In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

by Guest Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:49 pm

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2644423.ece?homepage=true

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:03 am

And what is your stance on this, Rashmun?

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:12 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:And what is your stance on this, Rashmun?

--> i am against the division. it would promote regionalism. further, u.p.'s division had in fact been proposed during the time of pandit nehru. one of the reasons the proposal was rejected by Nehru, Pant, and others was that they wanted border states to not be small. regionalism in border states is dangerous because it can at some point of time turn towards secession--perhaps this is what they had in mind.

--> i also agree with the brahmin, kayastha, thakur, and jat lawyers quoted in the article:

But even the legal community is divided: in the Agra district court,
while Jatav lawyers describe the move as a “masterstroke,” Jaat and
Thakur lawyers say it will only “multiply the money-making opportunities
for politicians and officials.” In the Etah district court, a group of
Kayastha and Brahmin lawyers points out that creating three new capitals
would be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, Uttar Pradesh will lose
its political pre-eminence.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:28 am

I share your distaste for regionalism and lingusitic chauvinism but in this case, I'm not sure that is a factor given that the four regions have similar caste mixes and all speak Hindi albeit with variations. I don't think breaking off Uttaranchal from UP resulted in greater regionalism. OTOH, the resultant improvement in administrative focus and government reach has delivered better economic development to that area. Likewise Jharkhand.

The single biggest plus, IMO, is precisely what you (or those higher-caste lawyers) argue is a negative i.e. the loss of UP's political pre-eminence. Currently, a disproportionate amount of populist largesse (aka essence of democracy) and policy-making focus currently goes to UP merely because it sends some 80 MPs to the Lok Sabha and is therefore key to gaining parliamentary majority.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I share your distaste for regionalism and lingusitic chauvinism but in this case, I'm not sure that is a factor given that the four regions have similar caste mixes and all speak Hindi albeit with variations. I don't think breaking off Uttaranchal from UP resulted in greater regionalism. OTOH, the resultant improvement in administrative focus and government reach has delivered better economic development to that area. Likewise Jharkhand.

The single biggest plus, IMO, is precisely what you (or those higher-caste lawyers) argue is a negative i.e. the loss of UP's political pre-eminence. Currently, a disproportionate amount of populist largesse (aka essence of democracy) and policy-making focus currently goes to UP merely because it sends some 80 MPs to the Lok Sabha and is therefore key to gaining parliamentary majority.

--> i once met policemen in rishikesh (uttaranchal) who were from u.p. but posted in uttaranchal and they told me that carving out uttaranchal from uttar pradesh has resulted in 'pranta-vada' i.e. regionalism. the locals treat them as outsiders and this was not the case before.

--> i understand that the the revenues of the uttaranchal government is four times less than its expenditure. something like that. and that the uttaranchal government is totally dependent on central funds.

--> creating other capital cities and having more ministers (with all their perks, etc.) would be prohibitively expensive as some UPites point out in the Hindu article.

--> Yes, the loss of political importance of U.P. is a factor. but it is not the only factor. Meanwhile, take a look at this:

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/204339/up-common-man-opposes-mayas-demand-for-split.html

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:01 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I share your distaste for regionalism and lingusitic chauvinism but in this case, I'm not sure that is a factor given that the four regions have similar caste mixes and all speak Hindi albeit with variations. I don't think breaking off Uttaranchal from UP resulted in greater regionalism. OTOH, the resultant improvement in administrative focus and government reach has delivered better economic development to that area. Likewise Jharkhand.

The single biggest plus, IMO, is precisely what you (or those higher-caste lawyers) argue is a negative i.e. the loss of UP's political pre-eminence. Currently, a disproportionate amount of populist largesse (aka essence of democracy) and policy-making focus currently goes to UP merely because it sends some 80 MPs to the Lok Sabha and is therefore key to gaining parliamentary majority.

--> Out of the 80 MPs of U.P. two are telugus (Jaya Prada and Azharuddin). A third, Nafisa Ali, was a strong contender in the last elections; Nafisa is a bengali born and brought up in Calcutta.

--> I am very sure that many of the MPs of U.P. would be originally from other states i.e. they would be punjabis, bengalis, etc.. Like Pandit Nehru's family, U.P. is full of immigrants from bengal, punjab, kashmir, etc. UPites have never had a problem in electing immigrants to positions of power.

--> A majority of the 80 Lok Sabha seats of U.P. have for quite some time now been split between two regional parties--Samajwadi party and BSP. Further, consider the number of cabinet ministers from U.P. versus for instance Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra. None of the top cabinet positions (finance, defense, foriegn, commerce, etc.) are held by someone from U.P.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:38 am

Rashmun wrote:--> i once met policemen in rishikesh (uttaranchal) who were from u.p. but posted in uttaranchal and they told me that carving out uttaranchal from uttar pradesh has resulted in 'pranta-vada' i.e. regionalism. the locals treat them as outsiders and this was not the case before.

On a flt to Chennai, I once met this Tambrahm who spoke chaste Hindi and when I asked how easy or difficult it is for a non-Thamizh speaker like me to get around Chennai, he looked me straight the eye and assured me that Thamizhars understood Hindi very well - it being a national language and all that - and that my smattering of Hindi was good enough. Since then, I have learned never to build a hypothesis about any place on the basis of some random individuals one meets.

Rashmun wrote:--> i understand that the the revenues of the uttaranchal government is four times less than its expenditure. something like that. and that the uttaranchal government is totally dependent on central funds.

Not true. Uttarakhand has targeted a fiscal deficit of 3.4% for the year, tighter than the Central Govt's now-doomed target.

Rashmun wrote:--> creating other capital cities and having more ministers (with all their perks, etc.) would be prohibitively expensive as some UPites point out in the Hindu article.

Yes, there are additional overheads in creating a new governance structure, and this used to be my main argument against creating new states. But I've since changed my opinion because those incremental overheads are pocket change compared to the economic benefits that follow.

Empirical evidence shows that by and large, division of a larger state into smaller bits results in greater economic development of the offshoots (an exceptions being Jharkhand where the mining mafia rules). Look at the per capita GDP figures:
MP: $631; Chattisgharh: $908
UP: $551; Uttarakhand: $1299
Bihar: $341; Jharkhand: $680

In terms of GDP growth too, the carve-outs have done well:
"Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, carved out from three of these BIMARU states, have also done well on GDP front compared to Madhya Pradesh, it said. Average GDP growth of Uttarakhand was 9.31 percent, Jharkhand clocked 8.45 percent and Chhattisgarh posted 7.35 percent, while Orissa, also among the poor states, registered a healthy rate of 8.74 percent, the CSO report said."

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:48 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i once met policemen in rishikesh (uttaranchal) who were from u.p. but posted in uttaranchal and they told me that carving out uttaranchal from uttar pradesh has resulted in 'pranta-vada' i.e. regionalism. the locals treat them as outsiders and this was not the case before.
On a flt to Chennai, I once met this Tambrahm who spoke chaste Hindi and when I asked how easy or difficult it is for a non-Thamizh speaker like me to get around Chennai, he looked me straight the eye and assured me that Thamizhars understood Hindi very well - it being a national language and all that - and that my smattering of Hindi was good enough. Since then, I have learned never to build a hypothesis about any place on the basis of some random individuals one meets.
Rashmun wrote:--> i understand that the the revenues of the uttaranchal government is four times less than its expenditure. something like that. and that the uttaranchal government is totally dependent on central funds.
Not true. Uttarakhand has targeted a fiscal deficit of 3.4% for the year, tighter than the Central Govt's now-doomed target.
Rashmun wrote:--> creating other capital cities and having more ministers (with all their perks, etc.) would be prohibitively expensive as some UPites point out in the Hindu article.
Yes, there are additional overheads in creating a new governance structure, and this used to be my main argument against creating new states. But I've since changed my opinion because those incremental overheads are pocket change compared to the economic benefits that follow.

Empirical evidence shows that by and large, division of a larger state into smaller bits results in greater economic development of the offshoots (an exceptions being Jharkhand where the mining mafia rules). Look at the per capita GDP figures:
MP: $631; Chattisgharh: $908
UP: $551; Uttarakhand: $1299
Bihar: $341; Jharkhand: $680

In terms of GDP growth too, the carve-outs have done well:
"Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, carved out from three of these BIMARU states, have also done well on GDP front compared to Madhya Pradesh, it said. Average GDP growth of Uttarakhand was 9.31 percent, Jharkhand clocked 8.45 percent and Chhattisgarh posted 7.35 percent, while Orissa, also among the poor states, registered a healthy rate of 8.74 percent, the CSO report said."

--> i have a question: how much money is the central govt. pumping into uttaranchal vis a vis uttar pradesh.

--> jharkhand and chattisgarh have done well because they are resource rich. my understanding is that the only industry in uttaranchal is tourism and that the state is financially unsustainable without the central govt. pumping in money into it. i would be happy to be proven wrong.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:54 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Empirical evidence shows that by and large, division of a larger state into smaller bits results in greater economic development of the offshoots (an exceptions being Jharkhand where the mining mafia rules). Look at the per capita GDP figures:
MP: $631; Chattisgharh: $908
UP: $551; Uttarakhand: $1299
Bihar: $341; Jharkhand: $680

In terms of GDP growth too, the carve-outs have done well:
"Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, carved out from three of these BIMARU states, have also done well on GDP front compared to Madhya Pradesh, it said. Average GDP growth of Uttarakhand was 9.31 percent, Jharkhand clocked 8.45 percent and Chhattisgarh posted 7.35 percent, while Orissa, also among the poor states, registered a healthy rate of 8.74 percent, the CSO report said."

what is being carved out of what? i cannot access the hindu link for some reason. if western UP is being carved out then what you say might happen. but if eastern UP is being carved out then there is no chance of what you are saying ever happening! eastern UP will need no less than a nitish kumar to get out of the rut it will find itself in.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:55 am

Another point is when will this division end?
for instance, uttaranchal comprises of kumaon and garhwal. would you support a movement which tries to make kumaon and garhwal separate states? after the new states of kumaon and garhwal one may have fresh demands for further divisions.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:57 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Empirical evidence shows that by and large, division of a larger state into smaller bits results in greater economic development of the offshoots (an exceptions being Jharkhand where the mining mafia rules). Look at the per capita GDP figures:
MP: $631; Chattisgharh: $908
UP: $551; Uttarakhand: $1299
Bihar: $341; Jharkhand: $680

In terms of GDP growth too, the carve-outs have done well:
"Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, carved out from three of these BIMARU states, have also done well on GDP front compared to Madhya Pradesh, it said. Average GDP growth of Uttarakhand was 9.31 percent, Jharkhand clocked 8.45 percent and Chhattisgarh posted 7.35 percent, while Orissa, also among the poor states, registered a healthy rate of 8.74 percent, the CSO report said."

what is being carved out of what? i cannot access the hindu link for some reason. if western UP is being carved out then what you say might happen. but if eastern UP is being carved out then there is no chance of what you are saying ever happening! eastern UP will need no less than a nitish kumar to get out of the rut it will find itself in.

mayawati wants to carve uttar pradesh into four pieces. and you are right--eastern u.p. and also bundelkhand would be completely dependent on central funds for many years if this happens.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:02 am

this "empirical" evidence is a bit fallacious. jharkhand and chattisgarh are both mineral rich states. swathes of uttarakhand are also very prosperous (haldwani, kathgodam). if jharkhand had been called bihar and bihar jharkhand, would the statistics have followed suit?

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:42 am

Rashmun wrote:--> jharkhand and chattisgarh have done well because they are resource rich. my understanding is that the only industry in uttaranchal is tourism and that the state is financially unsustainable without the central govt. pumping in money into it. i would be happy to be proven wrong.

I don't know what you mean by Central govt "pumping in money". In terms of receipts, the state collects its own taxes (~55% of its budget revenues). Then, there is the state's due share of the shareable central taxes (1.1% compared to 20% going to UP) and lastly, there is grant-in aid provided by Central ministries for specific developmental initiatives undertaken by the state.

The only element of subsidy would be the latter i.e. grant-in aid. You can probably get the details from the Uttarakhand government website on the exact amount received but I doubt if that's something large. What special interest would the UPA-led Centre have in propping up an electorally insignificant, BJP-governed state if it is fundamentally unsustainable as you describe?

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:01 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> jharkhand and chattisgarh have done well because they are resource rich. my understanding is that the only industry in uttaranchal is tourism and that the state is financially unsustainable without the central govt. pumping in money into it. i would be happy to be proven wrong.
I don't know what you mean by Central govt "pumping in money". In terms of receipts, the state collects its own taxes (~55% of its budget revenues). Then, there is the state's due share of the shareable central taxes (1.1% compared to 20% going to UP) and lastly, there is grant-in aid provided by Central ministries for specific developmental initiatives undertaken by the state.

The only element of subsidy would be the latter i.e. grant-in aid. You can probably get the details from the Uttarakhand government website on the exact amount received but I doubt if that's something large. What special interest would the UPA-led Centre have in propping up an electorally insignificant, BJP-governed state if it is fundamentally unsustainable as you describe?

--> because BSP and SP, while strong in U.P., are weak in Uttaranchal. In Uttaranchal, it is a direct contest between BJP and Congress. even though the BJP is now in power in Uttaranchal, Congress has been in power in this state earlier.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:17 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:this "empirical" evidence is a bit fallacious. jharkhand and chattisgarh are both mineral rich states. swathes of uttarakhand are also very prosperous (haldwani, kathgodam). if jharkhand had been called bihar and bihar jharkhand, would the statistics have followed suit?

Yes, so let's leave out Jharkhand and Chattisgarh for a moment and focus only on Uttarakhand which didn't have any mineral resources. Between 2000 (when it was carved out) and 2009, its nominal GDP had aCAGR of 13.9%. In comparison, UP had a 9.7% CAGR over the same period. If you render these figures on a per capita GDP basis, I bet the difference will be even larger since UPites multiply faster than Uttarakhandis.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:22 am

Rashmun wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> jharkhand and chattisgarh have done well because they are resource rich. my understanding is that the only industry in uttaranchal is tourism and that the state is financially unsustainable without the central govt. pumping in money into it. i would be happy to be proven wrong.
I don't know what you mean by Central govt "pumping in money". In terms of receipts, the state collects its own taxes (~55% of its budget revenues). Then, there is the state's due share of the shareable central taxes (1.1% compared to 20% going to UP) and lastly, there is grant-in aid provided by Central ministries for specific developmental initiatives undertaken by the state.

The only element of subsidy would be the latter i.e. grant-in aid. You can probably get the details from the Uttarakhand government website on the exact amount received but I doubt if that's something large. What special interest would the UPA-led Centre have in propping up an electorally insignificant, BJP-governed state if it is fundamentally unsustainable as you describe?

--> because BSP and SP, while strong in U.P., are weak in Uttaranchal. In Uttaranchal, it is a direct contest between BJP and Congress. even though the BJP is now in power in Uttaranchal, Congress has been in power in this state earlier.

Dear sir, assuming those paltry 5 Lok Sabha seats are of great political importance to the Centre, kindly substantiate your statement about the Centre "pumping money" into Uttarakhand with some evidence of a disproportionate Central subsidy beyond what UP receives.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:41 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> jharkhand and chattisgarh have done well because they are resource rich. my understanding is that the only industry in uttaranchal is tourism and that the state is financially unsustainable without the central govt. pumping in money into it. i would be happy to be proven wrong.
I don't know what you mean by Central govt "pumping in money". In terms of receipts, the state collects its own taxes (~55% of its budget revenues). Then, there is the state's due share of the shareable central taxes (1.1% compared to 20% going to UP) and lastly, there is grant-in aid provided by Central ministries for specific developmental initiatives undertaken by the state.

The only element of subsidy would be the latter i.e. grant-in aid. You can probably get the details from the Uttarakhand government website on the exact amount received but I doubt if that's something large. What special interest would the UPA-led Centre have in propping up an electorally insignificant, BJP-governed state if it is fundamentally unsustainable as you describe?

--> because BSP and SP, while strong in U.P., are weak in Uttaranchal. In Uttaranchal, it is a direct contest between BJP and Congress. even though the BJP is now in power in Uttaranchal, Congress has been in power in this state earlier.
Dear sir, assuming those paltry 5 Lok Sabha seats are of great political importance to the Centre, kindly substantiate your statement about the Centre "pumping money" into Uttarakhand with some evidence of a disproportionate Central subsidy beyond what UP receives.

--> it suits both the bjp and congress for uttaranchal to be carved out because in uttaranchal its a direct fight between these two parties with either the Congress or the BJP forming absolute majorities on their own in successive elections. these two parties for quite some time now have had no chance of capturing power on their own in U.P..

--> Samajwadi party also had supported creation of Uttaranchal. but, after the creation of Uttaranchal, the same Samajwadi party protested that too much had been given to the other state and wanted portions of Uttaranchal back in U.P. (particularly the portion around Haridwar--their argument was that Rishikesh can be given to Uttaranchal but Haridwar should be retained in U.P.).

--> further, i disagree that 5 Lok sabha seats should be considered insignificant ('paltry' to use your word). if i remember correctly, Vajpayee's second tenure came to an end (after 13 months) because of shortage of 1 or 2 Lok sabha seats. In the coalition era, every Lok sabha seat counts.

--> since uttaranchal comprises of two somewhat distinct regions--kumaon and garhwal--would you support any movement for uttaranchal to be broken up into two states?

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:53 am

Rashmun wrote:Another point is when will this division end?
for instance, uttaranchal comprises of kumaon and garhwal. would you support a movement which tries to make kumaon and garhwal separate states? after the new states of kumaon and garhwal one may have fresh demands for further divisions.

It becomes an exercise in diminishing returns beyond a point. The decision on whether to divide or not should be governed by economic / developmental criteria and nothing else. Any carve-out candidate has to demonstrate that (a) it has suffered developmentally by being part of a larger administrative area and (b) it has sufficient potential to generate significant incremental economic value and therefore improve its developmental metrics.

Fact of the matter is that at this point, there are large regions of India which were arbitrarily incorporated into mega-states at the time of the states' reorganization and which have suffered administrative (and developmental) neglect as a consequence. Vidarbha, Telangana, Gorkhaland etc are the most obvious examples simply because the peoples' protests in these regions have become too loud to be ignored but I'm sure there will be lots of other regions.

Going by size of population, if we take Gujarat as a model state from an economic POV, then one could say no single state should have a population of more than 5% of the total. There are 9 states at present (2011 census) with >5% populations. If we enforce our new rule, we'll end up creating 11 new states, giving India a total of 39 states. This is still a modest number for a 1.2Bn population, considering that the US, with less than third of this population, has 50 states.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:33 pm

I didn't know this, but apparently Ambedkar was a big votary of smaller states:

"Mayawati first raised the idea four years ago but it helps that its intellectual underpinning goes back to Dr Ambedkar. In his ‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’, published in 1955, the Dalit leader powerfully argued for breaking up the large North Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh into smaller ones. Deeply opposed to the purely linguistic states created by the States Reorganisation Commission, Ambedkar was highly critical of the large population disparities between the new states (especially between North and the South India), and argued that size should matter too.

As he put it, “The Commission evidently thinks that the size of a state is a matter of no consequence and that the equality in the size of the status constituting a federation is a matter of no moment. This is the first and the most terrible error cost which the Commission has committed. If not rectified in time, it will indeed be a great deal.”

While Mayawati wants to create four new states out of UP, Ambedkar wanted three: with their capitals at Meerut, Kanpur and Allahabad."

by charvaka Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:22 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i once met policemen in rishikesh (uttaranchal) who were from u.p. but posted in uttaranchal and they told me that carving out uttaranchal from uttar pradesh has resulted in 'pranta-vada' i.e. regionalism. the locals treat them as outsiders and this was not the case before.
On a flt to Chennai, I once met this Tambrahm who spoke chaste Hindi and when I asked how easy or difficult it is for a non-Thamizh speaker like me to get around Chennai, he looked me straight the eye and assured me that Thamizhars understood Hindi very well - it being a national language and all that - and that my smattering of Hindi was good enough. Since then, I have learned never to build a hypothesis about any place on the basis of some random individuals one meets.

In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP 3077217049

by Guest Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:37 am

charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i once met policemen in rishikesh (uttaranchal) who were from u.p. but posted in uttaranchal and they told me that carving out uttaranchal from uttar pradesh has resulted in 'pranta-vada' i.e. regionalism. the locals treat them as outsiders and this was not the case before.
On a flt to Chennai, I once met this Tambrahm who spoke chaste Hindi and when I asked how easy or difficult it is for a non-Thamizh speaker like me to get around Chennai, he looked me straight the eye and assured me that Thamizhars understood Hindi very well - it being a national language and all that - and that my smattering of Hindi was good enough. Since then, I have learned never to build a hypothesis about any place on the basis of some random individuals one meets.

i recall you mentioning that your dad had done the same thing when he started speaking in hindustani to an auto driver when the two of you were in chennai.

by charvaka Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:28 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i once met policemen in rishikesh (uttaranchal) who were from u.p. but posted in uttaranchal and they told me that carving out uttaranchal from uttar pradesh has resulted in 'pranta-vada' i.e. regionalism. the locals treat them as outsiders and this was not the case before.
On a flt to Chennai, I once met this Tambrahm who spoke chaste Hindi and when I asked how easy or difficult it is for a non-Thamizh speaker like me to get around Chennai, he looked me straight the eye and assured me that Thamizhars understood Hindi very well - it being a national language and all that - and that my smattering of Hindi was good enough. Since then, I have learned never to build a hypothesis about any place on the basis of some random individuals one meets.

i recall you mentioning that your dad had done the same thing when he started speaking in hindustani to an auto driver when the two of you were in chennai.

I appreciate your interest in my father's activities. I think you should discuss this important incident with him and report on your key takeaways. Let me know if you would like me to arrange that.

by Guest Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:34 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i once met policemen in rishikesh (uttaranchal) who were from u.p. but posted in uttaranchal and they told me that carving out uttaranchal from uttar pradesh has resulted in 'pranta-vada' i.e. regionalism. the locals treat them as outsiders and this was not the case before.
On a flt to Chennai, I once met this Tambrahm who spoke chaste Hindi and when I asked how easy or difficult it is for a non-Thamizh speaker like me to get around Chennai, he looked me straight the eye and assured me that Thamizhars understood Hindi very well - it being a national language and all that - and that my smattering of Hindi was good enough. Since then, I have learned never to build a hypothesis about any place on the basis of some random individuals one meets.

i recall you mentioning that your dad had done the same thing when he started speaking in hindustani to an auto driver when the two of you were in chennai.
I appreciate your interest in my father's activities. I think you should discuss this important incident with him and report on your key takeaways. Let me know if you would like me to arrange that.

--> i wish to know whether your father considers hindustani as the national language of India which is why he addressed the auto driver in Hindustani when he was with you in Chennai.

by charvaka Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:I appreciate your interest in my father's activities. I think you should discuss this important incident with him and report on your key takeaways. Let me know if you would like me to arrange that.

--> i wish to know whether your father considers hindustani as the national language of India which is why he addressed the auto driver in Hindustani when he was with you in Chennai.

If wishes were horses...

by Sponsored content

In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP

Re: In prosperous western UP few takers for division of UP