Guest dada_rocks Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080212&fname=puri&sid=1 After Independence Nehru, Patel and even the RSS under Golwarkar were against the formation of linguistic states. Even though the linguistic states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerela, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu were conceded, the state of Bombay comprising Maharashtra and Gujarat was retained with Mumbai as the state capital. Morarji Desai was the Chief Minister of united Bombay state. Desai had served as a deputy collector under the British before Independence. He knew the principles of governance. When Marathi speaking politicians formed the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti and started a violent agitation in 1956, Desai countered violence with an iron hand. Hundreds of violent agitators were shot dead near Flora Fountain. But then, with typical half-hearted resolve, Nehru wilted and Desai had to resign. In the aftermath of Nehru’s surrender, the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti performed well in the polls and YB Chavan replaced Desai as the CM of bilingual Bombay state. The view that Bombay should be made a city state was ignored. It became the capital of Maharashtra. The time has come to right that wrong. Mumbai is the commercial capital of South Asia. Potentially it is the future commercial capital of all Asia. Like Delhi, it deserves to be a city state. This is what the political opponents of the Thackeray duo should demand. The issue is not North Indians versus Maharashtrians. It is pride in Mumbai and India. To imagine that Maharashtrian pride excludes pride in India would be an insult to a community that had contributed so richly to India’s freedom.
Guest dada_rocks Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Damn it please move it to our politics section
Lurker Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Subah sabera daaru bhi nahin, taadi maar ke aaya hai aaj :hysterical:
Recommended Posts