Several of those whom I would put in the “right wing” camp in Indian politics have expressed their dislike for the term. Perhaps they feel it’s too poorly defined, or that it’s well defined and doesn’t fit them, or that it’s used in an insulting way. Maybe all three. While it’s true that those on the opposing side are as, or more likely to be insulted by words such as “commie” etc, that’s no reason to continue using something which a certain section of people find insulting. After all, the purpose of debate is constructive dialog and not insults.
Though the phrase “right wing” is already pretty well defined [wikipedia.com] so far as such things can be nailed down, it’s clearly not serving its purpose when the target audience takes offence or feels that the label is unjustified. So I write this post to invite ideas for new phrases that accurately describe the views of a large number of Indians. It’s important to have a phrase since it makes talking about a certain set of views easier in conversation instead of having to recite the traits from scratch. Pure convenience.
I think it best to start at the fundamentals by listing out the exact traits which the old phrase “right wing” was supposed to indicate. Then those who wish can decide whether or not they subscribe to the following views and if they do, they mustn’t take offence when someone describes them as such. Liberals for example never feel offended when someone calls them a “liberal” even if its meant as an insult since the word is so well defined that it could only be a compliment! After all, who could take offence at being told that they support equality, believe in human rights and democracy?
So here are the traits which I consider those on the “right wing” to possess.
Note: Until we find a suitable replacement for “right wing”, I’ll be using that phrase withing quotes when appropriate here – don’t take it as an insult!
Great Pride in the past and belief in a “Golden age”
One thing which I find very common is that those on the “right” take great pride in the history of their religion, community, or country. Now we’re all interested in the past to varying degrees and especially our own, but the kind of attachment I’m referring goes beyond mere interest. Those on the “right” take a lot of pride in their history and are apt to praise it above other cultures. So if we’re talking about the Hindu “right,” we hear phrases like “India was the greatest culture in the world at one time etc.”
Also, there is a belief that at some time in the past, everything was “perfect” during a “Golden age” and that we’ve fallen from grace since then. So we have references to a “Raj Dharma” and the “Vedic times” when people were good, kings were righteous and everything was at peace.
So that is the first trait of what the “right wing” consists of. A great pride in history, and a golden age when everything was perfect.
But then everything changed and this paradise was shattered by Islam. Which brings us to the next trait.
A belief that Islam is a threat to Hindus
The second trait of the Indian “right wing” is a feeling of hurt and personal loss that Islam came and destroyed the peaceful Golden age. There is also a fear that history will repeat itself and that if left unchecked, Islam will overrun India and will make Hindus outcasts in their own land. Along with this, is a belief that all (or most) Muslims are silent supporters of violent acts like terrorism and that Islam itself is a violent religion which by definition makes all Muslims potential threats.
Strong sense of Nationalism, Religion, or Community
The final trait which I consider those on the “right” to possess is a powerful identification with a group that is determined by their birth. Religion, and nationality are not something most people choose and in my opinion, the “right” adopts the identity which birth has given them. This identification is very strong and is infused with a sense of pride and a tendency to raise that particular identity above all others. Descriptions such as “Proud Nationalist”, “Proud Hindu” and “Patriotic Indian” are common. Sometimes posts or comments will end with a “Jai Ho!” or something similar.
So these are three traits which I believe the “right wing” possesses. The challenge now is to come up with a phrase to describe those who think like this. Clearly many are uncomfortable being called “right wing,” and so I throw an open question to those to whom the above three traits apply. What phrase or word would you be happy with if “right wing” is unacceptable?
Fundamentalists, Conservatives etc might define only some traits… to me Right Wing seems apt. I would like to read what names come up here…
In reply to Indian Homemaker
So far “right wing” is generally accepted true. Perhaps the solution lies in not being so sensitive about it?
For the bird in the pic, that is actually her/his left wing :D
Firstly I do not see how something like Left and Right can be taken as perjorative, I think it is more with the fact that they want to decide what they want to be called.
Also possibly “Right” stands in immediate contrast to “Left”, which was possibly defined first. You would want to define your identity as self standing, rather than in contrast to your main adversary.
Secondly, right-wing-ism is something that can be found in most religions, as much with Islam, Christianity, Judaism and others as with Hinduism. The difference is of labels, not of idealogy with regards to things
Judging people with respect to their birth(non-chosen) identities is fundamentally flawed. What if the Islam-basher was born Muslim but for a baby-swap in the hospital.
“Culturally-Conservative” could be nice alternative name.
In reply to Khalil Sawant
How about just “Conservatives?” – but does that reflect the strong sense of threat?
Funny how I could change the words Indian to American, and Hindu to Christian throughout this post and apply the entire piece to the US with a tremendous degree of accuracy.
As stated in your post, I take being called a leftist or left-wing as a badge of honor; it’s too bad there wasn’t a tea party involved in India’s independence movement. That would solve the problem – “Teabagger” works quite well here.
In reply to Thurman
Very similar traits irrespective of the country no? Of course, there are differing extremes. Someone like Beck isn’t just right. He’s waaaaay off!
We do have a tea party of sorts. It’s just not a formal organization. Our BJP is a bit like the republican party.
Conservatives can be used as a term.
BUT , they dont mind insulting liberals with terms like “commie” then why should liberals not call them “right-winggers”??LOL
Anyways , in my opinion there are a few other characteristics of right-wingers , in addition to yours:-
4)Rejection of diversity.
5)Rejection of secularism.
6)Imposition of a monolithic culture on all of us.
7)Thought control for example wanting to “apply” sedition laws on dissenters.
8)An instinctive dislike of the “other”…..
All of this applies not only to hindu-right wing but also to Islamic and christian right-wing as well
In reply to Indian Pundit
Well, the problem with the “tit for tat” thing is that they will claim abuse and use that as an excuse to continue. Though in my opinion, even when one tries to be polite, one still gets abused by those on the “right.” (see the comments)
Anyway, the other points you’ve brought up IMHO relate to the powerful sense of identity with the nation, culture or religion. That is why diversity and secularism are perhaps viewed as threatening and also why the desire to impose that monolithic identity on everyone.
Same goes for thought control since any dissent is a threat to that identity. And of course the dislike of the “other” comes from not belonging to that identity.
I don’t see what’s really pejorative about “left-wing” or “right-wing.” I agree with IP, that basically describes many right wingers here in the US. Also you’re post describes them quite well. Personally I wouldn’t know what else to call them. Also Bhagwad I read that discussion, yeah he kept calling you a “commie?” Why? O_O I mean, a lot of people on the left are far from being communists. It’s interesting, because I’ve been reading about some of these “right wingers” in India and from what I’ve seen they’re attitudes towards Muslims is like “I don’t hate Muslims, but I just don’t want them around.” Even though they’ll swear up and down they’re not anti-Muslim.
I definitely agree about the dislike for the “other.” With secularism, it would force them to recognize “the other” and I can see how that’s scary for them.
In reply to RenKiss
At least the US has settled on the terminology to be used. Maybe India has too, but lots of people haven’t accepted it yet.
The “commie” and “comrade” references are unique to Indian dialog where it’s felt by the the “right” that anyone who isn’t proud of India and Hindus is a communist. I can see how strange it sounds to one who hasn’t been exposed it – it sounds strange to me even now :)
The attitudes towards Muslims is also a bit unsure. They say Islam is the enemy, and Muslims as a group are dangerous, but they have nothing against Muslims per se!
Hindu conservatives, or Hindu Tories.
For instance they would like to see a monarchy (Ram Rajya – e.g. Gandhi) or revert to the Vedic age (e.g. Baba Ramdev). That’s extreme conservatism. However there is no agreed or unique Hindu conservatism. Thus, Gandhi would vigorously object to Golwalkar’s interpretation of Hindu conservatism, or even to Hindutva. This makes it very difficult to label anyone anything.
(Btw, I think your interpretation of Shantanu Bhagwat’s views is erroneous. He is a classical liberal, not a Hindu conservative/right wing representative – please read Rajaji’s views to understand this strand of classical liberalism.)
I would personally prefer to see myself (classical liberal) described as the ‘right wing’ of India – well away from the left!
However, this is not a conservative but (classical) liberal position. Let me publish Hayek’s article on this subject on my blog to help distinguish why this right-wing perspective is not conservative – will do so momentarily.
In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok
Thanks Sanjiv. Just to clarify, are you saying that Shantanu would not like to see a “Ram Rajya” type of rule in India which is ruled based on vedic principles?
Bhagwad,
Having read some of the comments towards your opinions in Shantanu’s and Sandeep’s blogs I’m not condoning the radical reactions towards your posts. However I’m disappointed that while you posed that you would hold the higher ground, have stooped to come up with a stereotyping exercise here.
There are definitely valid contentions from the right and left. But let me take one example here about your point of Islamic being a threat to Hindus or the existential threat posed by Islam to non-Islamic religions. Let us take the simple statistics and look at Islamic nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan etc. You can see that minorities have been literally squashed and live as second class citizens (this is from relatively nonbiased sources like UN Human rights commission and other organizations).
Even in India in states like J&K where Muslims are a majority you can see pogroms happening. You cannot deny that it is not a cause for fear of existential survival (however narrow it could be in the larger context).
Therefore it would be prudent to discuss the arguments on its merits than stereotype and dismiss them which is what is happening in Indian politics today.
In reply to Dirt Digger
Dirt Digger, thank you for understanding my reasons for walking away from that debate. I’d just like to point out two things.
First, I’ve been very careful in the language of my post not to be judgmental. “Stereotyping” is usually used in a bad way where undesirable attributes are applied to the target group. I’m sure a neutral person would be unable to find anything in my post which suggests I either support or object to the three traits I’ve mentioned. If you can find something like that, let me know and I’ll change my language. I want to identify traits, not make value judgments in this post. My purpose is not to insult or indulge in lazy thinking. I want it to be a starting point for analyzing actual opinions.
Second, I’m not going to discuss whether or not the whole Islam thing is valid or not here. I’m just saying that a lot of people feel this way. Whether they’re right in feeling that way or wrong in doing so is not the purpose of this post. It’s true that a lot of people don’t feel this way, and so I want to use this trait of fearing Islam as a defining characteristic. Again, not making judgments here. I can do that in other posts.
I hope you’re satisfied as to my good intentions.
Hi bhagwad,
1. Conservatism would be the “acceptable” term I think. But here is some stuff from Dilip’s blog that may highlight why the term is considered abusive by those it is used to describe:
http://dcubed.blogspot.com/2007/05/ve-again.html
From Oxford american thesaurus: (** highlighting mine)
conservative: *reactionary*, traditionalist, *redneck*, *diehard*, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, *hidebound*, unadventurous, *stick-in-the-mud*, *set-in-one’s-ways*, moderate, middle-of-the-road, buttoned-down.
liberal: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, progressive, modern, advanced, forward-thinking, enlightened, beneficent, bounteous.
Oddly enough after these definitions Dilip felt that liberal was becoming an abuse term (being spat upon to be precise). I’m probably not liberal enough to *not* see that several definitions of thesaurus for conservative are abusive :-) Is that part of the problem? Conservative is almost abusive by definition. Liberal is uplifting and complimentary. This might explain why the right wing tries to cast liberal attributes in abusive terms, they’re trying to return the favor.
2. Of the attributes you highlighted the second one does not fit “Indian” rightwing. It is apt for “Hindu” right wing and there is a definite difference.
thanks,
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
That was a very good post Jai! Indeed, everyone normally understands “liberal” to be a good thing. I could never figure out how people can make up their own insults which are not understood by anyone but themselves :)
You’re spot on about the second point. On Twitter yesterday, I was suggesting to Ketan that I change it to just “Islam is a threat.” and remove the “Hindu” reference. After you noticed it too, I think I’ll go ahead with the change. Thanks!
In reply to bhagwad
Hi Bhagwad,
I didnt really mean for you to edit your posts :-) and not in that sense at all. What I was trying to point out was that by your definition, non-Hindus could not be right wing at least in India, Muslims almost absolutely not (they have to believe Islam is a threat whether to Hindus or to others or to themselves!)
Is it part of the *requirement spec* that one has to belong to a majority community? Then the label can be majoritarianism. And if so what would be the label you propose for somebody of minority community who has right wing characteristics?
Labels like conservative / orthodox are wider range and even they dont work well.
I have met M who wear jeans and project cool but are very inflexible and unreflective on any aspects of their faith. I have H friends who are tilakdhari namaskaar wielders and closet or even open supporters of BJP, who have more nuance in their worldviews and a greater appreciation of the flaws in their faith.
thanks,
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
Hmm…but what if someone isn’t a religious person, is an atheist, but still has a strong sense of “India?” I admit that my definitions preclude Muslims from being “right wing”, but then it’s just my observation that I haven’t met any Muslim people who believe in a Golden age in India etc…
Complex isn’t it? I would think with regard to Muslims, the word “Fundamentalist” might be more appropriate than “right wing.” From what I know, in the US for example, “right wing” almost always means being Christian and white.
In reply to bhagwad
1. Its not that there isnt a golden age, the age differs…. its Mughal rule. I’ve met some who believe Akbar’s reign was the golden era… that’s cool, I can line up with that. At least online I have come across ppl who believe Aurangzeb’s rule was *the heyday* for Islam in India and disturbing is a mild term for my reaction.
2. A person that uses neutral (IMO) terms like right-wing in a restricted sense that implies majority community is being unfair either to the term or the community being applied to (again, IMO). Its just more accurate then to say Hindu rightwing, Muslim rightwing etc. But I can see how you want to use *fundamentalist* for non-majority communities and right-wing exclusively for majority communities.
3. I havent tangled too much with extreme right wingers BTW. One of the rightiest conservative -leaning blogs I visit in the US has this sample definition for “jew” from a commenter (approx from memory)
“… to me a jew is somebody who keeps and guards the law. So if you’re a Mongol yak herder who hasnt heard of abraham or moses but keeps and guards the law, you’re a jew…”
I can understand and appeciate his reasoning. I consider myself a liberal but believing Hindu. But I would find such a reasoning to be a stretch definition of Hinduism- a good person is just being a good human being.
But these are conservatives I can walk with. I dont particularly bother that they appropriate generic good stuff to their specific label (eg. “its the Xian thing to do”)… they’re good guys.
thx,
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
I guess my problem is that I’ve come across any Muslims who feel that India as a whole should return to Muslim rule. I’ve lived with Muslims in Hyderabad during my MBA and have had many long (and tiring, but nice!) discussions with them, but never got the feeling that they were pining away for the times of Akbar. Perhaps my exposure is limited and if I saw such people I would call them right wing too.
But even so, as it’s generally understood, “right wing” almost always implies government support for the majority religion [wikipedia.com]. It involves cultural pride etc, which is difficult to generate for a minority sect.
I was born a Christian and I have a number of conservative Christian relatives. I wouldn’t call them “right wing” because they don’t have a shared vision for India’s future based on Christianity. In spite of their “Christianness”, they’re decent people…
In reply to bhagwad
1. I guess Marathi chauvinism of the Senas cannot be right wing since they are not countrywide and are not govt supported (at least in theory). They are not even religion based.
Let’s please not introduce another kink into the definition to make sure it fits :-) its way out of shape already (to me). I’m beginning to get a sense of what Ketan meant when he said something abt shifting goalposts but I agree that right wing once suitably defined can be made to exclude certain communities /categories.
2. re Pride: If a community could feel it ruled/ controlled/ dominated a region or country for a lonng time *inspite of being a minority community* would it not be a source of pride?
From a neutral POV I would give it bonus marks!!
But I have a feeling we’re done here :-)
Merry Xmas to ppl who dont mind being wished that way.
Happy holidays instead if you do mind.
thanks,
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
You know, you made me think…after all, my post was a starting point for the definition of right wing and as the discussion proceeds, we can make it better and better.
I would indeed consider the Shiv Sena right wing. So I think we can change point 2 talking about Islam to “XYZ is a threat to the community.” In the case of the Shiv Sena, it’s North Indians.
And when we talk about majority, we can talk about geographical majority. As for government support, I would say the Shiv Sena is quasi governmental. If they were a Muslim group, they would hide in the shadows, break windows etc and run away. The Shiv Sena enjoys the publicity, and waits for the journalists etc to speak their crap.
So if Muslims are a massive majority in a given region, take great pride in their Muslim past, want to establish a sort of “Muslim rule” and feel that they’re under threat, they should come under the definition of right wing.
In reply to bhagwad
Hope you had a happy holidays.
The Marathi Xian like Schrodinger’s Cat now gets to be in the right wing box as well as not in it :-) depending on how you wrap the box.
The threat and pride are almost given Bhagwad. I think almost any kind of person willingly buys into a threat perception depending on how its sold. Part of the package is the glorious past where there was not a threat. But you are on solid ground with defining the “local rules”. This is where nationalism vs secessionism comes in. I couldnt find that post on IM.in
When you say “hide in the shadows” please bear in mind especially in India several militant leaders, thugs, murderers from Veerappan to Maoists have given press interviews and seem not to be in any severe discomfort for being wanted by the law. Prominent Booker awardees can spend a week with them and pose with their weaponry. I would not like your non-Indian readers to carry away the impression that they are all scurrying around like rats with a drone buzzing over their heads.
I dont know as much abt miscreants from minority comunities but I have been told abt some pockets of a Southern Indian city that were completely under the thumb of the local mafia leader (minority). The police couldnt enter “his” area.
When he took to religious extremism he held out in that area for *years* while lawyers spun away at the cases. I dont remember or know too much abt this its from several yrs ago. Its quite likely vernacular media had supported him too and took his crap or whatever.
Maybe such geographical areas are “too small” and the period of rule “too brief” to fit your label but for abt a decade there wasnt much to differentiate him and his work from Thackeray whom you have included.
Lets not go ahead and set size limits (must be greater than 100sq km?) and time limits (must terrify for 10 yrs or more?) . My point is the definition needs to be useful. We differ on some aspects of scope and utility but in the main I dont think we disagree much.
thanks,
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
I’m impressed by your ability to examine “here and there” situations :) – but it’s good. They help us determine the limits of any definition and prevents us from getting cocky!
Your example of the mafia guy was a good one. If it was entirely a criminal venture, then of course it can’t be right wing – no ideology behind it. But if as you say there was an ideology and everyone supported it then it becomes interesting. Try as I might, the word “right wing” just doesn’t seem to fit. I probably lack the skills to explain this properly…
In reply to Jai_C
Bhagwad and Jai,
I don’t know how you’ll take my comments. But I don’t think organizations like Shiv Sena are in it for any ideology. Just like any other political party like the BJP or the Congress, they’re in it for power and easy money.
Congress has had the historical advantage in taking a particular stand (license-quota-raj + populist policies + ‘secularism’), so no other major party could have tried using that strategy. So, BJP tried ‘Hindutva’ (which basically stands for nothing really, except for maybe, changing a few course books, trying to pass off astrology as ‘science’ and making a certain fraction of Hindu voters feel that the party stands by ‘them’). On occasions, they succeeded. Parties like Shiv Sena had to try approach entirely different from that of the Congress. They recognized that they needed to start ‘small’, and if they would succeed only then could they think of getting bigger (on the national stage). Being a local party, they focused on regional chauvinism, as all other viable strategies were already taken up. Now after having been so radical for so long, there is an inertia in trying to change image – “will we lose our old voter base? If we try to set agenda like the Congress or BJP why will people vote for us instead of them?” Moreover, my contention is that Bal Thackeray must be really happy with what all he has ‘achieved’ (in terms of power and money), having had humble beginnings as a cartoonist. His has been quite a profitable venture. He has earned enough and must have invested enough to get financial returns that would last a few generations at least. So those who think in terms of “serves Shiv Sena right; they can dream of being a national party” are perhaps being naive. Because, in all likelihood, people like Thackeray never intended to make it that big.
And, I believe, all other parties feel a certain safety in trying the strategy they had got historically attached with. It would be redundant to read too much ‘ideology’ into what the leaders of such parties decide. Yes, what kind of grass-roots level workers they attract should be seen in terms of their ideology, but though not always. I guess, most of these ‘grass roots level’ workers are also people in search of plain employment – be it of SS or BJP or Congress. I don’t think even the grass roots level workers actually believe all the crap that their ‘leaders’ speak.
Lastly, with some of the Radia tapes giving an indication of parties like Shiv Sena willing to be used as battalions of paid goons, my above suspicions have got only further confirmed. You can read this blog post for some ‘contextual’ fun! http://quirkyindian.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/guess-who-the-real-winner-is/ Quirky Indian is, of course, a brilliant writer and analyst.
In reply to Jai_C
Ketan, you are probably quite right in all you say.
So if asked, would you say that parties like the Shiv Sena and “Hindutva” based parties are dangerous?
Don’t worry about the bold face. I corrected it.
In reply to Jai_C
Bhagwad,
Good question! I think that would depend on what is the concerned parties’ definition of ‘Hindutva’, what attributes do they assign to the ideology. I find it quite nebulous, which means, it hardly stands for anything, which in turn means, it cannot bear much influence on the day-to-day governance in India. Also, unlike other religious ideologies, it does not divide people into ‘fidels’ and ‘infidels’, nor are there any penalties for not identifying with the said ideology.
But on the other hand, if use of such a term makes non-‘Hindus’ insecure, then the BJP should perhaps stop using the term. However, in a different sense I would find doing that also wrong, because I will see it as indulgence in political correctness despite having nothing ‘bad’ about the ideology (as far as I know), which in turn would be an admission of crime-less guilt.
But of course, it seems BJP seeks to pander to the Hindu majority constituency by using it.
In reply to Jai_C
When the BJP was in power, I used to get creeped out by their focus on changing textbooks and all – Murali Manohar Joshi wasn’t it? I would count that as a threat because even if they do it just to pander to a vote bank, it makes no difference to their actions…
Changing textbooks was something the Nazis did in the early days to reflect how they felt about Jews…and that set off warning bells in my head.
Incidentally since you “bold” and “italicize” your comments a lot you might like this script I wrote for easily inserting HTML tags in your text.
In reply to bhagwad
It’s interesting how the “anti-North Indian” campaign is always blamed on the Shiv Sena, when the spearhead of the movement is actually the MNS, which now has a blood feud with the Shiv Sena. I have always wondered if this display of ignorance is deliberate because the Sena happens to be a BJP ally. For instance, during Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections in 2009, media coverage of Raj Thackeray seemed to focus on his “rockstar qualities” rather than on castigating his divisive message. Its not to say the media ever endorsed his stance, just that it maintained a tactical silence, choosing instead to report on how he has charisma, etc, etc.
With Narendrabhai Modi, every word about his charisma is followed by a thorough thrashing of his “communal” agenda. I didn’t spot that in the coverage on Raj Thackeray. It’s only understandable given that we now know that the media has been in bed with Congress all along.
In reply to SS
As far as I’m concerned, they’re both the same. The shiv sena came first and so they have a larger mind share. That’s it.
In reply to SS
SS,
Though Bhagwad perhaps does not seem to believe in the kind of nexuses you’re alluding to, I get what you mean. I had noted that the security provided by the Congress government for screening of MNIK was much, much stronger than the arrangements made to protect the north-Indians while they were being beaten up by MNS ‘workers’.
Though, I do not seek to justify what the MNS people had done, one of my friends had pointed out that many Maharashtrians were actually angry with the railways recruitment process. This, because Indian Railways had advertised about the exam only in Hindi dailies and not even English ones (forget, Marathi ones, though the exam was meant for Mumbai division or Western railways if I remember it right). [This is what was told by my friend, can’t vouch for it’s veracity].
Now, one might point out that Hindi is our national language and that people must have no objections to this manner of advertisement, but the hard fact is that most people in rural Maharashtra as well as Gujarat (basically, the states where I have got to understand people from close quarters) view Hindi slightly antagonistically (more so, in Maharashtra). People in many states feel that Hindi has actually been imposed upon them, and I can quite empathize with that feeling.
Also, there is a perception that central government jobs have largely been ‘hijacked’ by north Indians. More north Indians at senior positions –> greater nepotism + bias towards north Indian candidates –> further greater number of north Indian recruits –> people of other states feel left out.
I do not have reliable statistics, but I have noticed that to be the perception and I see it as a possibility.
I was surprised that even many educated Maharashtrians had felt that the MNS had raised the right issue. They did not support the use of violence, but did not speak very strongly against it (I guess, emotion clouds judgment of most people). Their ire was against Lalu Prasad Yadav, who they believed was behind this clever ploy to keep people of other states out of this recruitment loop.
Another problem in Mumbai is that there is so much overcrowding (and consequent high cost of living and decreased comfort) that even people like me who have lived virtually all their lives in Mumbai are thinking of settling at some place elsewhere. Most people do not analyze so much; they find it easy to set the blame on one entity or the other (currently, north Indians, in the past it was South Indians and Gujaratis).
Part of the reason I typed out above long comment was because the MSM does not present the finer points regarding any event (though they know it all) and instead choose to run on endless loops the most sensationalist portions of any event. No wonder, they had not talked of the Hindi advertisement thing (assuming, that indeed is true).
In reply to SS
Bhagwad and SS,
Link to what I had alluded to in the above comment: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/PoliticsNation/Govt_responsible_for_MNS_attack/articleshow/3620512.cms
But I must point out that the original trigger (non-advertisement in local dailies) found hardly any mention in the media.
Anyway, I hope, no one makes this juvenile insinuation that just because I make a mention of ‘original trigger’ I’m also justifying such attacks.
As I said, I try not to view things in pure black and white. Different people have differing levels of being rational and circumspect, and in accordance with that, do they behave.
In reply to SS
Something quite old, but related in the ‘larger’ scheme: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/323500.cms It is worth noting that perhaps, most number of Railway Ministers have been from Bihar.