Memories of Mumbai Railways
I very much enjoyed reading the extremely well
written, comprehensive, and engaging article on
“Mumbai Railways” by Deepali Nandwani in the
September 2019 issue of Khabar. The article resonated
with me as I, while a college student in Mumbai,
commuted frequently on the Mumbai trains. In
my pre-college days in Nairobi, a long distance train
trip to the coast of Mombasa was an annual luxury.
Thence to Mumbai was by ship. But in Mumbai, as
my uncle lived in Andheri and my college was almost
opposite Mumbai’s iconic Victoria Terminus or VT
station (or Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus), during four
years of my college studies I commuted regularly from
Andheri to Churchgate and back.
Mumbai was not so congested during those years,
so commute during off-peak hours was quite comfortable.
I vividly recall the aroma of Parle biscuits near
Vile Parle and the overpowering fishy smell near the
Khar and Matunga stations, the sounds of hawkers
selling trinkets or hot chai, the camaraderie of my
college mates while singing Bollywood songs, playing
cards, or small talk as the train sped along. The trains
were like extensions of sitting rooms! The sight of the
dabbawalas was also amazing! The train stations had
their own distinct flavor—little stalls selling beverages,
books, newspapers, paan, and cigarettes, and the
shoe-shine boys offering cheap polish!
What I recall most fondly is my train rides
during summer vacations. I had a First Class Student
Concession Pass. After my afternoon nap and cup of
tea, I used to get on the train with a novel and read,
sitting comfortably in the compartment. I would get
down at the Churchgate Station, take a leisurely stroll
on Marine Drive, munching roasted peanuts, watch
the sunset, and ride back home after that.
I understand stations in India including Mumbai
are undergoing makeovers and are becoming tidier,
and attractive with artwork, plants and flowers, etc.
Very laudable initiative indeed!
Mahadev Desai
Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
|
Cinema: 3 Idiots and beyond
First of all, my congratulations to Viren Mayani for
writing an excellent article on “3 Idiots and Beyond”—
a very, very enjoyable piece of writing on our own
beloved Omi Vaidya. Frankly speaking, nobody can
ever forget Chatur, our Omi Vaidya, who, according
to me, was the most talented actor of the movie and
the reason of the great commercial success. Only 1 out
of 1,000 actors succeeds without godfathers of the industry
in Bombay, and one of those who succeeded is
Omi Vaidya. Now if you are the son/daughter/niece of
the film personality, no problem. You would certainly
get some role at the earliest opportunity, otherwise
wait for the stars to open or wait and look to your parents’
support for years together. Nawaz Siddiqui and
Ayushman Khurrana are lucky to be stars now. Nawaz
had a rut of at least 10 years before he got established
because of patience and acting talent.
Omi Vaidya would not have progressed without
the support of his rich parents. However, Omi
is a well-trained American actor, including comedy
skills. Having observed him in one of Atlanta shows,
“HeartNotes,” I can safely predict his great success in
other varied roles as well. And soon you would see
him successful in many films. I, being from Pune, Maharashtra,
can say it would be a good thing for him
to act in Marathi films. I know he is poor in Marathi,
but certain roles need such actors and they perform
very well. Slowly he will also learn the language of his
forefathers and will have great commercial success.
I feel Omi has a tremendous scope of a great comedian
in Indian cinema, a market of almost 135 crore
people. Stereotyped roles are losing market day by
day. People want variety and entertainment. See the
tremendous success of Hrithik Roshan-starrer Supersecrets.
Finally, I appreciate Omi’s blunt speaking for
Indo Americans to be ready for struggle and waiting
period if they are interested to enter Hindi filmdom,
more so if they have no supporters from industry.
Madan Gupta
Suwanee, GA
|
|
|
|
Kashmir: Repealing article 370
Despite the opposing views [in Jeevan Zutshi’s opinion piece and in the editorial, September 2019],
your editorial seems to agree with the opinion piece
regarding the rationale for the 370 repeal. Your
objection has to do more with the timing, motive,
and the manner in which it was carried out. Also,
since both views favor secularism, it may be worth
pointing out that the Congress Party was not
particularly secular by granting a separate set of laws
to a particular religious group not only in Kashmir
but the rest of India as well (triple talaq and other
unconstitutional laws, for example). This is one
reason for the “sickular” stigma and the rise of Modi.
Your stance that a tit-for-tat approach is counterproductive
echoes Gandhi’s wisdom, “An eye for an
eye makes the whole world blind.” But of course the
hard right-wingers don’t want anything to do with
Gandhi and it is all too tempting to counter militant
Islamism with militant Hinduism. Unfortunately, a
military presence is needed to ward off terrorism but
it inevitably leads to civilian abuse and a climate of
distrust. In this sense, the Kashmir situation is very
much like the Israel-Palestine conflict with no end
in sight. Meanwhile, replacing the BJP’s polarizing
rallying cry, “One nation, one language, one religion”
with a more democratic, egalitarian slogan such as
“One nation, one law” would be a step in the right
direction if only the intent were not so questionable.
Thayil Ron Jacob
Johns Creek, GA
In Khabar‘s September 2019 issue, the perspectives
on Article 370’s revocation are eye-opening for someone
on either side. The author of “The Kashmir Conundrum Is Now a Hornet’s Nest” rightly points out that
certain anti-India rogue elements have taken hold,
largely in the Kashmir valley, making the transition
to a united India difficult. While this topic received
a lot of attention from news organizations around
the world, many failed to report on the positives that
come with it, which are explained in detail in Jeevan Zutshi’s piece. Both these articles cover the Kashmir
decision quite thoroughly. However, there are a few
points that should be made.
Efforts by Pakistan to make this an international
issue have been thwarted, most recently by Modi
himself in his bilateral meeting with Trump at the G7
Summit: “We do not want to give pains to any country
in the world … because these issues are bilateral.”
For decades, politicians have called Kashmir an abhinn
ang (integral part) of India. Why was there no need to
say the same for Gujarat or Bihar or any other state?
Whenever Kashmir was brought up before in news debates
or elections, it was always the “Kashmir issue”
or the “Kashmir problem.” And in revoking Article
370 and 35A, the government has taken a radical step
to solve the Kashmir issue. It is also important to
note that Article 370 was supposed to be a temporary
provision when first adopted.
The argument that Indians should not claim
Kashmir because Kashmiris do not want to be part of
India is not entirely accurate. Social media was abuzz
with the young Ladakh MP who passionately spoke his
heart out in Parliament, celebrating Ladakh’s new UT
status. People in the region want progress, prosperity,
and employment, which the rest of the nation is
getting. Kashmiris, in fact, want stability and peace
in the region.
Replying to a point in the article, India as a
“Hindu land” refers not to a religion, but to the land
and people beyond the Indus (or Sindhu) River. For
thousands of years, people of different religions have
lived peacefully on the subcontinent. In fact, it is
the birthplace of 4 major world religions. So to say
that Kashmir’s Hindu roots are outdated would be a
misinterpretation.
Along with the popularity of Modi’s BJP, the past
few years have also seen the rise of nationalism in the
country, which is a positive trend. Today, more young
Indians are connecting to their roots, and India as a
nation is realizing its potential on the world stage.
Tirth Shah
Commerce, GA
I am writing this letter in response to your
September 2019 editorial “Kashmir Conundrum Is Now a Hornet’s Nest.” The premise of your editorial
is first that the way forward for the Kashmir crisis
can only be through a Plebiscite or Referendum,
and second the Abrogation of Article 370 was done
sneakily and heavy handedly.
If Plebiscite was the way forward, it would have
been done a long time ago, and the reason that a neutral
Plebiscite can’t ever take place is because Pakistan
is interested in usurping this land and has no real interest
in the self determination of Kashmiri people. If
there ever were a Plebiscite the entire process would
have been hijacked at gun point and we would never
know the true wishes of the Kashmiri people. Pretending
otherwise is wishful thinking. Given this
reality, successive governments have just kicked the
can down the road, which brings us to Article 370.
Coming to Article 370, continuation of this special
status indefinitely (Article 370 was meant to be
temporary), until a Plebiscite can take place (which
was never going to happen) is meaningless. So, some
action had to be taken with respect to this “temporary
special status.” I have tried to understand the
procedure that was used by the BJP Government
to Abrogate Article 370 and it appears to have been
handled “cleverly” but constitutionally. The procedure
required was for the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly to
ask the Indian Parliament for this Abrogation (which
would have never happened given the demographics).
So, the BJP government created a climate for
President’s rule and had the Governor of Jammu
and Kashmir instead ask for the abrogation. While I
agree, this may have been sneaky, what options did
India have after all, other than indefinitely postponing
action on this hot button issue?
We can all sympathize that India lives in a dangerous
neighborhood and India has been in a state of constant
proxy war for 70+ years over Kashmir. History
tells us that when India became independent in 1947
from Britain, the princely states of India were allowed
the option of either joining India, joining Pakistan, or
going Independent, and the King of Kashmir acceded
to India. So, Kashmir has always been an integral part
of India since 1947. In abrogating Article 370 of India’s
Constitution all that has been done is to remove the
special status afforded to Jammu and Kashmir and put
Jammu and Kashmir in the same level playing field as
all other states in the Union. India had to take steps
to safeguard all of its territorial integrity (including
Jammu and Kashmir) and abolition of Article 370 was
as such just a long overdue move.
We are all benefactors of India and the Indian diaspora
worldwide has thrived because of the foundation
India has laid for us all. India has been a civil society,
a peace-loving nation with a pluralistic democracy.
India is at its core secular. India is also a meritocracy
and has elected a Muslim president, a Sikh prime
minister, and several Christian chief ministers in its
70+ years of existence. It is worth noting that there
is not much homegrown terror in India, perhaps
because of the faith its minorities have in India’s
democratic ideals. I submit that contrary to your
editorial, Kashmir is no more of a hornet’s nest than
it was ever before and what has been done is to alter
fundamentally India’s approach to handling this issue
given that there were no other real alternatives.
Manjunath (MG) Gokare, Esq.
Alpharetta, GA
I read and re-read your editorial “The Kashmir Conundrum” in your September 2019 edition. The
editorial will, I am pretty sure, ruffle feathers or invite
even more drastic reactions from U.S. residents of
Indian origin. I am on my customary routine visit to
the U.S. from India, and I got verbally “lynched” by the
NRI crowd the moment I uttered Article 370.
What people do not realize is that but for 370
we would have lost J&K altogether. The geopolitical
history leading to insertion of Article 370 is denied not
out of ignorance but because of strident and sometime
violent nationalism.
My hope that your editorial would entail a healthy
discussion was dashed the moment I brought your
editorial to the attention of my NRI friends and
relatives. Please do not be deterred by my experience.
We need more of your types to educate the
NRIs beyond their academic degrees and business
achievements. Wish you all the best.
R. C. Saxena, Adv.
By email
What’s on YOUR mind?
We welcome original, unpublished letters from our readers. You could either respond to a specific article in Khabar or write about issues relevant to our community. Letters may be edited for length and other considerations. Longer submissions by readers may be considered for the “My Turn” column.
Email: letters@khabar.com • Fax: (770) 234-6115.
Mail: Khabar, Inc. 3635 Savannah Place Dr, Suite 400, Duluth, GA 30096.
Note: Views expressed in the Letters section do not necessarily represent those of the publication.