After much dithering in the name of consultations, the government of the day has announced the creation of the state of Telangana. More like, ripping it out from the current day Andhra Pradesh, as we know it. But anyway, it has been done.
It is slightly disconcerting to know that the geography of India I learnt in school, and the maps I learnt to draw, don't hold true any more. But when compared to how some scientists decided that Pluto ain't a planet no more, this becomes much easier to get my head around.
People are people, always wanting to cash in the "me-too" cheque they write to themselves. So we suddenly have renewed demands for new states erupting across the length and breadth of the country. I have no stance to take on such demands, but I do have a stance on the mindless violent disruption of public life and destruction of public property that more often than not accompanies these demands.
Of course, there are those wiser than me, having clever things to say about demands for separate statehood. A subject on which, as I just admitted, I have no personal point of view. Take the very enlightened Shobha De, for instance. Or is it Shobhaaaaaaa Deee? Anyway, how many a's and e's she uses in her name doesn't change the fact that she has a stance on the matter, a stance she is unafraid of expressing, because, as she claims, she is a Mumbaikar, an Indian and a woman. Good for her, all three.
But a stance she has. If we take the literal route, which many of our hilarious politicos have taken, her stance will seem to show she wants lots of little little bits and pieces of land all over the place, each called a state of its own. If we take the ironic route, as she herself suggests we do, she seems to be against the whole idea of dividing states.
The question that baffles me is this: what does she know about the creation of a state to hold any point of view on a matter that is very visibly leading to very strong passions on both sides of the debate? Or is being a writer about the social life of Bombay enough to grant one the insight needed?
It is slightly disconcerting to know that the geography of India I learnt in school, and the maps I learnt to draw, don't hold true any more. But when compared to how some scientists decided that Pluto ain't a planet no more, this becomes much easier to get my head around.
People are people, always wanting to cash in the "me-too" cheque they write to themselves. So we suddenly have renewed demands for new states erupting across the length and breadth of the country. I have no stance to take on such demands, but I do have a stance on the mindless violent disruption of public life and destruction of public property that more often than not accompanies these demands.
Of course, there are those wiser than me, having clever things to say about demands for separate statehood. A subject on which, as I just admitted, I have no personal point of view. Take the very enlightened Shobha De, for instance. Or is it Shobhaaaaaaa Deee? Anyway, how many a's and e's she uses in her name doesn't change the fact that she has a stance on the matter, a stance she is unafraid of expressing, because, as she claims, she is a Mumbaikar, an Indian and a woman. Good for her, all three.
But a stance she has. If we take the literal route, which many of our hilarious politicos have taken, her stance will seem to show she wants lots of little little bits and pieces of land all over the place, each called a state of its own. If we take the ironic route, as she herself suggests we do, she seems to be against the whole idea of dividing states.
The question that baffles me is this: what does she know about the creation of a state to hold any point of view on a matter that is very visibly leading to very strong passions on both sides of the debate? Or is being a writer about the social life of Bombay enough to grant one the insight needed?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment