50 years back
'Sakal' (my favorite Marathi newspaper) has a section titled 'Pannas Varshanpurvi' (50 years back) which contains one significant news each from India and world 50 years back.
Yesterday I read that 50 years ago some congress leaders were proposing a united Maharashtra state that consisted then provinces Mumbai & Saurashtra and remaining region that forms Maharashta today. In short it was combination of today's Maharastra & Gujraath.
Majority of leaders opposed to it saying that it contradicted with Congress' principle of 'States based on languages'. I didn't know that Maharashtra state was planned 6 years in advance (Maharashtra got its today's form in 1961).
If it had happened then perhaps today's Mehtas and Patils would have been distant cousins. Or there would have been no difference between Gujraathi Joshi and Marathi Joshi.
But is there a slightest possibility that Godhra or Malegaon riots would have been avoided?
I don't know, because I don't understand what really divides a group of people, what really creates hate instead of love.
Perhaps as said in Matrix Trilogy, I don't understand past my choice.
Perhaps I don't want to understand.
3 comments:
Godhra and Malegaon riots had nothing to do with the formation of maharashtra. I guess the only way those riots could have been avoided is by going back in time, and kicking out the brits :-)
Re: Comment 1
I never said formation of Maharashtra caused thses riots. I was just wondering that if there would have been a united state as proposed was there a slightest possibility that riots could be avoided.
Perhaps they should have divided us on basis of religion so to avoid riots. But still there is no definite reason for why riots happen.
As I already said,
I don't understand what really divides a group of people, what really creates hate instead of love.
If we wanted a division on religious basis then we should have done away with Gandhi as well as brits.... He opposed the idea of Muslims leaving India / Division on religious basis. It was an act half done. Either divide complete or do not divide. I am not presenting neither the notion that the division should have been there, nor the idea that division should not have been there. Just that act complete, not half way.
Post a Comment