Both Balasaheb and Raj are in fact talking the same language and both are absolutely correct. They only want priority/preference for 'sons of the soil' over people who have migrated to Mumbai over a period of time. What is wrong in this ? This is the norm the world over.
The issue also speaks a lot about the performance of the UP and Bihar politicians over the last 50 years. They have simply failed to create sufficient opportunities in their home state for their 'sons of the soil' resulting in this migration.
What is wrong if Raj questions Bachchan's loyalty to Maharashtra ? AB fights elections in Allahabad, opens school in UP, his wife Jaya is a domicile in Mumbai but is a Rajya Sabha MP from UP, they all hobnob with Amar Singh and Mulayam. What right do Mulayam, Amar Singh, Shatrughan Sinha have to talk about the rights of UPites, Biharites in Mumbai ? They have utterly failed in their duties in their home state resulting in the migration to Mumbai.
Mulayam, Sinha, Amar Singh, Bachchan, Mayawati are the hypocrites and not the thackerays. Balasaheb has said correctly. It is the Sena who has always stood for the Marathis, Hindus in Maharashtra when we were in trouble in 1992-93. Where were the Bhujbals, Ranes and the Laaloos, Mulayams, Amars?
RE:Balasaheb, Raj both are right
by venu gopal on Feb 08, 2008 04:09 PM Permalink
ok phir woh 20 million maharashtrians living in other states ka kaun help karenge. kya aap aur aapke friends ya thackeray dynasty help karenge?
