the previous post, from the guardian, included maharashtra in 'south india'. which brings up something i have been puzzled by.
because of geography and language, maharashtra should properly be in the south: it is after all mostly in the deccan, ie dakshin, plateau and forms a part of the peninsula. in fact, old brit writings used to talk about bombay, the *southern* indian metropolis.
and whenever i go to maharashtra i am amazed that spoken marathi sounds so much like malayalam or kannada, not like urdu or hindi. i mean the sounds and the cadences.
but maharashtrians so far as i can tell have consciously decided to look down upon the south, sniffing that they are superior and part of 'western india'. oh well, that's fine, whatever turns you on.
i wonder if it's not maharashtra, but only *bombay* people, especially all the 'beautiful people' from punjab and bihar who have descended upon the place, and who have evidently decided that hindi imperialism is the right way to go.
i was reminded of this when abhiha marathe commented on a post about the south and brought up the issue of maharashtra, in effect sort of asking why i hadn't included maharashtra when talking about the south. my silent reaction was, 'well, no offence, but you guys go out of your way to tell us true southerners you are different and superior. that's fine, no skin off our nose'. well, the shiv sena used to go on bash-*madrasi* binges, right? so said 'madrasis' got used to thinking of you guys as biharis :-)
what do you guys think? is maharashtra part of the south? this is not a flame-bait question, just curious what people think, so kindly be calm in your responses.