02-14-2009, 08:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Feb 14 2009, 09:12 AM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Feb 14 2009, 09:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Piglet goes not believe in V day
http://sarvesamachar.com/click_frameset.ph...dhi%2F423559%2F
[right][snapback]94590[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, the word piglet is bogus. This statement is very interesting and needs to be noticed. Consider Rahul Gandhi - scion of Gandhi parivar, heir to the throne, darling of the "young masses", son of a foreign mom, Milliband-friend, more agitprop then leadership guy is saying..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't believe in Valentine's Day: Rahul Gandhi<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me this means that even Rahul Gandhi, darling of the masses is still taking a social-conservative stance. It means that there is a significant vote-share for social-conservatism in India. It means that media has dulled his statement but still conveyed the msg of social-conservatism. It means he has to appear in white-kurta-pajama to appear an Indian leader. My guess is that if he were to become PM next elections, he wont follow his fathers sartorial tastes, instead he will stick to kurta-pajama and perhaps even pick up dhoti instead of pajama.
All this leads me to think, that Mutalik's failure was not in following social conservatism (opposing 'pub culture') but his failure was in not following social conservatism fully (violence against women).
http://sarvesamachar.com/click_frameset.ph...dhi%2F423559%2F
[right][snapback]94590[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, the word piglet is bogus. This statement is very interesting and needs to be noticed. Consider Rahul Gandhi - scion of Gandhi parivar, heir to the throne, darling of the "young masses", son of a foreign mom, Milliband-friend, more agitprop then leadership guy is saying..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't believe in Valentine's Day: Rahul Gandhi<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me this means that even Rahul Gandhi, darling of the masses is still taking a social-conservative stance. It means that there is a significant vote-share for social-conservatism in India. It means that media has dulled his statement but still conveyed the msg of social-conservatism. It means he has to appear in white-kurta-pajama to appear an Indian leader. My guess is that if he were to become PM next elections, he wont follow his fathers sartorial tastes, instead he will stick to kurta-pajama and perhaps even pick up dhoti instead of pajama.
All this leads me to think, that Mutalik's failure was not in following social conservatism (opposing 'pub culture') but his failure was in not following social conservatism fully (violence against women).