People and Population of Delhi
Delhi is multi-cultured and multi-linguistic city with people from almost every parts of India. Delhi shares its borders with Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The influence of these states can be found in the language and lifestyle of Delhi. People of Delhi are called "Delhi-ites". Delhi-ites are very advanced and open to embracing new customs and changes but at the same time they are very conscious of their culture. People of various caste, creed and culture live here with peace and harmony. This shows the "Unity in Diversity" among the people of Delhi. Growth of infrastructure, new avenues of business and employment have beckoned people from all parts of the country to migrate to Delhi in search of better livelihood. Today, Delhi holds the burden of additional population from other states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana and Uttranchal.
Migration from other states has made Delhi over populated and an extremely polluted modern city. There is hardly any residential space left in the city that is not occupied by citizens and dwellers. Delhi's population has increased manifold in the past few years. If the stats are be believed, Delhi's population has grown over forty percent in the last ten years and the population now stands close to around fourteen million. This is despite the fact that sixty percent of Delhi-ites are born elsewhere. The increase in population has made it imperative for neighboring states like Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to take advantage of the situation and make inroads towards developing the region. This is quite vivid from the developments we see today in Gurgaon, Noida andFaridaad. These cities have shared the burden of Delhi by accommodating the increasing global demand of business and outsourcing in the city. The infrastructurewithin NCR makes commuting between Delhi and NCR an easy ride.
Source: http://www.delhicapital.com/about-delhi/people-and-population.html
Delhi History
The city of Delhi has a fascinating and glorious history. The rise and fall of many empires has left a mark on the city. Delhi traces it’s history back to Mahabharat. The Mahabahrat was an epic story of war fought between two estranged cousins for the city of Indraprastha. Mughals took control of Delhi and ruled in order from Qutab-ub-din to Khiljis, Tughlags. The British in 1803 AD gained control of Delhi. Although many shifts in rule has occurred in Delhi’s history many of the remnants of the glorious past still stands today. Ancient Delhi dates back to 800 BC and King Dihlu. Delhi’s name comes from the word Dhillika. There has been seven medieval cities in Delhi giving it an edgy fascinating history.
The city of Delhi carries a long glorious history. The earliest relics date way back to the Maurya Period estimated to be 300 BC. Near Srinivaspuri the inscription of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka was found. Emperor Kuma’s famous Iron pillar by the Qutub Minar is part of Delhi’s history. Modern parts of Delhi area contains the remnants of seven ancient cities. The Quila Rai Pithora which was a seven gated for is considered to be onf oe the first cities of Delhi in ancient times. Siri established by Alauddin Khilji in the year of 1303. Tughlugabad, Jahanpanah, Kotla Firoz Shah, Purana Qila, and Dinpanah are some of the other ancient relic cities of Delhi. The last remnant of ancient cities in Delhi is the Shahjahanabad. Shahjahanabad was built by Shah Jahan containing inside the Lal Qila as well as the Chandni Chowk. Shah Jahan’s reign was at the same time it was the capital of the Mughal Empire. There is archaeological evidence that Indraprast existed in Delhi until the 19th century. The city of Delhi truly has a long glorious history.
Source: http://www.delhi.org.in/delhi-history.html
These articles don't directly talk about Delhi but relate to some issues that include Delhi's people
Last Sunday when I wrote about the Indian media’s reverence for Sonia Gandhi and her family, I had not foreseen that an event would shortly prove me right. That event was the judgment on the Bhopal gas tragedy that came soon after my column appeared and incensed public opinion because it amounted to no more than a gentle reprimand for those who had been responsible for the deaths of more than 25,000 people.
It was so shameful a verdict that our news channels went out of their way to hunt down those responsible for the tragedy and the terrible miscarriage of justice. We heard from pilots who flew Warren Andersen out of Bhopal in a government aircraft, drivers who drove him around, officials who shifted blame and retired officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation who said the Government of India ordered them to let Andersen off the hook. When the Congress Party’s spokesmen were called to answer, they happily blamed Arjun Singh who was Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh at the time but nobody dared blame Rajiv Gandhi. Surely as Prime Minister he was more responsible for letting Andersen go? Surely it would have been impossible for Arjun Singh to let him flee the country without the Prime Minister’s permission?
When I tweeted about this I got some support but not a lot because it is not just the media that reveres and forgives our democratically elected royal family but a vast majority of Indians too. As a country we have accepted democratic feudalism as our preferred political system. So why should it surprise us that something as horrible as the Bhopal gas tragedy should happen and justice not be done for a quarter of a century? What does democratic feudalism have to do with what happened in Bhopal? Let me explain.
Feudalism through the ballot box is similar to real feudalism in that as a system it relies on keeping the majority of the populace poor and illiterate. The good thing about poor and illiterate people is that they can be relied on not to protest even in the face of horrible injustice. Not because they like it that way but because they cannot afford to do anything else. More than 4,000 people were gassed to death by Union Carbide on December 3, 1984 and our political leaders have behaved as if it were just another industrial accident. Worse still, the victims have accepted this in virtual silence. Social activists led a few protest marches but these were sporadic since most victims were too poor to do more than get on with their lives. This would be unthinkable in a country that had real democracy and people who were literate enough to understand that their rights as citizens went beyond voting in elections.
In India, ninety per cent of voters exercise their democratic rights only at election time and then wait for their lives to improve without realising that for real change you need real policies not just a leader who comes from the right family. Today, the roots of democratic feudalism have spread so far and wide that most Indian political parties revolve around personalities and not ideas or ideology. Even apolitical observers cannot fail to notice that nearly every political party from Kashmir to Kanyakumari is the property of some family and always there is an heir waiting in the wings. Among the heirs in waiting the most powerful is Rahul Gandhi because his inheritance is not Punjab or Tamil Nadu but the whole of India. The New York Times pointed out recently that all he has to do is collect his ‘inheritance’ when he decides that its time.
He is nice enough, our Rahul, and has spent the past few years being trained in politics, economics and statecraft. So, a worthy prince but a prince all the same. He will not change the system, no matter what he says, because feudalism of any kind needs poor and illiterate people to survive. Please notice that he has said not one word about the Bhopal verdict and nor has his Mummy. The victims of the tragedy are too desperate and poor to ask for more. It is for you and I who know better to recognise that democratic feudalism is the main reason why India remains mired in medieval problems of poverty and monumental injustice.
Since the verdict I have found myself wondering what India’s reaction would have been if that cloud of poisoned gas had wandered over Lutyen’s Delhi instead of a wretchedly poor slum on the edge of Bhopal. What would India’s reaction have been if among the 25,000 dead were senior members of the Indian government? Would Warren Andersen have been allowed to run away? Would an American company have been allowed to get away with mass murder?
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-price-of-democratic-feudalism/633096/0
Feudal Democracy
Seema Chishti’s story on Ali Sayeed, the Olympian hockey player, being denied a complimentary ticket to the pavilion to watch the India-Pakistan match shows the arrogance, callousness and smallness of our so-called sports organisers. It is only in our country that people, either politicians or their stooges, can have tennis courts and sports stadiums named after their names, even if they cannot distinguish between a tennis and a squash racquet. In America, for example, the biggest tennis stadiums are named after tennis greats Arthur Ashe and Martina Navratilova. But in our country, somehow, politicians think they must manage our national games, even if they know nothing of a swinging ball in cricket or a short penalty in hockey. A recent example outside sport reinforces this aggressively feudal outlook of politicians. A new town hall has been built. Instead of letting it be called “New Town Hall” we have the ugly spectacle of small politicians in the Congress bringing in Mahatma Gandhi’s name (does Gandhiji need a town hall to be remembered?), and the BJP in similar small manner pushing the name of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. Can we not become a mature democracy and rid ourselves of this feudal outlook?
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/feudal-democracy/588502/
No comments:
Post a Comment