would agree completely with the fact that Bangalore is more accomodating than many other cities.
On 12/14/05, Madhu M Kurup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 14:31 +0530, Nishant Shah wrote:
> wasnt it? I mean, from somebody who has lived all around the country
> for many years, Bangalore was and remains a more hostile place
> resistant to me as an outsider. And I am not saying this as a poor
> victim full of righteous indignation...but I can see how traditional
> structures of identity and linguistic articulation have been
> undermined in the matter of a few years and can perhaps understand the
> discontent that the local might experience.
Especially so if the local is the only one that cares about voting - and
is therefore heard. The young folks who have flooded Bangalore are
probably the most politically inactive, often cynical and are
(justifiably?) less than trusting of all political activity. And
therefore with the least amount of power.
But in the same line as others in this thread, I do believe that
Bangalore is extremely accommodating of new folks. Even more so in
places such as the University or RTO, I've found that while the language
chauvinism could get bad, it was not as strident and loud as I have
seen it. The shock that I had when I was in Belgaum
(Karnataka/Maharastra border disputes) was rather disturbing. It was a
very weird feeling when I realized that I would get second class
treatment if I spoke Kannada as opposed to better treatment with
English. Oh well.
But I'm curious - Nishant, do you want to elaborate on how Bangalore was
hostile to you?
Cheerio,
M
--
Madhu M Kurup /* Nemo Me Impune Lacessit */ mmk at yahoo-inc dt com
