Politics of Language part 3

It is not just working. It is having a domicile and voting, it is standing
for elections etc. (Put up illegal huts, getting fake ration cards etc are
other issues). I am not going to bengalru and going to talk about voting
there while at the same time not even speak kannada.

I can come to america and work, but once I file for citizenship, the main
benefit of which is to get the right to vote, I am required to show
knowledge of american history, the motivation behind which is to show how
much american I am by heart. If Bihari's are coming to maharashtra to seek
domicile and to vote and decide the working of maharashtra then it is not
so wrong to demand them to be of the marathi culture. Demand for fluency
in marathi is not so wrong of a demand under such a case.

We are one country at the same time we are one citizen's of a globalized
world, just as barriers based on nationalities get put up on the basis of
how people identify with their conception of nationhood, similarly within
a country barrier do come up on the basis of language, religion caste etc.
Taking sides on the basis of country, language, caste, religion etc does
not necessarily imply that the intent is on division. A prime example is
the preamble of "unity in diversity". The principle of which india was
founded. The wisdom for the working of the nation as emboldened in the
country's consitution emphasises the emotional/social/economic
satisfaction of the diverse entities/identities that make up the country.
Unity as a principle without regards to these ground issues is really
following in the directions of the unwise.
Also most of these issues get decided by voting. Descision making in the workings of the country is decided by the age factor rather than stuff that is leant at schools. What I do or wht I say is really immaterial. What I am expressing here is just how I see the country really works. The reason that raj thackeray is not getting arrested, does not have a necesssary bearing on congress trying to divide marathi votes in urban areas, but it has more to do with the growing unrest and lumpenism in urban centres that finds a channel of expression throug the likes of raj thackeray. Plainly labelling him as a divisor just amounts to considering one's opinion to be holier than thou, instead of actually understanding the problem in all its generalities and depth.