Anti Hindi storm brewing in Tamilnadu

[asad71]

Nope...Hindi is not the language of 70% Indians..Hindi is spoken only around 35% as their mother tongue...70% means the whole indo aryan language family speakers(Hindi,Gujarati,Bengali,Marathi etc etc)...

Not even 35% - unless you are roping in Urdu and various forms of Hindustani into Hindi.

 

[HeinzG]

Sister language may be,possibility is there...But not derived from Sanskritam...

As far as I see the problem with Tamils is that there reluctance to intervene with other local cultures and ethnicities. This I have seen in Sri Lanka and India. Is there some separatism running deep under?

This tendency I have also noticed with Muslims too. Is there any religious or cultural reason for this among Tamils.

 

[wise_owl]

From Next Year, Tamil to Be Made Mandatory in CBSE Schools

Published: 26th September 2014 06:00 AM

COIMBATORE: The School Education Department through a government order on September 18 has made Tamil compulsory in all the schools in the State, including Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) institutions.

The State Government had earlier passed the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act in 2006 and made teaching Tamil as one of the subjects mandatory in all nursery and primary, middle, high and higher secondary schools, including minority institutions, in the state. However, CBSE schools were exempted from the purview of the act.

“The recent government order brings all the CBSE schools in the State under the purview of the act except those mentioned under the specified category,” said D Sabitha, Education Secretary.

The Central Act of 35 of 2009 lists Kendriya Vidyalaya, Navodaya Vidyalaya and Sainik Schools under the “specified category”.

According to CBSE’s official website there are 565 schools in Tamil Nadu affiliated to the CBSE as on date. Apart from the 41 Kendriya Vidyalayas, 2 Navodya Vidyalayas and one Sainik School in the State, it has now become mandatory for all other CBSE schools to make Tamil as a subject for students.

The Tamil Nadu Learning Act, 2006, was implemented from April 2012 and this February the School Education Department issued a circular stating that Tamil would be made a compulsory language paper for Class X students in the academic year 2015-16 and sought for a report from the schools in this regard.

The decision evoked strong opposition from matriculation schools and as a result many students from matric schools migrated to CBSE institutions.

With the debate over the Education Department’s decision making Tamil a compulsory language paper for Class X students going on, the Department has come out with this latest order.

If this GO is enforced all students will have to certainly take Tamil as a subject from the next academic year (2015-16).

This decision might be a major concern for those CBSE students who have not taken Tamil as one of their papers and a few academicians doubt the extent up to which the state can extend its control over the central board-run schools.

Source

 

[farhan_9909]

@farhan_9909 Mr thinktank, what you doing about this.

View attachment 97760

First of all i will never ever take achazai seriously after his recent support for Noora against Imran khan.Even saqib surrani is now backing off.

Don't know about balochistan but in KPK,Pashto will be taught in school onwards the new batches(Urdu medium is also completely removed from KPK).Pashto was taught in school and have studied it upto class 7th in bannu before i left for cadet college razmak.

 

[abjktu]

As far as I see the problem with Tamils is that there reluctance to intervene with other local cultures and ethnicities. This I have seen in Sri Lanka and India. Is there some separatism running deep under?

This tendency I have also noticed with Muslims too. Is there any religious or cultural reason for this among Tamils.

Firstly i am from Kerala...
Nope..There is no separation thoughts among Indian Tamils..Their only objection is with the introduction of Hindi/Sanskrit as a national language...Tamils are staunch believers of Dravidism and they view Sanskrit/hindi(so called Aryanism) as an alien language,threat to their local culture...

 

[Chronos]

the tamil i have met in person are proud Pakistani,'


could be because tamil by default are pakistanis unlike the rest of the indians

what I do want to know is how you got your tag as a Research & Dev when you spout illogical statements like that.

Tamil by default are not Pakistanis. Even the most staunchest of Tamil seperatists will look for an independent Dravida Nadu.

Unless you are trolling, which I think likely you are.

 

[nair]

the tamil i have met in person are proud Pakistani,'


could be because tamil by default are pakistanis unlike the rest of the indians

Do you have any idea where Tamil Nadu is???? And care to elaborate a bit what you are trying to say???

 

[Chronos]

Do you have any idea where Tamil Nadu is???? And care to elaborate a bit what you are trying to say???

don't expect the elaboration to be illuminating. Either he is a troll, or his intelligence is below par with the tag he has been afforded.

btw, I don't think he has ever met a Tamil in his life. I remember his post confusing Bengal with South India. So you know the extent of his knowledge of our part of the world goes.

 

[nair]

don't expect the elaboration to be illuminating. Either he is a troll, or his intelligence is below par with the tag he has been afforded.

btw, I don't think he has ever met a Tamil in his life. I remember his post confusing Bengal with South India. So you know the extent of his knowledge of our part of the world goes.

It's a good thing a lot of the Pakistanis don't even know what South India is, that means less troll posts for us to defend.

I wanted to know what was he thinking when he was writing that post...... luckily for him our tamil comrades are offline.....

 

[INDIC]

First of all i will never ever take achazai seriously after his recent support for Noora against Imran khan.Even saqib surrani is now backing off.

Don't know about balochistan but in KPK,Pashto will be taught in school onwards the new batches(Urdu medium is also completely removed from KPK).Pashto was taught in school and have studied it upto class 7th in bannu before i left for cadet college razmak.

will be taught in school.

 

[asad71]

Dravida Nadu: What If The South Seceded From The Republic Of India?

Palash GhoOctober 03 2013 6:22 AM
Secessionist and separatist movements have littered the history of India throughout the decades. From the Sikhs of Punjab (who sought a "Khalistan") to the Kashmiri Muslims to the Tripuris in the Northeast, many groups of people across the subcontinent have determined that their lives and welfare would improve if they could form their own independent sovereign state.

Indeed, India and Pakistan were themselves born in the violent crucible of Partition in 1947 partly as a result of agitation by Muslims who did not want to live in a Hindu-dominated post-British India.

None of these separatist movements since Partition have succeeded (unless one includes the war of liberation that created the state of Bangladesh out of East Pakistan in 1971), but that doesn’t mean that disparate groups in India have lost their dreams of independent statehood.

Now consider the southern part of India, which is now widely regarded as the most progressive and one of the most prosperous parts of the nation.

What would happen if (in a highly unlikely event) the South decided to secede from the Republic of India?

South India is generally defined as the four states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, plus the territories of Lakshadweep and Puducherry. On the whole, South India occupies about about one-fifth of India’s total land mass – 250,000 square miles, or roughly the size of France or Afghanistan.

If South India were an independent country -- let’s call it “Dravida” in honor of the original inhabitants who lived on the subcontinent prior to the arrival of the Aryans and were driven southwards -- it would have a population of about 250 million, less than the United States, but greater than Russia, Brazil or Pakistan.

According to a report in DNA-India, the four states of the South contribute 22 percent of India’s national GDP and generate 28 percent of national employment. The region has a GDP of about $300 billion (about the same as Southeast Asian powerhouse Malaysia). Moreover, South India’s GDP is projected to reach $500 billion by 2016 and edge near $650 billion by 2020 (larger than the current economic strength of Switzerland and just below that of Saudi Arabia).

These "Dravida" people would primarily speak Tamil, Telugu, Kannada or Malayalam (instead of Hindi, Bengali or Urdu, which are prevalent in the north).

The mythical nation’s three largest cities would be Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad – given its size, central location and key information technology industry, Bangalore would likely serve as the capital of Dravida.

As in the North, Hinduism would dominate South India -- some 83 percent to the Dravidian population adhere to Hinduism, followed by Islam (11 percent) and Christianity (5 percent). On this basis, Dravida would actually possess a deeper attachment to Hinduism than India as whole, where Hindus account for “only” about 80 percent of the population.

But Dravida – despite its global image as a center of technology – would remain dominated by an agricultural economy, as indeed the rest of India remains. Nearly one-half of Dravida's workers labor in its fields and farms.

Could South India ever become an independent state? Probably not, since the Indian Constitution basically forbids such a thing from ever taking place. But South India is very distinct from the rest of India in many ways, including language, culture, ethnicity, foods, art, etc. -- and speculation about such a secession is not entirely limited to the realms of fantasy.

In a piece published in July 2007 in Outlook India, cultural journalist Sadanand Menon suggested that if the four states that comprise southern India ever seceded, “you might actually have a new coastal superpower in the region.”

Menon suggested that South Indians, long disdained and ridiculed by the north, have already surpassed the remainder of the country in terms of human development, living standards, literacy, cultural richness, infant mortality, life expectancy, fertility rates and other factors.

While literacy rates are rising all over India, the South leads in the category – indeed, in 2013, Kerala recorded a literacy rate of more than 95 percent, approaching Western standards.

Amazingly, the south now has a fertility rate below the 2.1 percent replacement rate, meaning that by this parameter, South India is similar to Western Europe and Japan in terms of demographics and could witness a gradual decline in its population, or at least stabilization. In addition, whereas the male-female gender gap is ever-widening in North India, in the South, the distribution of the sexes is roughly equal. In fact, Kerala is believed to be the only state in India which has more girls than boys (in northern states like Haryana and Punjab, boys outnumber females by significant margins).

Part of this perceived advancement in the south, Menon noted, can trace its roots to India’s long and often-violent history, referring specifically to the Aryan invasion of northern India thousands of years ago and the Islamic invasion from centuries ago.

“Wave upon wave of invasions, war and plunder seem to have brutalized and coarsened North India’s [civilization],” Menon declared. “In comparison, the south has had a more sedate passage [into the modern age] with palpable historical and cultural continuity.”

The Public Affair Centre, an independent Indian think-tank, issued a study detailing how the “quality of governance and better leadership” has led South India to surge past the north in quality of life measures, including per capita income and poverty alleviation, over the past five decades or so.

Looking at the period 2009-2010, the study’s lead authors Samuel Paul and Kala S. Sridhar found that the average poverty rate in the south amounted to 19 percent, half the 38 percent figure for the northern states. (In contrast, in 1960, the rural poverty rate in the south – 60 percent – exceeded that of the north, which was at 50 percent).

Also, as of 2009-10, on an average weighted basis, per capita income in the southern states came in at 19,531 rupees, more than double the 8,951 rupees found in the north.

“After independence [in 1947], people from the south moved to the north in search of jobs,” Paul told reporters. “Now, North Indians are moving in large numbers to [the] south in search of work. The gap between south and north in terms of per capita income and poverty is widening. Southern states are doing better.”

Sridhar told reporters that the gap in per capita income and poverty between north and south accelerated during the late 1980s and early 1990s. She also noted that the south excels in technical education, electrical power and urbanization – and attributed the various superiorities in the south partially to better leadership and governance and stable government ministries.

In addition, Sridhar suggested that caste differences are not as stringent in the south as they remain in the north, meaning that lower-caste people can access services and facilities provided by government, including education and job training.

“Such movements were absent in the north, where the demand for better governance and entitlements from lower-caste people was either absent or used for identity politics,” she said.

“People in southern states are willing to take advantage of the policies, attract investments to set up new industries and other facilities,” the study added.

Indeed, for example, consider that more than one-half of all engineering graduates hail from the south, even though the region accounts for only about one-fifth of India’s total population.

Dr. Jonah Blank, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, told International Business Times that the south will never secede and that the four states that comprise southern India are fully integrated to Indian nationhood. “They aren't small, remote territories which share little in the way of culture or history with the Indian mainstream,” he said.

“Without its Dravidian south, India wouldn't truly be India. I can't really see these states either deciding, or being permitted to, secede.”

The Dravidian states of India's south, Blank added, are some of the most vibrant and dynamic parts of the nation. “This is true in terms of economy, culture, and political involvement.”

Moreover, one of the many obstacles to an independent South India would be the lack of a national unifying language.

"It's hard to see the four southern states unifying behind any single language -- in the past, and even today, linguistic differences tend to trump ethnic ones in debates over boundaries for southern states,” Blank noted. “Nor would there be a shared homogeneity of faith: [for example] Kerala and Andhra Pradesh have large Muslim populations, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have large Christian populations."

Nevertheless, demands for separation by South India from the remainder of the country have resurfaced over the decades.

Indeed, just before and after India gained independence from Britain, a group of southern politicians agitated for their own independence under the so-called Dravida Nadu movement. Spearheaded by the Justice Party of E.V. Ramasamy and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam of C.N. Annadurai, they sought to create a sovereign state for the Dravidian peoples of the subcontinent, including Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon), that was quite distinct from the "Aryan" north. That movement died down by the 1960s – in 1963, just one year before his death, India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, banned secessionist movements.

One of the most prominent of the South Indian separatists, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, wanted not only the partition of British India, but rather the “trifurcation” of the subcontinent -- into India (dominated by Aryan Hindu Brahmins), Pakistan (Muslims) and Dravida Nadu (Dravidians). Periyar, once a member of the mainstream Congress Party, also led movements to eradicate caste distinctions and promoted women's rights (in stark opposition to views held by the Hindu Brahmins who led the north).

Professor W. "R.P." Raghupathi, program director of information systems at Fordham University in New York City – and a native of South India – told IBTimes that not only does the south have no particular reasons at present to secede from India, but each state is governed by a different political party, making it difficult to agree on things. Additionally, some disputes may exist.

“For example, the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been engaged in a contentious battle over water rights [over sharing the Kaveri River] for many decades, with little hope of a resolution,” he said.

In the unlikely event that South India ever became a separate state, Raghupathi imagines it would somewhat resemble the European Union – a loosely coupled union of states with the populations speaking a variety of languages and at varying stages of economic development.

Raghupathi also points out that despite the south’s now-global reputation as a center of information technology, the region lacks an abundance of natural resources as compared to the north. While there is high literacy and a knowledge base, there is less entrepreneurship and innovation.

“What the south may need are dynamic business powerhouses," he said.

“The south really does not have any Tatas or Birlas,” he added, referring to dominant family-run conglomerates of the north.

In the meantime, as secessionist movement pop up in various parts of India (and even in Pakistan itself, see Baluchistan), the southern part of India will likely continue to prosper peacefully.



http://www.ibtimes.c...c-india-1413910

 

[HeinzG]

Kandyan convention was put into dustbin after 3 years later (1818) and kandyan chieftains could not do much about it. (why? they ignored the current realities when signing it, like you today). And do you want SL to consider kandyan convention in current policing?

The reason kandyan convention refers to whole country was because other kingdoms had no power to question it. The low lands of SL came under brits based on an agreement between dutch and brits. Does that make dutch the owners of current SL low land, going by your logic on kandyan convention?

You still do not get the idea, history does not matter, it is the current realities….pinhead

First of all just read the Kandyan convention. It is irrelevant to this discussion that K.C was terminated after 3 years. What matter to this discussion is the words written in K.C and what meant of them.

There was no one to object for the K.C. was because there was no legitimacy to Tamils or any one to do so. K.C. was a legitimate contract between two parties. I bet even you agree. If Tamils were the legitimate rulers on Jaffna then Brits, Dutch, French or Portuguese would not have any need to sign an agreement with the Sinhalese king. Nor there is any evidence that Tamil kingdom passed it's authority to the Sinhalese kingdom.


The lowlands were transferred to Brits from Dutch and also from French. However both Dutch and French inherited those lands through written agreements with the King of Kandy. Both AFAIK in 1765 and in 1780s. Which reinforce my point further that the whole country was the property of the Sinhalese king and the national language was only Sinhalese. Therefore how can Dutch, French or Portuguese inherit any land through K.C.?

It shows Sinhalese was the main language of kandyan kingdom not rest of the island. No one is saying it was wrong to make Sinhala official language in SL, the point here was not making tamil an official language along with Sinhala.

The official language of the court was the national language not any regional language. Tamil didn't have the legitimate right to be equal with Sinhala language in Sri Lanka. It was done on the basis of morality and Indian intervention.

Where has not tamils respected Sinhalese’ right to language? Where?

When they rejected to accept Sinhalese as the national language in 1956.

I guess we are talking about 56 language policy. It was wrongs done to them at that time which triggered a whole lot of problems. Yes still problems are there. But how can we as a country go forward when people like you are even reluctant to acknowledge the wrongs?

Tamils very well see the current realities…you don’t….

It's not me who are reluctant to acknowledge the wrongs.

Then what is Jaffna kingdom?

And don’t come with they paid tribute, they did for a small period of time and even if they did it does not mean that banner is going to work ..

Jaffna kingdom was a vassal kingdom to the Kotte kingdom just as Seethawaka, Kandy and Raigama was vassal kingdoms to the Kotte.

What you fail to realize is SL cannot function or go ahead with that Sinhala banner?

It had being going under Sinhalese banner till 1948. Was there any problem?

We did and doing now and alienating non Sinhala people for which we had to pay a price for a 30 year war. How does a nation of which 25% is non Sinhala can be called a Sinhala nation?

The idea of how 75% Sinhalese country cannot be called a Sinhala land comes with secularism. Secularism is actually a failed ideology. It is proven in India, Briton and even in America. If not sure ask our Indian member.

I did not ask you to logically analyze what was written. I told you to think about current realities. Because current realities matter not history. ‘preoccupied’? that doesn’t suit your argument.

I am student of history. History is important, but what matters is current realities….especially in policies of a country.

Yes there are current realities and there are historical realities. We cannot just neglect historical realities. If we do that we fail in dealing with current realities. Current realities are based on history. Without that there is no future. Understand?

Idiot I am not defending tamil homeland theory. I am rejecting the idea of an exclusive Sinhala homeland.

Then what ideology do you accept?

An exclusive Tamil homeland?

I am pointing out that it is wrong to say tamils are aliens and have no ownership to the country.

Indeed it is wrong to say. However what is actually wrong is that thinking Tamils had an independent homeland for 1000 of years.

No one put on itself a name like ‘multi religious state’. Hindustan is a name, much like Rathnadeepa of SL. India identifies itself as a multi religious state. That is the official stance.

Sri Lanka's official stance is to being a Socialist state. You and I both know it is not true in practice. The same is applicable to India or any other country also. I do understand that India is basing it self on the idea of being secular but that ideology is fading faster. India is as always identified as the land of the Hindus.

Depiction and identity are two different things. India in character is Hindu but in identity is multi religious….i am talking about the identity.

Ok. I'm at cross roads here. Define the national character and identity. I think both are same.

Because tamil leaders were defeated at war and taken in as prisoner. There was none to stand on behalf of public. The land transfer of low land was between brits and dutch in 1796. Does that mean Sinhala low lands are owned by dutch and no Sinhala kingdom existed?

This is very lame excuse. By doing that you are comparing the Tamil subjects of Jaffna kingdom to mere brainless zombies or robots. Don't say there was not any one who can stand on behalf on Tamils. Things won't happen like that. No group of people are left leaderless. The real answer is that the Tamils had no authority to the land and they didn't consider it theirs. The authority was with the Sinhalese king of the Kotte. If not why didn't Portuguese turned to the Tamil rulers in Tamilnadu? Those were much closer to the Jaffna kingdom in both distance and ethnicity.

Brits signed a legal contract with the Dutch which signed a similar legal contract with the Sinhalese king. But in 1796 Dutch has lost it's claim to the Sinhalese lands through their contract with the Brits. The Brits made a contract with Sinhalese in 1815 and they ended it in 1948 reinstating the Sinhalese claim to the land prior to the agreement with the Portuguese. Based on those agreements no one can say no Sinhalese kingdom existed or anyone has any authority to the Sri Lanka other than Sinhalese king or President of Sri Lanka.

How does tamils not respect country’s history by rejecting Sinhala only?

Because Sinhalese was the national language of the country until Brits conquer it.

The reason Sinhala only was brought, state sponsored (<- look at this word, I cannot explain again. If you can’t understand use a dictionary) Sinhala settlement, was to sinhalize SL.

So government cannot sponsor settlement in so called Tamil areas? Settling Sinhalese in Wanni forests would Sinhalize the country? What a wonderful theory. You comment imply that government should not have to do things in those so called Tamil areas. Who would have the authority in those areas then?

For the nth time it was for a ‘brief’ period pin head.

That Jaffna kingdom was independent for a breif period too.

What about Sinhalese learning tamil then? That too would have reduced gap ne.. if gap is the only thing you care…

Sinhalese are the majority and it is not practical to let them learn Tamil. More over many Sinhalese won't be using Tamils for their life because the chance of interacting with a Tamil person is smaller.

However being the minority Tamils have a clear advantage in learning Sinhalese. They are the ones that will inevitably have to interact with the Sinhalese. Therefore it is more rational that Tamils should learn Sinhalese. Moreover Tamils would get a clear strategic advantage in learning Sinhalese that it will enable them to work in any part of the country without much trouble. Also it is more practical to teach Tamils Sinhalese than the vice verse due to the numbers.

The wrong is with imposition. Had SL waited a decade tamil officers would have willingly learnt Sinhala..it was the imposition (use a dictionary, I know you will make a mess with this word) that is wrong.

Ok agree. But still I'm not much convince about the word imposition because words can be bent to suit the agenda.

Kandyan convention had no validity it was abrogated 3 years later. And even if it had any validity still a Sinhala only would have been wrong, irrational and stupid given the current realities.

Valid or not the K.C. was a legal document. That is what counts.

Yes 78 constitution was impacted by indo lanka accord. It is widely known.

Indo-Lanka accord was enacted in 1985-1986. I do not know how it has anything to do with this.

What temple? And any “state sponsoring” settlement and temple building is wrong.

If the land is belong to the state. State can do anything in that land. Do you think that if government decided to settle Tamils in Sinhalese areas for any reason it is wrong?

I point that out US because you said federalism is separatism. I did not say I support federalism. But as I said people with brains like you will surely make SL federal.

What I said was federalism leads to separatism and ultimately to a separate state.

And you didn’t answer this,

If it is history that matters and Sinhala is the identity of SL and Sinhala should be the only official language of SL and with no power devolution,

Why did MR have elections in north and east?

Why did SL make Tamil an official language and MR continue to do so?

Because North and East is part of Sri Lanka and it is mandatory to have a provincial councils in those provinces. Earlier it was impossible due to the LTTE threat. Moreover it was a good massage to the world that democracy and normalcy has returned to the country.

Because doing that was more rational and right. However Tamil was accepted as the second national language before the 1980s even though it was not legally accepted by the constitution. In 80s it was given the legal states also.

You fled when I pointed out how india preserved the togetherness of the states by not imposing hindi and how SL made a mess of it.

You didn’t answer this

Actually I didn't fled. I accepted your point there. However I wanted to ask you how India preserved the togetherness through the constitutional act.

 

[manlion]

The official language of the court was the national language not any regional language. Tamil didn't have the legitimate right to be equal with Sinhala language in Sri Lanka. It was done on the basis of morality and Indian intervention.

the Kandy court was Tamil, Kandyan kings were Tamils (Buddhist converts), the Kandy perahera was introduces by the Tamil queens from Madurai, the granite architecture of Dalada Maligai was based upon Pandyan architecture , the pre - Buddhist religion of Kanyans was the Pattni cult - worship of a Tamil heroine yet you have the nerve to relegate Tamil as 'regional" and "Indian intervention" - when the so called India was under the British ..

Sinhalese are the majority and it is not practical to let them learn Tamil. More over many Sinhalese won't be using Tamils for their life because the chance of interacting with a Tamil person is smaller.

However being the minority Tamils have a clear advantage in learning Sinhalese. They are the ones that will inevitably have to interact with the Sinhalese. Therefore it is more rational that Tamils should learn Sinhalese. Moreover Tamils would get a clear strategic advantage in learning Sinhalese that it will enable them to work in any part of the country without much trouble. Also it is more practical to teach Tamils Sinhalese than the vice verse due to the numbers.

there is nothing for Tamils to gain from learning Sinhala , they have no hope or future in Sinhala Buddhist racist dominated genocidal Lanka , Tamils were never dependent upon genocidal Sinhala govt's 'charity' for their survival - on the contrary Sinhalas and genocidal Lanka survived by looting Tamil and Muslims properties and looting international financial aid given to Tamil

The Tamil diaspora itself stand at 7 to 8 million which is almost half the size of the Sinhala population in genocidal Lanka, hope you understand its implications and influence

 

[manlion]

the tamil i have met in person are proud Pakistani,'


could be because tamil by default are pakistanis unlike the rest of the indians

I am told, Tamils are regretting for not joining Pakistan , they say - they have been humiliated and degraded as people and as a state by Indians and India

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I am told, Tamils are regretting for not joining Pakistan , they say - they have been humiliated and degraded as people and as a state by Indians and India

Really??? Told by whom? I am a Indian Tamil, and I am proud of the way, how we are developed than a country, we regretted to join. I am really happy, that as a Hindu , I have official rights in my country, instead of living in fear, instead of blasphemy laws bombed on me. I can travel to any part of my nation, and moreover, I am not forced to learn any extra language (in ur case Hindi). Now GTFO/