> uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
>
>> There is no conflict between _Hindus and Muslims_in India. The conflict is between secular Indians (Hindus + Muslims + Sikhs + Christians + Jains + Budhhists) and non secular/fascist Indians (Hindus + Muslims etc.).>>
> I met a hedge fund dude a couple of weeks ago who's of Indian >origin. He referred to "Bombay." I asked, "you don't say Mumbai?" >He emphatically said "no!" Is that language part of that secular->religious conflict? How much does class fit into it?>
No connection with the secular-religious conflict. Mumbai is the word in the local languages (Marathi and Gujarati) for Bombay in English. (Apparently, words Mumbai and Bombay are derived from the Portugese "Bom Bahia" (the Good Bay). Mumbai was under Portugese control upto 1661 when it was included in the dowry of Catherine Braganza when she married Charles II of England !)
The bourgeoisie generally tends to be cosmopolitan/westernised in its tastes and orientation, while proletarians and petty bourgeoisie are grounded in local language and culture.
OTH, there is _relatively_ greater support for BJP among the educated and prosperous strata, while the secular parties are _relatively_ preferred by the poor and illiterate.
Ulhas