he goes on to say "It is a great neighbor to have" referring to Pakistan. surely this was clearly a statement uncalled for, by no means can we say that Pakistan is a great neighbor, agreed that not all Pakistanis are bad, but in the present context praising the whole country saying "it is a great neighour" rubs salt into the wounds of any patriotic India especially after 26/11. It is a shame that Indian media didn't highlight that statement from SRK and goes on bashing Shiv Sena and praising SRK in a one sided manner. it is true that in a democricy everyone is entitled to have their opinion any thing, but people should learn to hold back and be careful about making statements like "great neighbour" . no doubt that SRK is targeting huge fan following he has in Pakistan to make his film a big hit while Shiv Sena is trying to score some political points, both Shiv Sena and SRK are publicity mongering people and nothing more.

Hemanth V said...

Right Jaky, media is trying to rule the show and show everyone how the democricy should be and how it should not be. for example, Rahul Gandhi's stage managed show in Mumbai was shown as if he did the most amazing adventure by opposing what?- Shiva Sena , and traveling in a local train with 10,000 policemen protecting him and the CM of the state at his command, SPG would have been on tenter hooks for sometime.., how on earth was this a big achievement?, very recently Narendra Modi travelled in a local bus in Ahmedabad and it was not a stage managed show unlike the show made by our prince in Mumbai. and the national media chose to completely ignore it...what sort of democricy is this?..

shindvs said...

You go and settle in UP BIHAR and develop them then talk about Marathi

vinayak mathur said...

my god!!!i cant seems to understand how does he fools the world like this!!srk wants his team to be strong in ipl so he wants pak players but how can he forget 99% attacks on india are planned in pak !!why shuld india entertain the people from pak ..just bcause "the srk" thinks so?? & the best part is people agree with him too and he gains publicity for his movie!!wow fully utilizing his star power and making fool out of people for his personal gains hats off to srk !!

shilpa said...

Dear Mr Arindam,
I sincerely wish you read my post below:

I am really astonished, angry and finally sadden by your idea to separate Mumbai from our state!
First of all whole SRK issue on Pakistani players is a completely different issue from Sena's Mumbai for Marathi struggle. I mean everyone wants use any issue connected to Shivsena to debate on Mumbai! as if Shivseana and MNS means Mumbai and rest of the Marathi people are no way related to Mumbai. I am Maharashtrian and do not agree with any of the Sena’s stands that’s why we have not elected them for the past 3 elections but at the same time divisive ideas like yours is just adding fuel to already burning fire in the city and will give ideal weapon to Sena. There was no talk whatsoever in any quarters about Mumbai being separated from MS while along sena has been using this propaganda to keep the issue hot so, your stand is ideally playing in the hands of these people. You know what it feels to many people like me? people like you and Sena have been made for each other! Helping each other to achieve their objectives. Both want to divide people and city!!
Coming back to your arguments about contribution of Marathi people in Mumbai’s development etc…Mr Choudhari, what are trying to do? Aren’t you trying to divide people here measuring contribution by different communalities? aren't you saying people in Maharashtra have done little for this city? what about Mumbai's dubbawallas, what about fisherman who fill the hungers of people like you, what about millions of factory workers who produce goods for the country? having said so, millions of non Marathi people also work hard but I mean such arguments are unnecessary to debate issue and will fuel the angers of people. I agree rich Gujarathi’s dominated business in Mumbai while Marathi class had been working class by in large! So, going by your logic, we should govern cities based on what rich people want rather than working/common class??
You need to go through history of Mumbai a little. It is a originally Koli town having Mumadevi as their Goddess. And if you look at Samukta Maharashtra movement in 60s (that ultimately brought Mumbai to Maharashtra,) it was spearheaded by communists and socialists like Bhai Amrit Dange, Achutrao Patawardhan, S M Joshi and so on.. Bal Thackery and Shivsena wasn’t even there in the picture at that time. Now they have hijacked Marathi cause and finally defaming whole Marathi people. If we keep dividing cities like this then I don’t know where India is heading to…How do you feel if Kolkata is separated from Bengal or Tamilian’s would feel if Chennai is made UT? Why are we creating issues that will create more issues than solutions? Do you think the problems will be solved by such means? Is Sena going to give up their stand? This will only trigger passions of people in Maharashtara and finally lead to separatists movement in a peaceful state.
If Sena is not helping anybody’s cause, you either not doing anything different Mr Choudhary. Mahatma used love and non-violence to overcome hate mongers in the country, we expect intellectuals also use the same method to oppose Sena and not separate Mumbai from our state.
Regds,
Shilpa Avinash

K.V.Vinay said...

Dear Mr.Arindam,

As always you have a point to make. But tragically, it appears that you are also using the divide and rule policy so deftly used by the politicians.

That SK put up a courageous front is appreciated. The matter ends there.

However, the concept of dividing Mumbai and making it a UT is an unnecessary appendage in you article.

It is my humble suggestion that the less we label people by anything other than Nationality, the better for INDIA.

We are Indians first; all else is of grossly lesser importance.

Be it Mumbai, or Hyderabad, partition is never ever the solution. That way we would have 750 Union Territories or more.

Shiv Sena in Mumbai or its strategical counterpart, the TRS in Andhra Pradesh have only one agenda: to gain power on cheap emotional appeal.

We should raise our voices as Indians, not as those belonging to a region, or class, or caste, or gender.

Because, what ultimately matters is that India Should Win. For if India loses, we all lose!!!

Jai Hind!!

Dr. Shankar said...

mr. chaudhuri dont try to challenge marathi people. ur khowledge of history is very poor. the marathi fishermen are the original residents of mumbai. u r saying that today non-marathi people are running mumbai. then is marathi pleople are sleeping? actually all r contributing but so called intellectuals like u are creating discremination between marathi and non marathi. dont forget u r not politician so u should not give such statements.

Nipun Jain said...

Mediocrity gravitates towards mediocrity.So no surprise that a mediocre academic like you supports a mediocre actor like Shahrukh.And that should suit you immensely as riding piggyback on SRK's fame would garner you some publicity,paying some dividend for your perennial publicity stunts.Why anyone should come to SRK's support?Did he raise his voice in support of Aamir when Faana was practically banned in Gujarat? Or when Bachchans were targeted by MNS? And for all your pompous preachings now,where were you Mr Chaudhuri then? SRK is a big hypocrite.He doesn't take any pakistani player himself and gives sanctimonious sermons to others.This Nation doesn't have danger only from people like Thackerays but also from leeches and parasites like you.

reema said...

you are right,it's time to stand for what is right.india's identity is in the diversity and it's not right that this very diversity is being manipulated by some political parties for their own selfish reason.it is the right time for all the eminent personalities to come forward and voice their support for united india which is free of any kind of rascism or bias among the people.lets spread this message far and wide.

रोमेंद्र सागर said...

Its not very important if we salute shahrukh khan or not. Infact its not a question of his refusing to say sorry and be some sortta hero or something....The problem is much more serious and deep. In a democratic country like ours , how a group of some fanatic hoodlums and goons question anybody's point of view. whatever shahrukh said was his own opinion and that too was not in any case anti indian or anything what thakrey and clan claimed it to be.... ! I think Shahrukh khan is as indian as they are or even more indian then they are....But again this is not the real issue. The real issue is that Can we afford to make the financial capital of india , a play-toy in the hands of some fanatic elements ? You are right when you say that Bombay ( mumbai ) is made by gujratis and parsis...and not only marathi manoos.....It does not belong to marathi manoos only. Today we shift our film indutry and money making machinary ( which is NOT run by marathis anyways ) out of mumbai...then what remains there ? simply ...just marathi manoos ( ofcourse without work ) and their useless mumbai. They should not forget that its WE indian who made and still making Mumbai.....Mumbai belongs to us. And in this context your solution is GREAT. "BOMBAY SHOULD BE MADE A UNION TERRITORY" and all these politicians ( and so called politics' illegitimate children ) should be thrown out of here.

We should start a movement "MUMBAI BACHAO ANDOLAN" , and pressurize our president to do something concrete ( i.e dissociating mumbai from Maharashtra and making it an independent U.T )..

I appreciate and support your idea.....!

Pooja said...

I dont believe that you're talking about integration when you suggest disintegrating a state. Let India be an integrated nation! Stop making more states than there already are! I speak for all Mumbaikars- the Maharastrians and the Non Maharashtrians... let there be peace thats all we ask for! Making an UT out of Mumbai is not an answer, either ways ours is a city walking the wire, please DO NOT add up to the troubles of the regular working class for a couple of people who will be well off without working another day for the rest of their lives (be it an SRK or a Thackrey).

Indian said...

Mr Chaudhari,
Have you realised, what you have written in the article. I think you are also doing same cheap publicity stunt. I am not supporting SS, but what they said against SRK was in the intersts of nation, not for Mumbai. People like you connected that to Mumbai issue. I dont undertand what you want to prove. First clear ur understanding about the issue, its background, and history of Mumbai.

You are the responsible person, Please write something good to make unity in the nation, in the interest of the nation. Please stop this "divide and rule" policy.

Ganesh said...

I think one of the most important contribution to Mumbai's development is from British (for example the Mumbai local train and VT station which I don't think anyone can make now), so do you suggest they have equal right over Mumbai?
Your remedy of separating Mumbai from Maharashtra is more bitter than the original disease.I am not a SS supporter, but you Mr Arindam, did you think for a minute, before writing this GREAT suggestion, about what an ordianry Maharashtrian feel about it? Isn't your view fuelling the thought in our minds that what Thackerays are saying about separation of Mumbai from Maha is correct(till now I had not thought so!).
As for you Mr Romendra Sagar, you are free to go to anywhere in the country along with the film industry. We can see whether Mumbai survives or you !
I suggest that all TV viewers watch DD news in place of all other channels seeking cheap publicity and making a huge controversy out of every small thing. If you trace the origin of this debate this time, it is the Cong. government making marathi compulsory for taximen (then of course retracting )and they have used this issue for their political benefit.

hypomaniac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hypomaniac said...

Mr. chaudhary you think maharashtrians have not contributed to Mumbai..
If you keep dividing every developed city from the state it belongs and if this is the price a state has to pay for developement what is the point in staying such a country...

hypomaniac said...

what about his statement that pakistan is great nation...?

hypomaniac said...

what about shahrukhs statement that pakistan is a great nation

dilipkale said...

Mr Arindam,

I strongly oppose to your statement of making Mumbai a union territory. By making such statement you are adding fuel to the fire. Such statements will create more problems.There may be be riots and bloodshed like never before if Mumbai is seperated from Maharashtra. Kindly refrain from making such statements.

Mumbai is for every Indian, but it is not possible to accomodate every one here, the infrastructure, the roads, water problems are some of the issues which need to be tackled, instead of focussing on them, people with the media power choose to make statements which are highly explosive... why?

Amla Kale

Ninad said...

First of all its Mumbai and not your BOMBAY.
And do not ever think to cut Mumbai from Maharashtra....

Now I understand that what Raj is saying is right... you guys are planning to cut Mumbai from Maharashtra and we will oppose it till we are alive....

sohm said...

Very nice Mr Arindam. First, lets cut Mumbai from Maharashtra. Vidarbha will follow as Congress is already pushing it. Then whatever parts of Maharashtra remained, flood them with UP/Biharis. No more Maharashtra & its Marathi Manoos. Mission accomplished, Mr Arindam, Congrats !!!

mayu4u said...

Well Arindam, the point here is not only that any Indian can reside at any part of this country, but also that how he or she does it. The case here is most of the poor people, who come to Mumbai in search of a living encroach on land owned by state, erect shanties, possess serious health & security threats, are involved in electricity & water theft; & then get their shanties authorised and move to SRA buildings erected from taxes paid by honest people by me. The fundamental question here is why do these people have to come to Mumbai, despite the fact that Bihar is one of richest states, in terms of natural resources. the blame lies with politicians who have been ruling there since independence.

Nagesh S said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nagesh S said...

Mumbai a UT ? ok. The countdown now begins for Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, {fill this place with the name of city/town/district/village complaining excess of non-local population} demanding UT status.

brs said...

If Rashtrawadi Congress( Pawar & Bhujabal) want any proof that a conspiracy is being hatched in Delhi by the chamchas of delhi powers to separate mumbai from Maharashtra , here is a proof. Marathi people worked in mumbai and fought for independence and the owners of mills who were cronies of British raj tried to suppress them. There was hope that independence will bring welfare to common man but Delhi continued to loot Mumbai and their servants in Mumbai looting the resources of Maharashtra keeping it poor. Their cronies are now asking for separation of Mumbai. No wonder that the move is supported by people from areas who never aspired and fought and sacrificed for freedom for thousand years and consider following the wishes of Delhipatis in toto.

Faiz_emk said...

Absolutely, what you think is correct sir. It's now not only time to make mumbai a union territory but also time to discuss on the topic "Is sena need for India?". I too hope that Mr.Rahul Gandhi will show a clear tilt against the sena very soon. Good hearted Marathi will repay the LOVE that they got from every non-marathi.Thank you for this article sir.

Panduranga said...

I don't Support "Maharastra For Maratis" agenda but even I still dont agree with Sharukh point on IPL auction. With his statement, for a common person it makes us feels like we have done wrong by not taking Pakistan players. But India has not done anything wrong in this issue. Its the Team leaders own decission not taking any players. If sharukh was that much concerned about this he would have taken all the pakistan players in his team. He only given the statement "Nobody has said no to take pakistan players". Is this looks cool a Indian Star commenting on such issues?? This brings a black mark for india and Makes india feel shame which we need not to be.

Aditya M said...

Well if the Times comes to struggle for a United Maharashtra again this time we will KILL 106 People

surya said...

Dear Arindam,

We should clearly see the distinction between good and bad.

These hypocritical, pseudo-secular views are truly bad for India - and we will face the same future that we faced in the past - India will be taken over by somebody else this time it is from within the country!!

We speak about democracy, equal rights, freedom of speech and human moralities...but when it comes to reality we show wrong examples and change the minds of the young generation and woo them into something that is temporarily soothing and useless in the long run.

Arindam, I am really impressed with your views but please make some time to know more about India's past right from our vedic ages and till today - before you pickup SRK / RAHUL / SONIA etc etc to vindicae and attach all those great attributes to them and only to them!!

Lets keep NDTV 24x7 aside from some tome.

Now, Show me the best examples to the young generation....can it not be Vivekananda, Bhagat singh, Sardar Patel, Lal bahadur sastry Rajaji, Dr.Hedgevar, Dr.Abdul Kalam....

Why did and how could you forget....or didn't you know about them!!

Rahul is made the torch beares for the young generation!!! for what!!?

SRK, Amir speak all they wish about anything!! Why can't thakreys??

And why does NDTV take a partial stand or why they feel that the future of India is in their hands!!!

who asked TOI to start "Aman Ki Asha" campaign!!

It's the freedom in democracy that allows every body to put their views....but some will tell the hard reality and if they say something so hard and real --- and if the ruling class does not like this and if media also does not like this - they will brand the speaker as anti-national!!

I will ask you a single question - only one qstn - if you are an unbiased and impartial reader/writer or a peace loving individual who will think right about policy aking - please do not shy away from asnwering this....

If we are all equal according to law of the land...why is not family planning applicable to some minorities!!

It should be ONE COUNTRY 1 LAW for all.

Whatever be your answer...I hope you at least start something to bring this change if you are a true Indian.

And the NDTV!!
It simply looks like a tail for the congress!!

Rahul taking the local train in mumbai is the day long event for it!!


BUT IT DID NOT FIND TIME TO MAKE PROGRAMS ABOUT TRUE INDIANS APART FROM GANDHIJI LIKE VIVEKANANDA, MAULANA AZAD, RABINDRANATH TAGORE, BHAGAT SINGH...


BECAUSE SUCH GREATS WILL DWARF EVEN NEHRU...INDIRA, RAJIV, RAHUL ETC ETC...

AND PEOPLE WILL START KNOWING THE FACTS....WHICH CONGRESS DOES NOT WANT...BUT ARINDAM...I WISH YOU KNOW THIS...INDIA IS NOT CONGRESS OR SRK OR AAMIR OR BOLLYWOOD!!

INDIA IS BHARAT!!! AND TRULY THE BHARATVARSH BLESSED BY OUR SAGES AND GODS!!! NOT CREATED BY POOR BANDITS/MORALLY CORRUPT LEADERS.

WISH YOU A HAPPY READING OF OUR HISTORY---BECAUSE YOU WILL FIND SO MANY TRUTHS ABOUT THE ANTICS OF CONGRESS SINCE INDEPENDENCE IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SEARCH FOR....HOPE YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH SOON.


FROM ONE MORE PASSIONATE INDIAN.

SURYA

strongwill said...

It is unfortunate that now SRK has changed his stand and ready to have drink with this old man (BT).

Atty said...

Your article is good on the intent but mischievous on the content.I am a Maharashtrian and like to call myself an Indian first.I dont support the Shiv Sena brand of politics.However,nither do I support your uncharitable views on Mumbai and Marathis.You are ridiculously patronizing on Marathi people in this article.As if we were a bunch of wretched people who were given salvation by Parsis,Gujaratis and Marwaris!India's freedom movement was led by Maharashtrians - Tilak,Agarkar,Gokhale,Savarkar just to name a few.The father of Indian cinema was Dadasaheb Phalke - a Maharashtrian.Some of the earliest philanthropists of Bombay -like Jagannath Shanakar Sheth..they all made Bombay their bastion at some stage.Even today Maharashtrians are in forefront in many walks of life. How can you equate Shiv Sena with all Marathi people?Shiv Sena and MNS are fringe elements - not all Maharashtrians support them. By passing unsavoury remarks against Marathis you have hurt us.There is no ground for demanding UT status for Mumbai - tomorrow you will say all cities which grow to a stature of Bombay should become UT! Tell me,you are a Bengali - if Calcutta prospers like Mumbai will you like to make Calcutta a U/T? The original natives of Bombay were the fisherfolk - the Kolis.They were displaced by the wealthy communities after the British made Bombay a major trading port.Get you history right young man - you claim to be a Dean or somebody - isnt it?

manohar said...

Dont get so much pleased by SRK's stand it may change any time. Don't believe these fillamwallas they are always very good friend of Bal Thakre. Bal Thakre is very much fond of Hindi Films and Bollywood world. He gets bored in his house nowdays so he wants to meet hidi film actors and see their films. So he does such tricks. Karan, SRK, etc. are not known for such "standing for ground" Do you know any other instance when SRK stood for such cause? We should stop giving credibility for such hippocrates.

shrikant kumawat said...

i agreed.

Rak said...

Hi Arindam,
"I want to challenge the very concept of Bombay belonging to Marathi manoos.." paragraph sounds comletely absurd and "The solution is to make Mumbai a union territory" something, which might have come out of angst.

Your entire article (whatever I could read in TOI) sounds 2b like you showing rather "paying" the gratitude to your institute's brand ambassador (SRK).

NO, I never expected such a "solution" from such a "Lead-Trainer". Do a retro when u get time...
[No, I'm neither a marathi manoos;nor anti SRK;I'm just an Indian]

Anshul Pandey said...

Hi sir,
It is indeed very gratifying to see someone of a near celebrity status coming out in open to support shah-rukh on the sena issue. i have indeed vocalized my opinions through my newly started blog http://wepeople.co.nr
I would encourage you to also voice your opinions on India's foreign policy in the coming days and especially about the issues surrounding Pakistan and Australia where our government has been a total failure. Looking forward to read more educative articles from your side.
Its Anshul, signing off.

vaibhav said...

First of all talking about SRK's comment, if he felt so much abt the Pakistanis then why did'nt he buy any Pakistani player at the auction????? who stopped him then????????
Just commenting his views after the auction shows that he is not patriotic he is an oppurtunist just trying to stay in limelight just before his film's release this is cheap publicity( I know any publicity for these film guys is good).So i suggest u to ask ur so called corageous hero to watch his views before expressing in front of the media, which ultimately leads to divide in the society.
Secondly if making Mumbai a Union territory will fetch the unemployed marathi youths the jobs than i'm all for it. I'm not with Udhhav Thackeray for i know he is trying to gain some publicity for his party. U say the non marathis have made this Mumbai, ok accepted for a while, but than why their own states are not progressing???????? to be precise why U.P. and Bihar are not progressing for they(UPites n Biharis)are in most numbers now in Mumbai. If u say they are the ones who have taken mumbai further, then i'll request all these capable non marathi people to return back to their respective states and build a new and better place than Mumbai. If this happens, believe me the marathi manoos will be the most happiest for they will get back their jobs n more oppurtunities will be created for everybody in their own states which will finally take INDIA ahead. So i request u to write something for U.P. and Bihar to make them union territories too so that there will be more meltingpots of languages, religions, values and beliefs. Why overburden one pot??????? Let there be a pot in Kolkata, a pot in Chennai , a pot in Assam the list is long...................right Mr. Arindam??????

rsrirams said...

I dont subscribe to Senas idealogy. At the same time not to SRK's and Arindham's gimmicks for cheap publicity too. While Arindham questions why Sena did not question price rise and farmer suicide, why do not Arindham or SRK do that. Have Arindam questioned that. No because it does not provide any sensation to his blogs or SRK's films. Also they do not want to antagonize the ruling party.

Have Arindam or SRK said anything that antagonizes the ruling party. Simple. Arindam and SRK are no different from the SENA. Publicity mongers.

And what was SRK's conscience doing when Mr.Chidambaram banned sending Indian Team to Pakistan. Where was SRK when Pakistan was banned from IPL-II in the last edition. Where was your free speech and Democracy.

Free speech and Democracy or the tools used by the Elite to fulfill their desires. Criminals like Rathore escape law in the name of Democracy. So are most elites.

VIBGYOR said...

nice article

Debbie said...

I read your post about shahrukh khan & the whole mumbai issue.i feel that you have written the post without actually reading or even understanding the history, so i will be happy if you could read my comment & reply back to me. first of all the two issues are not at all related... why would sena start the slogan against SRK just before the film is about to release ? sena even destroyed the hoardings of his " my name is khan ", 1 week before the release of the film, & cooled down, when the film is all ready to release... nobody is supporting the shivsena as everyone understands the politics goes with it. but it seems to be the case of "no publicity is bad publicity".coming to the point where you want the mumbai to be declared as UT,but you have only talked about the history of mumbai after independence, so i would like to tell you that mumbai was always the part of maharashtra rather the maratha empower & the original communities residing were the kolis & ckp's. Parsis or gujratis moved in mumbai when englishman ruled us & that is because they saw opeertunities to expand their business as their was no scope of it in gujrat.
currently mumbai is overcrowded & thats the reason the the people staying in here are facing many problems like water & electricity shortage, dirty streets,slums, crowded public transport etc.
if you say that everyone should be allowed to come in the mumbai to pursue their dream where is place for them to stay ? what about the basic necessities as a human ? we need to understand that mumbai was actually group of some islands, so their is very little scope to expand it further.today mumbai has moved beyond he original sion-mahim boundaries & the government has used the salt-lands & farms of the local people for the expansion, so the localities have given the lands(like thane, suburbs, navi mumbai) for the outsiders( here outsider means everyone who has come from that perticular area maharashtrian or non maharashtrian ).so if some companis, malls, factories are build on their own land dont they deserve at least a job in it ? If some states did nothing, in order to provide the job to the local people, isn't the politicians of the particular states is to be blamed ? Mumbai was always the part of maharashtra & will be... we understand the efforts put up by gujratis & parsis for developing mumbai but you can not neglect the fact that they have not welcomed the outsiders in the cities like surat & ahemadabad either.. Just try & do the business in any of the cities of gujrat.
so in & all what i want to say here is
1. mumbai is already overcrowded.
2. we need another planned city where in we can welcome every indian.(should be located either in U.P. or bihar, for its developement)
3.People who are already living in mumbai need a better life, more facilities.
4. dont even think about making mumbai as a UT,as half the crowd who actually runs mumbai does not stays in it.they stay in suburbs, thane, navi mumbai & even far end as karjat & kalyan.
5. plan some other cities in the "beemaru states", so that the localites their dont need to shift elsewhere.
6. I would also like to tell people that maharashtrians have always welcomed people from all over the india, thats why we see maximum cosmo cities in maharashtra..let that be mumbai, pune or nagpur.
so politicians who are making us fight & trying to neglect the actual issue of the serious problem, are to be blamed... so be unite try to make every place, every city, every town, in india strong so that one can make it a city of their dreams.

Dr. Lalith Narayan. B said...

Good article. Especially the call to the legendary Lataji to bring peace and harmony.

I wonder why people are so emphatic on comments they make. I can see it even on the comments posted here in response to this article.

It shows the inability of people to accept others' opinions. Live and let live is the best policy. An for an eye will leave the whole world blind one day.

I accept what Uddhayji said. "Mind you work". And each of us have a responsibility to make a peaceful and happy society. A duty often pathetically ovelooked..

shilpa said...

Dear Mr Choudhuri,
After posting comments this morning, I thought of checking how much India finds support for your argument and how much poison of hate that she carries. To my pleasant surprise, I found so much disagreement to divisive idea of yours(particularly after my post). However, Just look at some post supporting you like Romendra sager. Is this what India that you dream, full of hate mongers? Just introspect mr choudhuri once, what are u trying to propagate by means of paid ads in national dailies? You will find only one thing “ Hate,Divide and rule” and nothing else! you also questioned wisdom of few individuals like Lata Mangeshkar as to why they are silent? for your information, please go through achieves of your favorite NDTV, she indeed spoke in support of Mumbai for all. But my point is, why u should expect everyone to react to sena/mns and their propaganda every time? is it so because that there will be counter attack by sena and then we have readymade, free of charge food available for media, intellects like you to come back invariably on Mumbai showing marathis as villains. I think it suits you both hence I said, u both are made for each other.
Now coming back to resurfacing the whole issue in recent time, who did raise marathi issue on taxi walls? congress govt right? so who u should blame more? its congress who is thrives on divide and rule and were pioneers in this country after independence. sena, bjp, mns are just reactive forces. So cong achieves everything behind the scene..Another classic example,Rrahul Gandhi's mumbai visit..it was not meant to spread communal harmony or some social cause, it was to spread his party's (youth) registration drive and media classically played in his hands..making him kind of emperor or prophet! all out of shear hate against another hate monger! so who is ultimate winner? sena, mns, arindam choudhari?? no its congress!!!

Moods & Moments said...

As they say in hindi 'Jis thali me khaya usi me chhed'. Arindam's attitude subscribes to same. they came here as guest and now demand the legal rights for resources.

Osh said...

Greetings Arindam
You have spoken the minds of the majority of Bombay's denizens.
I appreciate your grit and support your message

Thanks a lot

Milind S. Patil said...

Mr. Dont even dare to say or think [even in ur dreams] abt separating Mumbai from Maharashtra.
No one can do so..? No Sonia, No Rahul nor Obama..no one
N if this happen, we are even ready to sacrifice our life for sake of Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Mumbai is internal part of Maharashtra n for Marathi Maanus only.
I agree every one can live here and work here but 1st its belongs to Marathi people only.
Do you even know what is union territory ?
how can one state get converted into that.?
i m not a supporter of any idiot Political party but like to say that Shiv sena is getting elected from last 15 yrs into BMC, so they have so called mandate.
You people just BARK into such topics for publicity. Now its trend to speak about this sensitive topic.

First you should go to Kashmir for claim or to Arunachal Pradesh.
Do you dare to go der.?


buddy Its all about money, u want money , SRK want money, Political parties want money.
But we are not fool to let anyone to do so.
Mumbai only n only belongs to Maharashtra.
And one more thing "Lataji where are you? You wouldn’t have been what you are without the RD Burmans and Yash Chopras. Speak up… Sing a song.

and what would RD burmans and Yash Chopras be without Lataji ?"
n about Rahul Gandhi, he was with Z+ security and almost 22,500 policemen for his security.
So this shows that how Congress fears from Shiv Sena. Please Accept the truth.

Milind S. Patil said...

n finally its Freedom to speech na..

Dare to reply me Mr. on my email id
hott1bold@yahoo.co.in

PaRaG said...

Respected arindham sir, i am not agree with statement/solution that is MUMBAI should be union territory. First thing which is older word bombay/mumbai? Bombay name was pronounced from british officers. I want to say that if CALCUTTA can be kolkata, MADRAS can be chennai,then why there is problem with MUMBAI only. Why you are interested only in mumbai?Where is your solution for Jammu and KAshmir? Just once go in chennai and try to tell them in hindi that chennai should be union territory.
Then as you said gujrati and parshee people, why they did not devoloped BIHAR/ UP? The answer is just profit, there is nothing else to do with nation. If they feel some thing about nation please try to devolope these states.
Its like 1 student is sincere getting marks honestly and other who is not studying just want to pass by any illegal ways is trying to push him back and people like you encouraging such peoples. shame on you.
About SHAHRUKH KHAN, he is nice actor, i respect him as an actor not as an indian, SHAHRUKH have you ever been with any soldiers, as dhoni, sachin, abhishek bacchan goes to meet them ask about them, just mixes in soldiers for 1 day atleast, but you are worrying about pakistani cricketers. GRAET PLAYERS ASIF drug case , shaid afrdi recent ball tampering who are really very talented players.
Arindham choudhari ji HATS off to you.... and your brand ambassidor.
JAY HIND. JAY MAHARASHTRA.

Amogh said...

Support SRK for being a school rebel ->criticize hooligan Sena for condemning him on a statement about "Pak/paki players
-> separate "Bombay" from MH,make it a UT ->end hooliganism in the city..damn! that makes sense...

The author and other Readers supporting his views here are mainly pissed about Shiv Sena..and subscribing to the illogical solution proposed by the author to tame the hooligans ...

and about SRK ... we SHOULD support him...i don't understand the fuss about his statement.

He just said that he wanted pak players for his IPL team...
the backdrop of 26/11 is not imp here..
does it matter if 26/11 convicts in Pak are set free??
...Let's play cricket with them and make a lot of peace!!!

and Mumabai... sry "Bombay" never belonged to Maharashtra..The "Samyukta Maharashtra movement" was work of hooligans too i guess...

and Arindam doesn't have business schools to run and books to sell
,SRK too is a logical thinker cum responsible celebrity..
and Shiv Sena is sincerely passionate about Marathi Manoos with no hidden political agenda

Sukant said...

what can one expect from a mediocre person like you when u say marathis did not contribute anything and gujrathis and parsees contributed more to mumbai.As a management so called guru u must know that in any society land,Labour and capital play equal role in development of the society.The Mumbai Lifeline BEST buses are run by Marathis,mumbai police force that at 1 point was no 2 in the world has been developed by marathis and there were more marathis those who laid their life during 26/11 attack than anyone i request you to go back and read history know what is the role of nana shankar sheth,dadasaheb phalke in development of mumbai

kishore said...

Mumbai is geographically located between Thane and Raigadh district of Maharashtra. Earlier Mumbai was part of colaba district. For sea transport Mumbai port is close to Europe/world. Therefore after Suez Canal Mumbai became trade center. Parsi, Gujrati, Marwari, Sindhi etc are migrant in Mumbai, because “son of soil” i.e. Maharashtrians allowed them to stay in Mumbai. That’s the big mistake committed by Maharashtrians. Parsi came because problems in Iran, Gujrati came because of draught, Sindhi came because of Partition, Marwari came because poverty/draught/desert in Rajasthan. If Guajarati, Marwari are business oriented people then why till date Gujarat/Rajasthan considered poor state. Today, the development in Gujarat is because of Narendra Modi.

The Gujarati/Marwari has been given lands in MIDC/other area at low-priced rate. They have given govt benefits and other facilities. They have not created employment to Marathi people compared to benefit received by them .If Gujarati and Marwari are traders/retailers then Maharshtrians are customers’. In today’s market condition “the customer is king”. If tomorrow the Maharashtrians stop being customer of Gujarati/Marwari then what? Or if Maharashtra offer said benefits to foreign investor/manufacturers then what?

For example in Nalasopara (W), Maharashtrians used to purchase house hold materials from retail shops run by Gujarati/Marwari. Nowadays the Maharashtrians purchase the house hold materials from departmental store like MORE, VIVA etc. The result of which, Gujarati/Marwari retailers are in loss and closed their retail shops.

Migrant in Mumbai get water, power, food grain, vegetable, milk etc from rural Maharashtra at the cost/sacrifice of Marathi people. Please don’t take Maharshtrians as granted. If time comes they will show what they are. Jai Maharashtra.

Sabesh Rajan said...

Dear Professor,
This is regarding the quiz conducted in Bangalore by Shah rukh khan. Kindly let me know as to which all teams participated and who won at the last.

Vijay said...

Why Should make Bombay a Union territory? Our law and order is not enough to act against this hooliganism. Whoever hurting the nation harmony should get arrested and life time prison (Till DEATH).
Then this worms and twat will not be there... Today we make Bombay Union Territory What same things happen some where in India. that what will we do? Enough is Enough. When the Law will act in India?

jorge said...

KONKAN IS FOR KONKANIS NOT MARATHIS:
Although at the moment there is no Konkan Pradesh, that is no reason to assume that this will always be so; there is great pressure to carry forward the States Reorganization Committee 1957's work, that has been unjust to smaller nationalities (e.g., Kodagu, Kutch, Vidarbha, Khandesh, Telengana, Kamptapur, Bhojpur, Brajbhoom, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, Rohilkhand, Videha-Maithilkhand, etc.), and to establish new provinces.

Anyway, regardless of the political question, the Konkan is a historic and ethnic territory and cultural region and must be recognized as such. Goa and Bombay both fall within it. The Konkan must cover all the places within the historical Konkan - Surat, Daman & Diu, Dadra, Silvasa, Districts of Thane, Bombay, Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, the state of goa and the cities of Karwar, Honavar, Gokarn, Hubli & Dharwar, Mangalore, kerala, etc in other words the entire western coast of India should be declared a state and should be given a name Konkan Pradesh with Bombay its capital and ofcourse the name of mumbai should be change to bombay.

Why is Mumbai for Marathi?? It is in Konkan region, and always belonged to Konkanis. How dare Shivsena appropriate Konkan Region as Maratha area??

jorge said...

BAL THACKERAY :
The cartoonist-turned Shiv Sena (SS) chief, Bal Thackeray is a Kayasth (mixture of Kshatriya (Warrior) and Brahmin (The Learned) ) with no jati support. Urban India produces lots of scum. Because, the Dalits and OBCs who migrate to big cities lose their jati consciousness and join maniac mafias like Bal Thackeray and turn into lumpen elements. And then become cannon fodder for the fascist Frankenstein parties like the SS.

The only way to avert this lumpenisation of Dalits and OBCs is to inject caste consciousness among them. Because India has no other ideology except "casteology". Muslims suffer from no such problem.

Once caste consciousness develops among the oppressed jatis, there will be no room for lumpen elements in the society.

****

jorge said...

Why is Mumbai for Marathi?? It is in Konkan region, and always belonged to Konkanis. How dare Shivsena appropriate Konkan Region as Maratha area??

Every marathi manoos living in bombay has a native place in other parts of maharashtra so brother decide for yourself how can the marathi manoos be the son of soil of bombay. Let everybody not forget that it was the mercantilist Britishers who allowed the marathis, gujratis, parsis to settle in bombay. The gujratis and parsis have never said they are the sons of soil of bombay so who gave the right for the marathi people to shout that they are the sons of soil of bombay.

The marathi people account for 35% of Bombay’s population but they have cornered 70% of all public/private/govt sector jobs in Bombay. Go in airindia, godrej, tata, mahindra, larsenntoubro, banks, rbi, etc in bombay and you will find 70% of the staff are marathi people. If you check the Bombay Muncipal Corp., Collectors office, ration office, Mumbai police, city survey office, Administration dept. of maharashtra govt at nariman point, BEST, Mantralaya, etc you will find 99% of the staff are marathi people and it is total bullshit when the shiv sena and mns say that the marathi people are not getting jobs in bombay.

During the 1960s all English records in the collectors office and bombay municipal corp were changed to marathi.

The Maharashtra state, shiv sena and mns wants non-marathi people to learn marathi language for what when only marathi people are entitled to jobs in Bombay.

Who allowed slums in bombay to proliferate where most of the the bhaiyas and biharis reside obviously the marathi manoos working in BMC, Mumbai police, rationing office, collectors office who got bribes from slumlords to turn a blind eye. Who came up with the Slum Rehabiliation Scheme which rewarded the slum dwellers with free flats obviously the shiv sena and now the marathi people and shiv sena are crying that the bhaiyyas and biharis are stealing their jobs and political dominance.

The conspiracy behind changing the name of Bombay to Mumbai and renaming all landmarks/streets/airports/railwaystations/bridges/roads/junctions/etc after marathi warrirors/saints/freedomfighers/etc is to fool everyone to believe that Bombay was/is a marathi city.

******

jorge said...

******
******
KONKAN IS FOR KONKANIS NOT MARATHIS:
Although at the moment there is no Konkan Pradesh, that is no reason to assume that this will always be so; there is great pressure to carry forward the States Reorganization Committee 1957's work, that has been unjust to smaller nationalities (e.g., Kodagu, Kutch, Vidarbha, Khandesh, Telengana, Kamptapur, Bhojpur, Brajbhoom, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, Rohilkhand, Videha-Maithilkhand, etc.), and to establish new provinces.

Anyway, regardless of the political question, the Konkan is a historic and ethnic territory and cultural region and must be recognized as such. Goa and Bombay both fall within it. The Konkan must cover all the places within the historical Konkan - Surat, Daman & Diu, Dadra, Silvasa, Districts of Thane, Bombay, Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, the state of goa and the cities of Karwar, Honavar, Gokarn, Hubli & Dharwar, Mangalore, kerala, etc in other words the entire western coast of India should be declared a state and should be given a name Konkan Pradesh with Bombay its capital and ofcourse the name of mumbai should be change to bombay.

Why is Mumbai for Marathi?? It is in Konkan region, and always belonged to Konkanis. How dare Shivsena appropriate Konkan Region as Maratha area??

********
********

bunty said...

well said boss..
as paki dude I mean SRK made statement that Pakistan is our good neighbour ,
i would just like to remind the flip flop and insensitive response to 26/11 makes them a terrible neighbor,right from partition and
to 26/11incident are still fresh in peoples memory exception being your friend Shahrukh Khan and people of his community loyal to
our good neighbour Pakistan.
I believe Indians will find difficult to cheer a pakistani player weather they play for super king or Knight Riders unfortunate,unfair sad..but true.And which team would like to take this risk as it turn out,even Mr Shahrukh khan

ShriMan said...

Just stop that blabber. Here's what Dr. BR Ambedkar has written in 1948. Don't try to be a greater hero than Dr. Ambedkar for cheap "sagacity".

Controversy over Bombay
21. Should the City of Bombay be included in Maharashtra or not is another point over which there has been a controversy. A meeting was held in Bombay in the building of the Indian Merchants Chamber. The meeting was attended by no more than sixty. With the exception of one Indian-Christian it was attended by only Gujarati-speaking merchants and industrialists. Although it was small and sectional meeting, its proceedings were flashed on the front page of every important newspaper in India and the Times of India was so impressed by its importance that it wrote an editorial which while mildly castigating the vituperative tone which the speakers at the meeting adopted against the Maharashtrians, supported the resolutions passed at the meeting regarding the future of Bombay. This proves what truth there is in the reply given by Lord Birkenhead to the Irish Leader, Mr. Redmond, in the course of the Irish controversy when he said that there are cases where a minority is a majority.
My memorandum would be woefully incomplete if I omitted to deal with the pros and cons of this controversy. This is because of two reasons: In the first place, the meeting has been recognized to be very important and secondly because the resolutions of the meeting have been supported by eminent University Professors.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra.

Part 2.
Proposals regarding Bombay
22. The meeting passed the following resolutions:
(1) That the question of the creation of Linguistic Provinces should be postponed; or
(2) That if it is not postponed, Bombay City should be constituted into a separate Province.
There is a third suggestion, namely, that Konkan should be constituted into a separate Province with Bombay as its capital. There is hardly any support to this plan. There is therefore no necessity to discuss it.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 3.
Decision regarding Bombay must be made now
23. I have no complaint against that part of the Resolution which says the question of Linguistic Provinces be postponed provided the main question namely whether Bombay should or should not be included in Maharashtra is settled. If this question was settled it did not matter if it took five or ten years to give effect to the Settlement. But the resolution is only an escapism. It does not settle the issue. It only adjourns the controversy. The main question must therefore be tackled right now.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 4.
Ground for the exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra
24. The arguments urged in favour of separating Bombay from Maharashtra are set out below :
(1) Bombay was never a part of Maharashtra*[f1].
(2) Bombay was never a part of the Maratha Empire.[f2]
(3) The Marathi-speaking people do not form a majority of the population of the City of Bombay.[f3]
(4) Gujarathis have been old residents of Bombay.[f4]
(5) Bombay is a trade centre for vast areas outside Maharashtra. Therefore, Bombay cannot be claimed by Maharashtra. It belongs to the whole of India.[f5]
(6) It is the Gujarathi speaking people of Bombay who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay. The Maharashtrians have been only clerks and coolies. It would be wrong to place the owners of trade and industry under the political dominance of the working classes who form the bulk of Maharashtrians.[f6]
(7) Maharashtra wants Bombay to be included in Maharashtra because it wants to live on the surplus of Bombay[f7]
(8) A multi-lingual State is better. It is not so fatal to the liberty of smaller people.[f8]
(9) Regrouping of Provinces should be on rational lines and not on national lines.[f9]
Burden of Proof

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 5.
Burden of Proof
25. On an examination of these paints it is obvious that points (1) and (2) are preliminary in the sense that they help us to decide on whom rests the burden of proof. If it is proved that Bombay is part of Maharashtra, then the burden of proof for separating it from Maharashtra must tall upon those who urge that it should be separated and not upon those who claim that it should remain part of Maharashtra. I will therefore deal with these two points first.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra Part 6.
points (1) and (2)
Verdict of History
26. These points can be considered both in the light of history as well as of geography. I am, however, convinced that history cannot help us to decide the issue. In the first place, how far back must we go to find the data on which to base our conclusion. It is obvious that the history of the ancient past would be of no use to us in this connection. What could be of use to us is the past of the present. One may go further and question any reliance being placed upon such a past of the present for drawing any conclusion that can have a bearing on the issue before us. Most of the contacts between people during historical times have been between conquerors and conquered. This is true of India as well as of Europe. But the results of such contacts have been quite different in Europe and in India. In Europe such contacts have produced assimilation of the conflicting social elements. Frequent inter-marriages have confounded the original stocks. One language, either the most useful or the most commonly spoken, has tended to supplant the other. If one civilisation is superior to the others in the same country it has automatically supplanted them. This natural tendency towards assimilation which we see in Europe is so strong that steps have to be taken to counteract it. What is the tendency in India ? It is definitely against assimilation. The Musalmans conquered Hindus. But the Musalmans remained Musalmans and the Hindus remained Hindus. The Gujarathis were conquered by Maharashtrians and were ruled by them for some years. What effect has it produced upon the Gujarathis ? Nothing. Gujarathis have remained Gujarathis and Maharashtrians have remained Maharashtrians. The Chalukyas conquered Maharashtrians and so did the Shilahars. But there was no assimilation between them. The Shilahars and Chalukyas remained what they were and so did the Maharashtrians. This being the case, what help can Indian History give in the decision of the issue? The history of internal upheavals as well as of external aggressions has been nothing more than a passing show. Conquest means nothing and proves nothing.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 7
Verdict of Geography
27. Let us now turn to geography and ask for its verdict. It seems to be & better witness than history. For this purpose one must consider the location of Bombay in relation to the Province of Maharashtra. The Province of Maharashtra once it is created will be triangular in shape. One side of this triangle is formed by the Western Coast Line of India between Daman in the North and Karwar in the South. The City of Bombay lies in between Daman and Karwar. The Province of Gujarat starts from Daman and spreads northwards. The Kanada Province starts from Karwar and spreads southwards. It is about 85 miles South of Daman which is the starting point of Gujarat, and 250 miles North of Karwar, which is the starting point of Karnatak Province. If the unbroken territory between Daman and Karwar is geographically part of Maharashtra, how could Bombay be held not to be a part of Maharashtra ? This is an incontrovertible fact of nature. Geography has made Bombay part of Maharashtra. Let those who want to challenge the fact of nature do so. To an unbiased mind it is conclusive proof that Bombay belongs to Maharashtra.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra.
Part 8
Bombay and the Maratha Empire
28. That the Marathas did not care to make it a part of their Empire does in no way affect the validity of the conclusion drawn from geography. That the Marathas did not care to conquer it does not prove that Bombay is not a part of Maharashtra. It only means that the Maratha power was a land power and did not therefore care to spend its energy in the conquest of a seaport.
29. With the decision on Points (1) and (2), the burden must now shift
on those who contended that Bombay should not be included in Maharashtra. Have they discharged the burden ? This leads to the consideration of other points.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra Part 9
point (3)
Marathi-speaking population—majority or minority
30. There is no unanimity on this question. Prof. Gadgil speaking for the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra asserts that the Marathi-speaking population of Bombay according to the census of 1941 is 51 per cent. Speaking against the inclusion of Bombay, Prof. Gheewala says that the Marathi-speaking population of Bombay is 41 percent Prof. Vakil has brought it down to 39 percent which he regards as a very liberal estimate. I have not had time to check up these figures and I understand that the Census of Bombay does not render much help in arriving at a precise figure. However, if one reads the reasons assigned by Prof. Vakil, one would find his conclusion to be speculative it not wishful thinking. But assuming that5: the figures given by Prof. Vakil are correct, what of it ? What conclusion can be drawn from it ? Does it defeat the claim of Maharashtra to include Bombay ? Ever since the British became the masters of India, India has been one country with a right to free movement from place to place. If people from all parts of India were allowed to come to Bombay and settle there, why should the Maharashtrians suffer ? it is not their fault. The present state of the population cannot therefore be a ground for excluding Bombay from Maharashtra.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 10
point (4)
Are Gujarathis Natives Of Bombay?
31. Let us however fully consider the question. Are the Gujarathis natives of Bombay ? If they are not, how did they come to Bombay ? What is the source of their wealth ? No Gujarathi would clam that the Gujarathis are the natives of Bombay. If they are not the natives of Bombay, how did they come to Bombay ? Like the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch and the English on adventures to fight their way through and willing to take any risks? The answers which history gives to these questions are quite clear. The Gujarathis did not come to Bombay voluntarily. They were brought to Bombay by the officers of the East India Company to serve as commercial Adatias or go-betweens. They were brought because the East India Company's officers who had their first factory in Surat had got used to Surti Banias as their go-betweens in carrying on their trade. This explains the entry of Gujarathis in Bombay. Secondly, the Gujarathis did not come to Bombay to trade on the basis of free and equal competition with other traders. They came as privileged persons with certain trading rights given to them exclusively by the East India Company. Their importation into Bombay was considered for the first time in the year 1671 by Governor Aungier. This fact is referred to in the Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island. Vol. I in the following terms :[f10]
"Another scheme for the advantage of. Bombay in which Governor Aungier interested himself was the settlement of Surat Banias in Bombay. It appears that the Mahajan or committee of the Surat Bania community desired the assurance of certain privileges before risking the move to Bombay and that the company had given a general approval to the Mahajan's proposal. On the 10th January the Surat Council wrote to the Company. The Mahajan or Chief Council of the Banias have been much satisfied with the answer which you were pleased to give to their petition sent you by the ship Samson touching their privileges in Bombay. It seems they have determined once more to trouble Your Honours with a letter which they have ordered your broker Bhimji Parakh to write, representing their desires that the said privileges may be confirmed to them under your great seal, for which their request they give you their reason and ground in their own letter which they have sent us to be transmitted to you and now goes in your packet by ship Falcon. The argument they use to strengthen their request seems to have some weight. They say the Honourable Company are perpetual and their ordinances always of force, but their Presidents and Councils are mutable, and the succeeding Presidents and Councils, do alter often what their predecessors have granted on which score they hope your Honours will be pleased to grant their petition. As to our judgments hereon, we humbly offer that we cannot see any detriment can accrue to you thereby, rather a considerable advantage may follow; and as to the latitude and extent of what privileges you shall afford them, it must be totally referred to your own wisdoms howsoever you shall please to determine in this matter. We judge if your Honours would please to favour them with a line in answer to their letter, it would be a great comfort to them and no disadvantage to your interest."

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 11
32. What were the privileges which the Gujrarathi Banias had asked for from the East India Company ? The following petition by one Nima Parakh, an eminent Bania belonging to the City of Diu, gives some idea of what they were:[f11]
"1. That the Honourable Company shall allot him so much ground in or near the present town free of rent as shall be judged necessary to build a house or warehouse thereon.
"2. That he with the Brahmans of Vers (Gors or priests) of his caste shall enjoy the free exercise of their religion within their own houses without the molestation of any person whatsoever; that no Englishman, Portuguese, or other Christian nor Muhammadan shall be permitted to live within their compound or offer to kill any living creature there, or do the least injury or indignity to them, and if any shall presume to offend them within the limits of their said compound, upon their complaint to the Governor (at Surat) or Deputy Governor (at Bombay), the offenders shall be exemplarily punished; that they shall have liberty to burn their dead according to their custom, also to use their ceremonies at their weddings ; and that none of their profession of what age, sex or condition whatever they be, shall be forced to turn Christians, nor to carry burthens against their wills.
" 3. That he and his family shall be free from all duties of watch and ward, or any charge and duty depending thereon; that neither the Company nor the Governor, Deputy Governor or Council, or any other person, shall on any pretence whatsoever force them to lend money for public or private account or use any indirect.
"4. That in case there falls out any difference or suit in law between him or his vakil or attorneys or the Banias of his caste, and any other persons remaining on the island, the Governor or Deputy Governor shall not suffer him or them to be publicly arrested dishonoured or carried to prison, without first giving him due notice of the cause depending, that he or they may cause justice to be done in an honest and amicable way and in case any difference happen between him or his attorney and any Bania of their own caste, they may have liberty to decide it among themselves without being forced to go to law.
"5. That he shall have liberty of trade in his own ships and vessels to what port he pleases, and come in and go out when he thinks good; without paying anchorage, having first given the Governor or Deputy Governor or customer notice and taken their consent thereunto.
" 6. That in case he brings any goods on shore more than he can sell on the island within the space of 12 months, he shall have liberty to transport them to what port he pleases, without paying custom for exportation.
" 7. That in case any person be indebted to him, and also to other Banias, and be not able to pay all his debts, his right may be preferred before other Banias.
" 8. That in case of war. or any other danger which may succeed, he shall have a warehouse in the castle to secure his goods, treasure, and family therein.
"9. That he or any of his family shall have liberty of egress and regress to and from the fort or residence of the Governor or Deputy Governor; that they shall be received with civil respect and be permitted to sit down according to their qualities; that they shall freely use coaches, horses or palanquins and quitasols (that is barsums or umbrellas) for their convenience without any disturbances ; that their servants may wear swords and daggers, shall not be abused, beaten or imprisoned except they offend, and that in case of any of his kindred or friends shall come to visit him or them from any other ports, they shall be used with civility and respect.
"10. That he and his assigns shall have liberty to sell and buy coconuts, betelnuts, pan or betel-leaves, and any other commodity not rented out without any molesiation on the island."

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra.
Part 12
33. How this petition of Nima Parakh was disposed of can be seen from the reply of the Deputy Governor of Bombay dated 3rd April. 1677, which was in the following terms :
" According to order we have consider the articles of Nima Parakh Bania, which if we rightly understand we do not apprehend any prejudice connection the most of them being what the meanest enjoy.
" The first is very easy, the Company having vast ground enough, and we daily do the same to Banias and others who come to inhabit here. As to the second, the free exercise of religion is permitted to all with the use of their ceremonies at: weddings and feast, the Banias always burning their dead without molestation. Neither do we permit any person to kill anything near the Banias who ail live by themselves, much less can any person presume to enter into anybody's house or compound without the owner's license; and, for forcing people to turn Christian against their wills, the whole world will vindicate us; neither are any persons forced to carry burdens against their wills. No Bania, Brahman, Moor, or such man is obliged to watch or ward or other duty, but if any person buys an oart or warge (vada) he is bound on every alarm to send a musquiter. But if he possesses no land no duty is exacted, so the articles may be granted to Nima. and when he goes about to buy any land he may be acquainted with that small encumbrance thereon.
" The 4th article is indeed a privilege but no more than Girdhar, the Moody and some others have, which does not in the least exempt them from the hands of the law or justice, but does only ask that justice be done respectfully, which he need not doubt of... and for matter of differences among themselves there is already his Honour's patent authorising them to decide such things.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 13
" As to the 5th, the great anchorage of a rupee per ton is wholly taken off. There remains only a small one of a rupee for every 100 tons, which is so inconsiderable a matter that we do not believe we will stick at it. If he does, it will amount but to a small matter being only for his own vessels that the Company may easily allow it.
" The 6th if we rightly apprehend it, is no more than what all people enjoy, who are so far from paying custom at exportation of their own goods that they pay none for what goods they buy. But if he intends his goods must pay no custom at landing nor none at exportation of what he cannot sell, it will be so great a loss to the Company, they having farmed out the customs for two years, that the benefit of his settling here, will, we believe, not countervail it, till it comes into the Company's hands again,
" As to the 7th, our law is such that if a person be indebted to several men, whosoever gets a judgment first in Court will be paid his full debt, but no man can be aggrieved at that, nor can any creditor have any pretence to what is once paid, and when judgment is given it is already paid in law, so that. he is no longer proprietor of it But when a person is indebted to two men and the first sues him and upon that the second comes in and sues him too, with what justice can we pay all the debtor's estate to the second creditor. Only of this he may be assured that all justice shall be done him with speed according to our law and the party forced to pay the full debts if able, and be in prison for the rest till he pleases to release him, which we suppose may well content him.
"As to the 8th in case of war all person of quality have liberty to repair to the castle and secure their money and other things of value. Nor that I suppose be intends to fill up the castle with gari (coarse) goods ; but for money, jewels household stuff ,cloth goods of value that take up small room he may bring what he pleases and may have a warehouse apart allotted for himself and family.
"The 9th and 10th we may join together, they being only to fill up the number. They are plain optics to show the nature of those they live under. which, when they have experimented our Government, themselves will laugh at us, enjoying more freedom than the very articles demand for the meanest person is never denied egress and regress upon respectful notice given and for horses and coaches and the like he may keep as many as he pleases and his servants be permitted to wear what arms they please, a thing common to all. Nothing is more promoted by us than the free liberty for buying and selling which is the load-stone of trade.
"That last thing he asked of having 10 mans of tobacco free of all duties is the most difficult thing of all, for the farmers will ask a vast deal to grant such a licence/it being a very great profit they make in the sale of 10 mans, so that we know not which way this article can be condescended to, but in this your Honours can judge better than us."[f12]

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 14
34. In reply on the 26th April, the Surat Council wrote : [f13]" We observe your answer touching the articles proposed by Nima Parakh Bania in order to his settlement on Bombay. When we come again to treat with him thereon, we hope so to moderate the affair that the island shall not receive any the least prejudice thereby and we do not question but wholly to put him by his request to 10 mans of tobacco which he would annually receive or bring on the island free of all duties."

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 15
point (5)
Bombay—an Emporium of India
35. That Bombay is an emporium for the whole of India may be admitted. But it is difficult to understand how it can be said that because of this, Maharashtra cannot claim Bombay. Every port serves a much larger area than the country to which it belongs. No one, on that account, can say the country in which the port is situated cannot claim it as a part of its territory. Switzerland has no port. It uses either German, Italian or French Ports. Can the Swiss therefore deny the right of Germany, Italy or France, the territorial rights of their ports. Why then should Maharashtrians be denied the right to claim Bombay merely because it serves as a port for Provinces other than Maharashtra ? It would be different if the Province of Maharashtra were to get a right to close the Port to Non-Maharashtrians. Under the constitution, it will not have that right. Consequently, the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra will not affect the right of non-Maharashtrians to use the port as before.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 16
point (6)
Gujarathis--owners of Trade and Industry of Bombay
36. It may be granted that the Gujarathis have a monopoly of trade. But, as has already been pointed out, this monopoly, they have been able to establish because of the profits they were able to make which were the result of the privileges given to them by the East India Company on their settlement in Bombay. Who built up the trade and industry of Bombay is a matter for which no very great research is necessary. There is no foundation in fact for the statement that the trade and industry of Bombay was built up by Gujarathis. It was built up by Europeans and not by Gujarathis. Those who assert that it is the Gujarathis who did it should consult the Times of India Directory before making such a claim. The Gujarathis have been just merchants which is quite a different thing from being industrialists.
37. Once it is established that Bombay belonged to Maharashtra the claim of Maharashtra to include Bombay cannot be defeated by the argument that the trade and industry of Bombay is owned by the Gujarathis. The claim of mortgagor to his land cannot be defeated by the mortgagee on the ground that the mortgagee has built up permanent structures on the land. The Gujarathis assuming they have built up the trade and industry of Bombay are in no better position than a mortgagee is.
38. But who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay seems to me quite irrelevant to the decision of the issue whether Bombay should or should not be included in Maharashtra. This argument based on monopoly of trade and industry is really a political argument. It means that the owners may rule the workers but the workers must not be allowed to rule the owners. Those who use this argument do not seem to know what they are up against. The one thing they are up against is whether this argument is to be confined only to the City of Bombay or whether it is to have a general application.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 17
39. There is no reason why it should not have a general application. For just as in Bombay City society is divided into owners and workers or into capitalists and wage-earners, such also is the case of society in Gujarat or for the matter of that in every province of India. If the owners and capitalists of Bombay are to be protected by the exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra because Maharashtrians belong to the working classes, what is the method they suggest for protecting the capitalists of Gujarat from the working classes of Gujarat. Those Gujarathi Professors like Vakils and Dantwalas who are searching their brains to supply arguments to the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay have not thought of finding ways and means for protecting the Gujarathi capitalists of Gujarat against the working classes of Gujarat. The only remedy they can suggest is the abandonment of adult suffrage. That is the only way by which they can protect the capitalists if they are out to protect capitalists in general and not the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay in particular.
40. There is however one argument which the Professors could urge. It is that the Maharashtrians being in a majority would discriminate against the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay if Bombay was included in Maharashtra.
One could appreciate such an argument. But those who like to use this argument must remember two things :
(i) That Maharashtra is not the only place in which such a situation can arise. It may arise in any province. I like to refer to Bihar. In Bihar the land in which coal is found belongs to the people of Bihar. But the coal-owners are Gujarathis, Kathiawaris or Europeans. Is there no possibility of Biharis making a discrimination against Gujarathi and Kathiawari coal-owners ? Are the coalfields of Bihar to be excluded from the Province of Bihar and constituted into a separate Province in the interest of Kathiawari and Gujarathi coal-owners ?
(ii) The constitution of India has noted the possibility of discrimination being made against a minority and has made more than ample provision for preventing it. There the fundamental rights. There are the provisions against discrimination; there are the provisions of payment of compensation, and there are the High Courts with the inherent rights to issue high prerogative writs both against individuals and Governments to stop any harm, injustice or harassment being done to any citizen. What more protection do the Gujarathi traders and industrialists of Bombay want against the possibility of discrimination ?

GD said...

Are u fool???

Tomorrow u will say make pune as U.T. (because of job reason many outsiders came here in pune... tomorrow there percentage might increase and be more than marathi people)

Why can't u look at the actual issue and say that we can improve UP and Bihar...

I am not against anyone staying at bombay.... anyone can come here and live here.... but how many??? don't u think there should be limitation to that???

Now why they are coming with so much quantity from their own state to here?? won't u see problem in their own state.... if u r so concerned abt people then why can't u go against politician in UP and Bihar...

shivsena is playing politics out of the issues... but why on the first place that issue was there???

It's a time for people like u to rethink on this issue.... instead of making this issue more complicated with giving ur totally irresponsible comment....

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 18
point (7)
Maharashtra's eye on Bombay's surplus
41. Before accusing Maharsshtrians of having an eye on the surplus of Bombay it must be proved that Bombay has a surplus. What appears as surplus is due really to bad accounting. It is bad accounting where expenditure on overhead charges such as (1) the Governor and his establishment, (2) the Ministers and their establishments, (3) the Legislature and the expenditure thereon, (4) Judiciary, (5) Police and (6) Provincial establishments such as those of the Commissioners of Police and Directors of Public Instruction is not being taken into account. I doubt very much if on the existing basis of taxation, Bombay will have any surplus if expenditure on these items is charged to Bombay. It is a fallacy to charge all such expenditure to Maharashtra and exempt Bombay from it and then argue that Bombay has a surplus.
42. The statement that the Maharashtrians want Bombay because they want to live on the surplus revenue of Bombay, besides being wrong in fact raises a question of motive. I do not know if the Maharashtrians are actuated by any such motive. They are not a commercial community. Unlike other communities, the Maharashtrians have no nose for money, and I am one of these who believe that it is one of their greatest virtues. Money has never been their god. It is no part of their culture. That is why they have allowed all other communities coming from outside Maharashtra to monopolize the trade and industry of Maharashtra. But as I have shown there is no surplus and no question of Maharashtrians casting their eyes on it.
43. But supposing such a motive in the minds of the Maharashtrians, what is wrong in it? It is quite open to Maharashtrians to contend that they have a greater claim on Bombay's surplus because they have played and they will continue to play a greater part in supplying labour for the building up of the trade and industry of Bombay more than the people from other Provinces have done or likely to do. It would be difficult for any economist with any reputation to save who could deny that labour has as much claim on the wealth produced as capital if not more.
44. Secondly, the surplus from Bombay is not consumed by Maharashtra alone but is consumed by the whole of India. The proceeds of the Income-tax, Super-tax, etc. which Bombay pays to the Central Government are all spent by the Central Government for all-India purposes and is shared by all other Provinces. To Prof. Vakil it does not matter if the surplus of Bombay is eaten up by United Provinces, Bihar, Assam, Orissa, West Bengal, East Punjab and Madras. What he objects to is Maharashtra getting any part of it. This is not an argument. It is only an exhibition of his hatred for Maharashtrians.
45. Granting that, Bombay was made into a separate Province, what I don't understand is how Prof. Vakil is going to prevent Maharashtra from getting share of Bombay surplus revenue. Even if Bombay is made separate Province, Bombay will have to pay income-tax, super-tax, etc. and surely Maharashtra will get a part of the revenue paid by Bombay to the Centre either directly or indirectly. As I have said the argument has in it more malice than substance.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 19
points (8) and (9)
General arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra
46. I will now turn to the Points (8) and (9) which have been urged by Professors Dantwala and Gheewala. Their arguments strike at the very root of the principle of Linguistic Provinces. As such I should have dealt with them in Part I of this Memorandum. But as the aim of their argument is to exclude Bombay from being included in Maharashtra, I have thought it proper to deal with them in this Part of the Memorandum as they are really arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra.
47. The sum total of the arguments of the two Professors is that Linguistic Provinces are bad. This cry against Linguistic Provinces is too late. Since when two Professors having been holding these views is not known. Are they opposed to Gujarat being reconstituted on Linguistic Provinces also has not been made clear by them. Or, is it that they believed in the principle of Linguistic Provinces but hurried to disavow it when they realized that the admission of the principle involves the surrender of Bombay to Maharashtra. It is perhaps one of these cases where a person not finding argument limited to his purpose is forced to resort to an argument which proves more than he is anxious to allow. I am, however, prepared to examine the substance of their argument.
48. Prof. Dantwala relies upon Lord Acton and quotes the following passage from his Essay on Nationality printed in his well-known book The History of Freedom and Other Essays in support of his own view against Linguistic Provinces. The quotation reads as follows :
" The combination of various nations in one State is a necessary condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society."
49. I am sorry to say that this quotation completely misrepresents Lord Acton. The quotation is only a few opening lines of a big passage. The full passage reads as follows :
"The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society. Inferior races are raised by living in political union with races intellectually superior. Exhausting and decaying nations are revived by the contact of younger vitality. Nations in which the elements of organization and the capacity for Government have been lost, either through the demoralizing influence of despotism or the disintegrating action of democracy, are restored and educated anew under the discipline of a stronger and less corrupted race. This fertilizing and regenerating process can only be obtained by living under one Government. It is in the cauldron of the State that the fusion takes place by which the vigour, the knowledge and the capacity of one portion of mankind may be communicated to another.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 20
50. Why Prof. Dantwala left out the rest of the passage, it is difficult to understand. I am not suggesting that it is a deliberate case of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi. The fact is that it does misrepresent Lord Acton. Why has the Professor relied upon this passage, I do not understand. It is quite obvious that if the inferior races are placed in common with the superior races, the inferior races may improve. But the question is, who is inferior or who is superior. Are the Gujarathis inferior to Maharashtrians ? Or are the Maharashtrians inferior to Gujarathis ? Secondly, what is the channel of communion between Gujarathis and Maharashtrians which can assure the fusion of the two ? Prof. Dantwala has not considered the question. He found a sentence in Lord Acton's Essay and jumped at it for he could find nothing else to support his case. The point is that there is nothing in the message which has any relevance to the principle involved in the question of Linguistic Province.
51. So much for Prof. Dantwala's arguments. I will now examine Prof. Gheewala's arguments. Prof. Gheewala also relies on Lord Acton. He quotes a portion of a passage from Lord Acton's Essay on Nationality. I reproduce below the passage in full :
"The greatest adversary of the rights of nationality is the modern theory of nationality. By making the State and the nation commensurate with each other in theory, it reduces practically to a subject condition all other nationalities that may be within the boundary. It cannot admit them to an equality with the ruling nation which constitutes the State, because the State would then cease to be national, which would be a contradiction of the principle of its existence. According, therefore, to the degree of humanity and civilization in that dominant body which claims all the rights of the community, the inferior races are exterminated, or reduced to servitude, or outlawed, or put in a condition of dependence."
52. I do riot understand why the learned Professor has dragged in the name of Lord Acton. The passage does not really help him. There is one thing which seems to be uppermost in his mind. He thinks that if Bombay is included in Maharashtra the Province of Maharashtra will consist of two nationalities—one consisting of the Marathi-speaking people and the other of the Gujarathi-speaking people and the Marathi-speaking people who would be the dominant class will reduce the Gujarathi-speaking people to a subject condition. It is in support of this he thought of citing Lord Acton. Such a possibility is always there. There is no objection to the way in which he has presented the problem. But there are great objections to the conclusions he draws.
53. In the first place, in a country like India in which society is throughout communally organized it is obvious that in whatever way it is divided into areas for administrative purposes, in every area there will always be one community which by its numbers happens to be a dominant community. As a dominant community it becomes a sole heir to all political power, which the area gets. If Marathi-speaking people in a unified Maharashtra with Bombay thrown into it will become dominant over the Gujarathi-speaking people, will this prospect be confined to Maharashtra only ? Will such a phenomena not occur within the Marathi-speaking people ? Will it not be found in Gujarat if Gujarat became a separate Province ? I am quite certain that within the Marathi-speaking people who are sharply divided between the Marathas and the non-Marathas, the Marathas being a dominant class will reduce both Gujarathi-speaking and the non-Marathas to a subject condition. In the same way in Gujarat in some parts the Anavil Brahmins from a dominant class. In other parts it is the Patidars who form a dominant class. It is quite likely that the Anavils and the Patidars will reduce the condition of the other communities to subjection. The problem therefore is not a problem peculiar to Maharashtra. It is a general problem.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 21
54. What is the remedy for this problem ? Prof. Gheewala believes that the remedy lies in having a mixed State. So far as this remedy is concerned it is not his own. He has adopted it from Lord Acton. But I have no doubt that so far as Lord Acton advocates this remedy he is quite wrong. Lord Acton cites the case of Austria in support of his view. Unfortunately, Lord Acton did not live to see the fate of Austria. It was a mixed State. But far from providing for the safety of nationalities the clash of nationalities blew up Austria to bits. The real remedy is not a mixed State but an absolute State with no power to the people which is generally captured by a communal majority and exercised in the name of the people. Is Prof. Gheewala prepared for this remedy ? One need have no doubt to what his answer would be.
55. In the second place. Prof. Gheewala has confounded nationality in the social sense of the term with Nationality in its legal and political sense. People often speak of nationality in speaking about Linguistic Provinces. Such use of the term can be only in the non-legal and non-political sense of the term. In my scheme there is no room even for the growth of separate provincial nationality. My proposal nips it in the bud. But even if the commonly suggested pattern of Linguistic Provinces with the language of the Province as the official language were adopted. Provinces cannot have that attribute of sovereignty which independent nations have.
56. It is very difficult to understand what exactly what Prof. Gheewala wants. Broadly he wants two things : He wants a mixed State and he also wants that a dominant section should not be in a position to reduce the smaller sections to subjection. I cannot see how Linguistic Provinces can come in the way of achieving it. For even after Provinces have been re-constituted on linguistic basis,—
(1) Provinces will continue to be a conglomeration of communities which will give Prof. Gheewala the mixed State that he wants;
(2) If Prof. Gheewala wants a more pronounced form of a mixed State to protect smaller communities or nationalities, he will certainly have it at the Centre.
As I have said, I do not think a mixed State is either a good State or stable State. But if Prof. Gheewala prefers it, he will have it in one form or another, both in the Provinces as well as at the Centre, in the former in the form of different communities and in the latter in the form of the representatives of different Provinces.
57. With regard to his second objective, there will be double protection. In the first place, the citizen will have such protection as a mixed State he thinks can give. Secondly, citizenship will be common throughout India.
There is no provincial citizenship. A Gujarathi in Maharashtra will have the same rights of citizenship in Maharashtra as Maharashtrian will have.
Given these facts, I fail to understand what objection Prof. Gheewala can have to Linguistic Provinces ?

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 21
58. Prof. Gheewala has made two other recommendations. He says, (1) if Provinces have to be reconstituted, constitute them on rational basis rather than on linguistic basis and (2) make nationality a personal thing.
59. To reconstitute Provinces on economic basis—which is what is meant by rational basis—appears more scientific than reconstituting them on linguistic basis. However, unscientific linguistic reorganization of Provinces I cannot see how they can come in the way of rational utilization of economic resources of ndia. Provincial boundaries are only administrative boundaries. They do not raise economic barriers for the proper utilization of economic resources. If the position was that the resources contained within a Linguistic Province must only be explained by the people of the Province and no other than it could no doubt be said that the scheme of Linguistic Provinces was mischievous. But such is not the case. So long as Linguistic Provinces are not allowed to put a ban on the exploitation of the resources of the people by any body capably of wishing to exploit them a Linguistic Province will yield all the advantages of a rationally planned Province.
60. The proposal of making nationality as a personal thing and put it on the same footing as religion may be dismissed as being to Utopian. It would raise many administrative problems. It will come when the world is one and all nationals are its citizens. Nationality will automatically vanish as being quite useless.
61. So far I have dealt with the arguments advanced by those who are opposed to the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. I have taken pains to do so not because I felt that they were very weighty. I did so because I felt it desirable to prevent the common man from being misled. The possibility of this happening was there and for two reasons. In the first place, those who have come forward with these arguments are not ordinary men. They are University Professors. Secondly, these Professors came out with their arguments after Prof. Gadgil had put forth the case for the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. Unfortunately, no attempt has so far been made to refute the arguments of the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil. The result has been the creation of an impression that Prof. Gadgil's adversaries have carried the day. It was absolutely essential to remove this impression.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 22
The other side
62. There are however arguments which the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil have not thought of but which may be advanced with justice as well as force in favour of the claim of Maharashtrians for the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. It is quite possible that these arguments may suggest themselves to the Commission. But I don't like to leave it to chance. I therefore propose to set them out below even though the Commission might think that it was unnecessary.
Calcutta and Bombay
63. In deciding upon the issue of exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra the Commission will have to take into account the position of Calcutta. Like Bombay it is the chief emporium of the whole of eastern part of India. Like the Maharashtrians in Bombay the Bengalis in Calcutta are in a minority. Like the Maharashtrians in Bombay, the Bengalis do not own the trade and industry of Calcutta. The position of the Bengalis vis-à-vis Calcutta is worse than the position of the Maharashtrians vis-à-vis Bombay. For, the Maharashtrians can at least claim that they have supplied labour if not capital for the trade and industry of Bombay. The Bengalis cannot even say this. If the Commission can accept the arguments urged for the separation of Bombay from Maharashtra, it must be equally prepared to recommend the separation of Calcutta from West Bengal. For it is a very pertinent question to ask that if for the reasons given Bombay can be separated from Maharashtra why when the same reasons exist Calcutta be not separated from West Bengal.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 23
Is Bombay Viable?
64. Before Bombay can be separated it must be proved that financially Bombay is a viable Province. As I have already said if proper accounting of revenue and expenditure was made Bombay on the basis of present level of taxation may not be a self-sufficient Province. If that be so, the proposal for creating Bombay a separate Province must fall to the ground. It is no use comparing Bombay with Provinces like Orissa and Assam. The standard of administration, the standard of living and consequently the level of wages in Bombay are all sc high that I doubt that even with a crushing rate of taxation Bombay will be able to raise the necessary amount of revenue to meet the expenditure.
The aim behind Greater Bombay
65. This doubt regarding viability of Bombay Province is heightened by the indecent haste shown by the Government of Bombay in creating Greater Bombay by including within the limits of Bombay the adjoining parts of Maharashtra. It seems that the object of including such area cannot but be to make Bombay viable. What else can it be? So long as Bombay remained part of Maharashtra it did not matter to Maharashtrians In which administrative area a portion of Maharashtra was included. But when Bombay is to be a separate Province it will take a long time to make Maharashtrians part with their territory to make Bombay greater and viable. What is more important is the scheme of greater Bombay casts responsibility upon the Linguistic Provinces Commission to decide whether they could, with justice force Maharashtrians not only to submit to the demand of the Gujarathis to give up Bombay but also to submit to their further demand to hand over a part of territory of Maharashtra to make Bombay a viable Province. The Commission cannot escape this responsibility.
66. Maharashtra and Bombay are not merely inter-dependent, they are really one and integral. Severance between the two would be fatal to both. The sources of water and electricity for Bombay lie in Maharashtra. The intelligentsia of Maharashtra lives in Bombay. To sever Bombay from Maharashtra would be to make the economic life of Bombay precarious and to dissociate the masses of Maharashtra from its intelligentsia without whose lead the masses of Maharashtra will be nowhere.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 24
Arbitration as a Solution
67. I have seen a suggestion made in some quarters that problem of Bombay should be settled by arbitration. I have never heard of a more
absurd suggestion than this. It is as absurd as the suggestion to refer matrimonial cause to arbitration, The matrimonial tie is too personal, to be severed by a third party. Bombay and Maharashtra are tied together by God to use a Biblical phrase. No arbitrator can put them asunder. The only agency which is authorized to do so is the Commission. Let it decide.


[f1]Prof. Gheewala—Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948, and Prof. Moraes—Free Press Journal, September 18, 1948.

[f2]Ibid.

[f3]Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September 21, 1948.

[f4]Prof. Gheewala, Fress Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948.

[f5]Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September II, 1948.

[f6]Prof. C. N. Vakil, Bombay Chronicle

[f7]Prof. C. N. Vakil, at the meeting of India Merchants Chamber

[f8]Prof. Dantwala, Free Press Journal, September 1, 1948

[f9]Prof. Gheewala, Free Press Journal, September II, 1948.

[f10]. Bombay Gazetteer, I, pp. 46-47.

[f11]Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, pp. 74-76.

[f12]This is probably new demand made by Nima Parakh.

[f13]Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, p. 77.

ShriMan said...

Jai Maharashtra. Part 25.
Have some courage to say this in Mumbai publicly. You will get a lynch trial. Better you don't. Otherwise the Kangaroo court of sagacious Marathi populace will make you extinct.

me said...

And till then, I would say the same things as my colleague Sutanu has written in his editorial in Business & Economy’s latest issue. It’s time for the Nana Patekars, Ritesh Deshmukhs, Madhur Bhandarkars and Ashutosh Govarikars (all Marathi manoos) to come up and show the same courage in real that their reel avatars are about. It’s time for the Marathi manoos to come up and repay the love that they have got from every non Marathi. And speak up! Get inspired from Sachin. Lataji where are you? You wouldn’t have been what you are without the RD Burmans and Yash Chopras. Speak up… Sing a song. Not just for SRK but for the cause of India and its democracy!

-----
what type of crap is this??...you are telling marathis how they got love from non-marathis??..will you tell non -marathis how we welcomed you to our cities..now you want to teach marathis how to welcome??...crap..just look at history..you will find many punjabis ..bhaiyyas even in village...they are happily settled here from many years...what type of crap you are writing??..please introspect..

vaibhav awasthi said...

Sir, You are 100% right, i am totally agree on your point of view that the mumbai shoubd be under central government...but Is the state Maharasthra Government can not do nothing of Shiv Sena or any other Sena Goons....tommorow the other state capital leader will start this type of behaviour then wat will happen...

sinha said...

Kudos-Very aptly written.We are all human beings first and then Indians.The statewise division will not only create chaos all over the country but also make us weak--like in the olden days when the British took advantage of the prevailing situation at that point in time and it was literally a cakewalk for them.But please no more -- enough of the divide INDIA thought,you political,self-centered people [who are talking about all the crap of Marathi Manoos only to build their vote bank and being unsuccessful at that for the last so many years as is evident from the electoral mandate]
Hi,Mr.Arindam.Although I've heard a lot about you from my younger son who is studying at IIPM and also seen you on TV a number of times,but did not have the privelege of meeting you in person as yet--Hope it happens soon when You are in Pune next.I write a blog on marketing [http://online-infobiz.blogspot.com].Please do visit the blog and drop a comment on your impressions.

rumpy said...

Whilst your comments are very sensible, what is this nonsense about Maharashtra for Maharashtrians in the first place?

This is free India. Why are we even dignifying the issue by debating the subject at all? If we start getting territorial over states, we may as well go back to casteism.

As if we don't already have enough problems of social exclusion on grounds of caste and religion in a so-called contemporary secular democratic republic!!!

In this case, the problem simply is that everyone, especially Mumbaikars, is terrified of hot-headed Sena rage - stoning cars, burning buses and worse. The funny thing is that this is the work of the politico-goonda element and not your typical 'Marathi manoos' - he,in fact, is one of us - a tolerant, peace-loving, neighbourly Indian.

Good for Shah Rukh Khan in any case, especially since your average Pakistani Joe is of similar character - just like you and me. In fact, on my visit to Pakistan years ago (on the day of the Pokhran tests) I sampled gracious hospitality courtesy the Pakistani 'aam aadmi' who seemed equally perplexed at the squabbling between governments.

Suyash Gupta said...

We need to support people like SRK, who have the power to change things

adavait said...

very nicely expressed and very true.

SUBHOMOY said...

Dear Arindam
Well raised point.I just finished your new book 'DISCOVER THE DIAMOND IN YOU' and last 'p' Patriotism is very much suited with Mr.Sharukh, Yes because of this 'p' Sharukh is Sharukh today. Who says Patriotism does not allow anybody to say about other country .All we know only with exchange of cultural knowhow the relation of two country will improve and it will only possible through Sports,Music,Drama,Cinema and many more..Today Sharukh is icon for Indian Cinema . Dirty politics make the whole different between these two countries.
Yes Mr. Sharukh go with your Patriotism and millions of millions of Indian hearts with you.

paul said...

sir,I completely agree with the first part of your editorial, I think the whole nation should stand by SRK today, because he had said nothing wrong. This is just cheap politics played by these hooligans to gain popularity. Because before SRK could comment on this, our Home Minister, Mr.P.Chidambaram said 'It is sad that not a single pakistani player has been included in any IPL team and they have some of the world's best T20 players'.But these hooligans did not have any problem with that, but when SRK said the same thing, they got into action, because SRK follows a different religion, so it would be easier for them to convince people that sharukh is not patriotic(which is not true). Both our Home minister and SRK are right in their views, because, hatred shown in this way will again make things worse in the Indo-pak ties, cricket is a different pitch and terrorism is (as written by Mr.Prasoon Masumdar in his article in TSI). what do you think, just by neglecting pak players, these terrorists will get upset and stop terror activities against india,it's absolutely stupid. infact, such a step would backfire, you know, recently, an indian designer was denied visa, he was supposed to participate in a fashion event to display indian designs at this event which was to be held at pakistan. But I don't agree with the last part of your editorial to make Mumbai a union territory, Mumbai belongs to all indians, but it is a capital city of Maharastra, will the Bengalis or tamils agree to make kolkata and chennai UTs?, definitely not, so it is unfair to make mumbai a UT against the wishes of Marathis, but government should take solid steps to stop this hooliganism that's going on.

manohar said...

No question making mumbai UT. It belongs to Haharashtra. Pople of Maharasthtra fought for it and threr were 105 martyrs. But not all were Marathi, there were others also. Among the first 15 martyrs Joseph David, Chimanlal Seth, Ramchandra Sewarsm, K.J.Zavier, P.S john. Vedisingh and Ramchandra Bhatia were not marathi. All the workers in mumbai took part in that movement.
So this also should be recognized who are now against
non-maharashtreians in Mumbai.

sagar said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFiWmKYisw

minu said...

i agree, every indian will agree that each corner of india bppoelongs to every indian and mumbai belongs to all noone has copyright over that and some gunda party like shivsena want to take that pride by burning theatres and buses and taking on shahrukh khan and his movie won't help...every true indian should speak against it and just to support shahrukh and his movie and oppose weird mentality of shivsena and his workers should go to watch My name is Khan. Everyone loves shahrukh and now when he has taken such a bold stand against a shivsena it is becoming difficult for them to digest that how dare anyone not to bend down against their wish...and that is why they want to show their power and we people as if enjoying all drama sitting at home wanna do nothing about it. I think this is hightime when someone has taken a stand against people who dont believe in democracy , who don't respect country's law and dont want to protect basic right of people they should be banned and opposed agreessively.If we continue to let this happen in Mumbai or anywhere in india by these politicians that day is not far when we will find ourselves again becomign slave this time to our own voted people .......believe in the spirit of indian and be proud of indian.....

Niranjan said...

Hats off to you, Arindam. Very very correct. All Indians are with you. Lets continue crusade.

sachin said...

there is no need to tell dat mumbai is for all coz marathi people were always welcoming to outsiders, be it bihari or anybody else - Bombay stock exchange made of gujratis, Film industry made of all people of india are living proof of it. but now the limits of mumbai have ended, there is simply no more room for more people - the soaring property rates, the crowded local trains are the proof of this situation, as far as makin mumbai a union territory is concern - more than a hundred people have sacrificed their lives to keep mumbai a part of maharashtra, if you say that mumbai should be a union territory than you are inconsiderate to them, they sacrificed their lives simply because mumbai was in maharashtra, as far as the outsiders who come to mumbai is for their own need of earning money, they should freely do that, but they should not claim mumbai's land, mumbai belongs to maharashtra and anybody who thinks of dividing maharashtra is a real life 'Jinna' for maharashtra. We did not call any gujratis and parsis to come here, they came here on their own and for their own betterment. as far as marathi manoos is concern, we were happy in living a simple life rather than having towers and making the city over crowded and polluted and then call it 'development'. the migration that is going on now is rapant, rapid and out of control, we will soon have a deadlock in mumbai where no man will be able to move anywhere and because of mass migration of people towards the city, there over pollution which leads to climate change and late rainfall which lead to lesser crops and shortage of food and hence there is inflation so u see the problem is not just about whom mumbai belongs to?... as far as shahrukh is concern his choice is really bad in players bcoz he wants to take player from such a team that is known for ball tampering and has a history of steriod use, the reason why no one from IPL selected pakistani players was everyone knew that taking player from pakistan is not a good idea, bcoz of what happened last year in mumbai, u will feel so, if you are a true indian and feel passionately for your country, but shahrukh doesnt seem to thinks so, instead he thinks that we should invite pakistani players to india which is unnecessary to say bcoz lots of pakistani player, actors and singers have come to mumbai earned lots of money and went, actresses like salma aga, meera, zeba singers like adnan sami, are living proof of it, so it is wrong of him to give us lecture about how to be warm and loving towards the pakistanis or any indian who wants to come to mumbai.... we have always been welcoming to any people who have come to mumbai... but before bringing pakistani player tell them to be a good sportmen like Sachin Tendulkar ..and stop ball tampering and steroid use...shah rukh should talk about love and warmth on the border of india and pakistan where fighting for kashmir is going on, its no use saying it here in mumbai.... if pakistan asks for kashmir, we will revolt and if north indian ask for mumbai as union territory, we will revolt, becoz we believe in living together no matter what...we don't want our state to be divided just bcoz someone thinks it will be peaceful that way.. if you have the guts KICK SHIV SENA OUT OF HERE...ok? but do not divide maharashtra in two...we are one as mumbaikars, one as maharashtrians and one as INDIANS!!! KEEP THE UNITY...DONT DIVIDE MAHARASHTRA... 'JAI HIND JAI MAHARASHTRA'

sachin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
monis said...

hi,
we salute shahrukh khan for not apologising to the mistake he didnt did!
But your remark of "mumbai to be made union territory is rubbish!"
you can not make a state suffer, for betterment of a city.
and what if mumbai is made a union territory the menace of political parties will end!
it is no where a wise solution!
regards
monis khan

amrut said...

I like your book i.e.9Ps but every successful man in the world have own story which is apart from your 9Ps I'm not saying that your book is not so good its nice but we cant decide that these 9P's can work to maike a successful in the world If its right then whatabout the other A-0 & Q-Z(excluding P)

Regards,
AMRUT

Pranay said...

Dear Sir,
I feel very sad that u r favoring srk just bcz he is endorsing ur brand. I want to tell u only one thing that as a owner of KKR team srk could bought bloody pak player as his team has one vacant slot. instead he picked shane bond from NZ. But srk and nobody from our so called balance media is talking about this main reason behind the entire srk stunt. Actually he started this publicity stunt from American airport. And bloody indian media people both from electronic and print got what they wanted. Now this is nothing but a stunt to make people fool.

keshav said...

Hi Mr Arindam,
Read your article in one of hindi weeklies.
Agreed that Thackreys are at fault.
But you have crossed limits and made some wayward statements.

1. Making mumbai a union territory or a seperate state.
How that will help? If it becomes seperate states, CM will be mostly from sena there. WELL more than 100 people chose to sacrifise their live to keep mumbai in maharashtra,there must be some reason for that....others werer also free to do that but they didnt...
You should agree that sena has got some mandate on some issues like marathi manoos and hindutva.
I dont agree with Thackreys that Mumbai belongs to marathis I beleive it belongs to INDIA.
Chennai also should belong to INDIA. Hyderabad also should belong to INDIA. Chandigarh also should belong to INDIA.
You have some buisiness interest in Mumbai and thats why you are making tehse comments.

2. You brough Lataji unnecessarily in this issue.
You are saying that she would not have been where she is without RD burmans an Chpras, etc....
This is weird....illogical...it sounds like thackreys.
Well if I had to talk in your language, I would have said RD Burmans and Chpras wudnt have been here
if a person called Dadasaheb Phalke wasnt there. :) I wouldnt say that.
Such shitt arguments can be done by only two people....Thackerys and Arindams.

i have a humble request...Pls dont use term marathi manoos every time better u use thacrey only...
bcs most of us feel we are INDIANS first
Keshav

Pulkit Agarwal said...

What SRK has done should need our backing not backbiting.It's right his stance coincided with the films release but atleast HE DID SOMETHING than to watch on his cabel set of how pathetic these Shiv Sainiks (Shiva Who is also known as BHOLENAATH ... a side I never heard of from these so called sainiks) are behaving.
And I do Believe that Everyone Is a Hero.
It just pains me to see that ANTI-PAKISTANI spirit has suddenly become more important than FELLOW-INDIAN spirit so much so that we are thwarting our National Icon.
Just tell me one thing - When did Cricket become a regional sport . It is not just a sport but a messenger of peace and friendship too .
Where is Athiti Devo Bhava Now ??
Terrorists have no natioanlity... so just blaming all pakistanis is not good neither right .
"Shane bond" - Mr. Pranay Just tell me which Pak Bowler Could have substituted Him ... there is one name coming to my mind "Umar GUl" ohh yeah "Sohail Tanvir" and both are unavailable to play in KKR.It's Just like Substituting GILCHRIST with YOU!!.(Gilchrist is australian he too should not play...You must also hate Oz ?? )

The point is that this Marathi-North indian issue has been streched too far.And the rope , that is India , is getting strained.And As you know A fort has graver danger from inside than outside.

Pranay said...

Mr. Pulkit my point is if srk was so desperate for pak players why he didn't bought them? he has no right to make noise now. i m agree with the talent of shane bond but he is not the guaranteed match winner. and about ausi player i feel they also need the same treatment. India is a soft target for entire world. jiske hath laga mar ke chala jata hai. pakistan, bangladesh, srilanka, china, nepal. hum sifr batein karte rahenge aur sab martein rahenge.

Divya said...

I am in total agreement with you. Shah Rukh indeed did a great thing by standing his ground and not apologising to Bal Thackrey who is an Indian but unfortunately doesn't understand the Indian spirit.

Nipun Deshpande said...

http://migrationinvasion.blogspot.com/

fpakistan said...

This is how it should be : http://imgur.com/4qRxY.gif

jorge said...

KONKAN IS FOR KONKANIS NOT MARATHIS:
Although at the moment there is no Konkan Pradesh, that is no reason to assume that this will always be so; there is great pressure to carry forward the States Reorganization Committee 1957's work, that has been unjust to smaller nationalities (e.g., Kodagu, Kutch, Vidarbha, Khandesh, Telengana, Kamptapur, Bhojpur, Brajbhoom, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, Rohilkhand, Videha-Maithilkhand, etc.), and to establish new provinces.

Anyway, regardless of the political question, the Konkan is a historic and ethnic territory and cultural region and must be recognized as such. Goa and Bombay both fall within it. The Konkan must cover all the places within the historical Konkan - Surat, Daman & Diu, Dadra, Silvasa, Districts of Thane, Bombay, Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, the state of goa and the cities of Karwar, Honavar, Gokarn, Hubli & Dharwar, Mangalore, kerala, etc in other words the entire western coast of India should be declared a state and should be given a name Konkan Pradesh with Bombay its capital and ofcourse the name of mumbai should be change to bombay.

Why is Mumbai for Marathi?? It is in Konkan region, and always belonged to Konkanis. How dare Shivsena appropriate Konkan Region as Maratha area??

jorge said...

The marathi people account for 35% of Bombay’s population but they have cornered 70% of all public/private/govt sector jobs in Bombay. Go in airindia, godrej, tata, mahindra, larsenntoubro, banks, rbi, etc in bombay and you will find 70% of the staff are marathi people. If you check the Bombay Muncipal Corp., Collectors office, ration office, Mumbai police, city survey office, Administration dept. of maharashtra govt at nariman point, BEST, Mantralaya, etc you will find 99% of the staff are marathi people and it is total bullshit when the shiv sena and mns say that the marathi people are not getting jobs in bombay.

During the 1960s all English records in the collectors office and bombay municipal corp were changed to marathi.

The Maharashtra state, shiv sena and mns wants non-marathi people to learn marathi language for what when only marathi people are entitled to jobs in Bombay.

Who allowed slums in bombay to proliferate where most of the the bhaiyas and biharis reside obviously the marathi manoos working in BMC, Mumbai police, rationing office, collectors office who got bribes from slumlords to turn a blind eye. Who came up with the Slum Rehabiliation Scheme which rewarded the slum dwellers with free flats obviously the shiv sena and now the marathi people and shiv sena are crying that the bhaiyyas and biharis are stealing their jobs and political dominance.

The conspiracy behind changing the name of Bombay to Mumbai and renaming all landmarks/streets/airports/railwaystations/bridges/roads/junctions/etc after marathi warrirors/saints/freedomfighers/etc is to fool everyone to believe that Bombay was/is a marathi city.

******

jorge said...

Who is Bal Thackeray ?
****
****
***
****

BAL THACKERAY :
The cartoonist-turned Shiv Sena (SS) chief, Bal Thackeray is a Kayasth (mixture of Kshatriya (Warrior) and Brahmin (The Learned) ) with no jati support. Urban India produces lots of scum. Because, the Dalits and OBCs who migrate to big cities lose their jati consciousness and join maniac mafias like Bal Thackeray and turn into lumpen elements. And then become cannon fodder for the fascist Frankenstein parties like the SS.

The only way to avert this lumpenisation of Dalits and OBCs is to inject caste consciousness among them. Because India has no other ideology except "casteology". Muslims suffer from no such problem.

Once caste consciousness develops among the oppressed jatis, there will be no room for lumpen elements in the society.

****
****
****
****
****

Lipi said...

Though I disagree with the emotions of SRK for Pakis, I value your article on the political front. When we are looking towards the western countries for all our advancement how can we insult our own democracy with such discrimination.

Geet choudhary said...

Hoarding advertising provides a boundless range of improvement as compared to other advertising mediums. The brand message conveyed through OOH media is also clutter-free.
Hoardings Agency across India

" This blog is managed by The Sunday Indian. We heartily welcome comments on the articles.. However TSI will delete all those comments which are personal in nature and have the usage of unparliamentary language. "