— M.K.D. Prasada Rao

Ghaziabad

Mumbai for whom?

•The drama that unfolded after MNS chief Raj Thackeray’s diatribe against north Indians working in Maharashtra has once again sparked off a debate on the maximum city’s cosmopolitan image. Soon after he made the outrageous remarks aimed at non-Marathis and notably Amitabh Bachchan, there was a widespread outcry. The question is, should Mumbai only be for Marathis? Mumbai, which is deemed India’s commercial capital, is a city where people from across India have come to seek their futures and fortunes all these decades.

— Farzana Nigar

Ranchi

• It’s shameful that we cannot protect our own citizens when they migrate to other states for employment as is evident from the recent episode of north Indian-bashing in Mumbai by MNS hooligans. Despite this, we stretch ourselves tall to criticise the government of Malaysia for its crackdown on ethnic Indians. It is mischievous to suppose that migrants are eating up the opportunities of the sons of the soil.

If Indians cannot be loved in their own country when they travel to other states, then how can we expect the same from the Malaysian government which feels that a section of the ethnic Indians over there is out to disrupt the peace of that country?

— Safiya Sameena

Vijayawada

In Centre’s fold

•With the attacks in Mumbai against North Indians instigated by a regional political party, one wistfully recalls the wise recommendation of the 1955 States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) that Bombay (Mumbai), being above linguistic considerations, should be a centrally administered state like Delhi. Bombay has been built and nurtured by almost everyone from every corner of India. If political considerations had not clouded the vision of the government at that time, Bombay as a city state would have been a world-class city like New York, Shanghai, Tokyo or London.

... contd.