Amit Varma has turned politically correct. In an article criticizing the Gandhi family, he makes this appalling assertion:
Sonia Gandhi, while she had the character to refuse the prime ministership, also has all the wrong ideas.
And now this blog post on the 2-Rupee coin controversy. Deconstruction follows soon.
Tags: Election 2004, Indian Politics, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, Weblogs
On 04.29.07 Ot says:
Amit Varma is a very good writer. He has a keen sense of humour. He has a way of making a telling point using very few words. For the most part, he is also well-intentioned. His blog is well designed.
And he doesn’t allow comments on his blog because he is scared witless of his prejudices/biases/compulsions getting pointed out. Which puts him in that category of Indian journalists who are a) truly talented b) generally well-meaning but c) also know which side of their bread is buttered.
In this case, Varma misses the point that his opinion about whether or not *he* considers that coin to be communal is irrelevant. (And how did he form that opinion? Since not much fact or logic is presented buttressing his opinion, it seems reasonable to assume that his inner voice told him that the Sonia Gandhi dispensation can’t be communal). Point is, many people, including a major political party, consider the cross-like symbol on the two rupee coin to be reflective of a communal agenda. What does Varma propose to do about it? Just shout these people down?
There are also people who consider “vande mataram” communal. Varma, being, you know, a liberal, would perhaps recommend that such people be not compelled to sing Vande Mataram. What suggestion does he have for those who are offended by communal agenda of the new 2 rupee coin but may have no choice about not using it?
That is the real issue, and it is noteworthy how Varma skirts it. Instead, he just airs his opinion that Sonia Gandhi is not communal. And for good measure, he also ridicules Malhotra’s contention. Is ridicule argument enough?
On 04.30.07 amit varma says:
OT, thank you for the kind words.
I’m not scared of my biases getting pointed out. Indeed, my greatest one is well known: I’m biased towards individual freedom.
I have made no judgements on whether Sonia Gandhi is communal or not — the first link in Sandeep’s post amply expresses my apprehensions about her family — but if she was, she must be really silly, trying to spread “a communal agenda” through a coin. Do you think people are going to convert to Chritianity because a coin has a cross on it?
Also, I am aware that my opinion about anything is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things (as is yours and Sandeep’s — blogs in India aren’t influential enough yet). Nevertheless, I’m still going to state it.
And if you are offended by the two-rupee coin, use two one-rupee coins instead. No cross there!
On 04.30.07 Sandeep says:
Amit,
Thanks for responding. You say:
>>Do you think people are going to convert to Chritianity because a coin has a cross on it?
That is not the point. Anyway, because I’m pressed for time, I shall explain my position later in detail.
>>Nevertheless, I’m still going to state it.
Absolutely, I’m all for it. Like you, I’m also an advocate of individual freedom. Hoping something constructive will come out of it.
On 04.30.07 Ot says:
Howdy Amit.
I must first congratulate you for showing the willingness to have your opinions challenged and debated. This is a courageous step indeed, especially since since your blog cannot be accused of embodying this spirit of open debate.
>>I’m biased towards individual freedom.
Impressed.
>>And if you are offended by the two-rupee coin, use two one-rupee coins instead. No cross there!
My individual freedom dictates that I shall have nothing to do with this 2-rupee coin. But me being only middle-class, it is inevitable that life will throw up umpteen situations in which I’ll have to demand two one-rupee coins, or be stocked with one-rupee coins myself so as to avoid the trouble of using the Sonia coin.
Why do I have to go through these contortions to protect my freedom when you don’t have to?
Suppose some people claim that their individual freedom compels them not to sing Vande Mataram or Saraswati Vandana. Suppose a rule is promulgated that Vande Mataram must be sung daily in schools, and that those who object to it may either remain silent or stay away from the assembly till the song is done. Do you think such a ruling adequately protects that freedoms of all concerned? Where do you stand on this issue?
>> I have made no judgements on whether Sonia Gandhi is communal or not
Well, you may want to explain this. Your own words:
“Now, I’m no fan of the Nehru-Gandhi family, but I’m quite sure that Gandhi has no such “damnable policy” on her mind, “calculated” or otherwise”
>>but if she was, she must be really silly, trying to spread “a communal agenda” through a coin.
Let me try and see if I understand your argument correctly.
1. It is silly to spread communal agenda through a 2-rupee coin.
2. It is inconceivable that Sonia Gandhi (or her acolytes) is silly.
3. Therefore there is no communal agenda behind the coin.
Please confirm that this indeed is your argument; then we can proceed further.
On 04.30.07 Ot says:
Sandeep, I do not understand why you have to have comment moderation switched on either! Moreover, it kicks in sometimes, and doesn’t at some other time.
On 04.30.07 Sandeep says:
Amit and OT
Interesting. I’ll follow this closely!
I don’t favour comment moderation personally but at last count comment moderation saved me 3000+ spam comments and trackbacks.
On 04.30.07 amit varma says:
OT
My blog is not meant to be a forum of “open debate” just as my house is not meant to be a village square. It’s my private property, I set the rules, you are not forced to visit.
As far as the coin is concerned, you have the freedom not to use the coin. Children being forced to sing Vande Mataram in school would not be in a position to refuse. You are. There is no coercion upon you.
Also, you misunderstand my argument. As you have broken it down into points, let me restate the second one:
2. It is inconceivable that anyone is so silly.
Really, the bottomline is this: if you think Sonia has a communal agenda, the burden of proof is on you. I don’t think the design of a coin is sufficient proof. Is there anything else you would like to point to?
On 04.30.07 Ot says:
>>My blog is not meant to be a forum of “open debate”
It’s by design, I see.
In that case, you deserve to be congratulated for showing the willingness and the courage to defend your views, even if on another blog.
It’s just that it seems a bit weird that you should do so on another blog, when you could very well do it on your own. Perhaps that’s just you; I’m being me by airing my wonderment at your strange choice, that’s all.
>>just as my house is not meant to be a village square.
Apples and oranges.
>> It’s my private property, I set the rules,
I can understand a rule that says: “abuse is not allowed”. But a rule on the lines of “I will not allow you to point out my prejudices, biases and illogic” seems a bit weird.
Again, just expressing my wonderment.
>>As far as the coin is concerned, you have the freedom not to use the coin.
I don’t buy this argument. As a member of the community, I cannot afford not to have financial transactions with various entities and people that I have no influence over, and I will not always be in a position to impose on them my choice not to deal in Sonia coins.
>> Children being forced to sing Vande Mataram in school would not be in a position to refuse. You are. There is no coercion upon you.
How did you manage to read endorsement of application of force in my argument? I reproduce it below in the hope that you’ll take another stab at answering my question without skirting the issue:
“Suppose some people claim that their individual freedom compels them not to sing Vande Mataram or Saraswati Vandana. Suppose a rule is promulgated that Vande Mataram must be sung daily in schools, and that those who object to it may either remain silent or stay away from the assembly till the song is done. Do you think such a ruling adequately protects that freedoms of all concerned? Where do you stand on this issue?”
>>Really, the bottomline is this: if you think Sonia has a communal agenda, the burden of proof is on you.
Sorry. The argument is not really about Sonia. The argument is that currency issued by a secular government cannot embed religious symbols in it.
Let’s recap. Sundram presented a case of strong resemblence between the symbol on the 2-rupee coin and the Christian coin. You do not refute this resemblence — you have even gone on to reproduce it on your blog — and I appreciate your honesty in not denying the obvious. But if you must claim that this resemblence is merely accidental, then the burden of proof is really on you that it is all indeed, happily, just happenstance.
What does NOT count as proof is _your_ inner conviction that Sonia is secular.
On 04.30.07 MadMan says:
I’ve been a staunch atheist for many years. The first time I saw the new two rupee coin, I looked it and said to myself, “Who the hell designed this piece of crap? It looks like some weird noughts and crosses game.”
Then I was shown the light by Jesus calling out to me from the new two rupee coin. It was then blindingly obvious that the new coin had a far greater purpose. I could not resist His power any more. Today, I am a devout Christian. Such is the power of the coin. Hopefully, you too will see the light soon.
On 04.30.07 Ot says:
Very funny, MadMan. I could not help ROTFLMAO. Please keep contributing to this thread for the necessary comic relief.
But seriously, the argument that the 2-rupee coin is designed to induce immediate conversions is not mine. It is your invention. If you caricature my argument, you can flog it all you want, and if that’s what you want to do, the floor is all yours. I’ll laugh no matter what, rest assured.
In the meantime, to state *my* argument, I’ll wait for Amit to validate my summarization of *his* argument, which I reproduce below:
“1. It is silly to spread communal agenda through a 2-rupee coin.
2. It is inconceivable that Sonia Gandhi (or her acolytes) is silly.
3. Therefore there is no communal agenda behind the coin.”
So far, disappointingly, he chose to evade the issue.
On 04.30.07 amit varma says:
OT, I’m not going to waste time defending my comments policy on my blog. If you wish to impute reasons for it, go right ahead.
As I’ve said, the burden of proof is on you to:
a) show that the design of the coin is meant explicitly to spread a communal agenda and
b) to show that it can actually do that and
c) show that the RBI gets coin designs approved by Sonia Gandhi.
Until you can prove any of these, this is just a fuss about nothing. I am not evading issues, simply refusing to take your assumptions for granted.
And for Christ’s sake — pun intended in irony — a mere design similarity if proof of nothing, in my eyes. If you disagree, fair enough. Let’s end the discussion here, for what else is there to be gained when we have both stated our disagreement?
Also, the argument you “reproduce” is not mine at all. Mine simply is that this is all a fuss about nothing. You’re reading too much into design.
On 04.30.07 Ot says:
Amit,
“I’m not going to waste time defending my comments policy on my blog.”
There is not much there to defend in your policy anyway, but thank you for stating that you won’t — or perhaps can’t — defend it. We’ll indeed save time.
>>c) show that the RBI gets coin designs approved by Sonia Gandhi.
Looks like you have discarded all pretence at reasonableness, but I am going to be patient.
1. A secular government has no business putting religious motifs on currency.
2. The new 2-rupee coin depicts a crusader’s cross on it. Even you, to the immense credit of your journalistic integrity, have not denied the strong resemblence between the 2-rupee cross and the Louis The Pious cross. Can you please exhibit the same integrity in summoning up the nerve to state precisely what your argument is? I’m being generous enough to give you various choices in this late stage of the argument, so you can place the goalpost wherever you want:
1. Is it that you recognze that to be a Christian cross indeed, but that you will not question the government’s secularism on that count?
2. Is it that you *know* something which we don’t that tells you that the likeness between the two coins is just coincidental?
3. Is it that it is your *belief* that the likeness between the two coins is a coincidence?
On 04.30.07 prudent indian says:
Hold on please!
I have a larger issue about this ‘Sonia’s coin’.
===. Since I happen to live very close by a “Blind School’ here in Delhi and usually (I and some more well meaning citizens [mine and other kids included] of my block do take care of our less fortunate friends by simply helping them cross the road at peak traffic time) asked them about this coin.And if Shri Shri Amit Verma is reading then please be heard,that Our these friends have a complaint since they can not ‘distinguish’ between a one or two Rs. coin. Since your esteemed self had Guts,galls and eyes to comment,like you did and I quote you,”As far as the coin is concerned, you have the freedom not to use the coin.”.I would have appreciated,had you given a thought about it, too.The older coin had edges and was easiely recognised by them.BTW, dear Shri Amit even with my eyes blind folded I can recognize the currency just by feeling it,ALL THE THANKS FOR MY LESS FORTUNATE FRIENDS,Of Course.
You’re enlightened self commented and I quote,”Also, I am aware that my opinion about anything is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things (as is yours and Sandeep’s — blogs in India aren’t influential enough yet).”
Probably right you are. “…blogs in India aren’t influential enough yet…”.
YET!!?? Yes,it is just the “start” dear don’t worry,there will be enough Prudent Indians to demand answers and comments.
Sandeep is what to me as Guru Sandeepan was to Krishan.All others are my classmates.
Prudent Indian
On 04.30.07 Sanjay says:
I, too, have an issue with Amit Varma’s comment policy. I liken it to spitting on someone’s face from behind an iron mask. Amit’s rationalization about his blog being private property like his house cuts little ice, unfortunately. You cannot take potshots at people from the safety of your house and then claim that your house is off limits.
People who want the complete freedom to post incendiary stuff but see fit to censor responses should simply start an by-invitation-only Yahoo Groups.
On 04.30.07 amit varma says:
OT, you haven’t proved any of the things I asked you to in my last comment. I am not going to argue further if the basis for argument is going to your unsupported assumptions about the cross having a communal agenda, instead of merely being a design element. It certainly resembles that older coin, but what of it? Every building with a Taj-Mahal-like dome is not a tribute to Mumtaz Mahal.
Also, my comments policy on my blog does not even require defence: it is as much none of your business as how you treat your guests at home is none of my business. Don’t make demands on my private property.
Prudent Indian, excellent point. The blind children you speak of have a functional objection to the coin, which is a valid one. It is not based on wild conspiracy theories.
This is my last comment here. As I said in my previous comment, we’re clearly going to disagree on whether the design similarity on the coins have a communal agenda (repeat: the burden of proof is on you, as you’re making that statement to begin with), so why go round and round in circles?
On 05.01.07 socal says:
Forgive me for interjecting in what is a seemingly decent argument. Rather than putting *burden of proof* on anyone, I would like to have your opinion about couple of inferences (mine obviously, but maybe anyone’s in general) we can safely draw if it is agreed that there indeed is an uncanny resemblance between the two coins.
1. It is a deliberate act and furthers communalism.
2. It is not deliberate or by design, but mere happenstance and may or maynot further communalism.
In first case it should obviously be withdrawn. In second case too, should a secular state not withdraw that coin even if it were to be designed so by coincidence?! This since the state can never be sure that the coin will not be used to further communalism.
On 05.01.07 Ravindra says:
Ot,
Those were some excellent comments!
BTW, do you have a blog of your own? I’d love to visit it!
On 05.01.07 Roman Emperor says:
How sad that just ONE commenter on this entire page commented on the real flaw with this new coin: that it is so similar to the one rupee. I have myself got confused already many times. Feel bad for the blind.
I suppose to some it is more important to find communalism under every stone.
On 05.01.07 Nanda Kishore says:
So now we have nothing better to do than attack each other over whether the design of the two rupee coin is ‘communal’? That sounds to me very similar to communist/pseudosecular tactics.
Meanwhile, the country is being torn to pieces by pond scum politicians of various hues. Sigh!
On 05.02.07 Ritwik says:
Ot,
The four dots on the four sides of the cross suggest something else to me - I see the Shubh-Labh swastika dots. I also see four phallic structures, all heading towards a common centre that is about to be penetrated against its own will. Clearly, this cross is the evil design of the Hindu patriarchy.
On 05.03.07 Jai says:
Hello Ritwick,
You are right about overtones of patriarchy in that symbol. You are also right about the concept of “penetration against will” being somehow significant to that symbol. Most importantly, you are right about phalluses, and I commend your perspicacity in being able to recognize a symbolic penis when you see one. But that’s where your remarkable run of correct inferences ends. (And I must say I am quite flaggergasted by your ability to imagine the simulatenous penetration of the same thing by as many as four penises!)
Having enumerated what you got right, let us analyze where you have gone wrong.
The dots are symbolic of “eyes”, or “seeing” or “witnessing”. The phalluses indicate males. The cross-like arrangement of phalluses signifies “convergence” or “agreement”. All in all, the symbol on the 2-rupee coin signifies that four male eye-witnesses have agreeed on witnessing the same thing.
Quesation is: what could it be?
According to Shariat, the divinely ordained legal system of Islam, a criminal case of rape requires four concurring male eye witnesses to result in a conviction. I’dn’t venture a comment on whether this said legal system is “patriarchal” or not, but suffice it to say that many women who sought protection under this system received rude shocks when, instead of getting rapists punished, they got themselves punished! Here is how it happens: the rape victim fails to marshal four eye-witnesses, but with her very charge of rape, she has admitted to having had sex outside of marriage. Now if she failed to prove that the said act of sex was forced on her, then it stands to reason that she has consented to it, right? Adultery! Shariat shows no mercy to adulterers; they must be stoned to death, as recorded in this hadith:
>>>>
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Umar:
The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from among them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet said to them, “How do you usually punish the one amongst you who has committed illegal sexual intercourse?” They replied, “We blacken their faces with coal and beat them,” He said, “Don’t you find the order of Ar-Rajm (i.e. stoning to death) in the Torah?” They replied, “We do not find anything in it.” ‘Abdullah bin Salam (after hearing this conversation) said to them. “You have told a lie! Bring here the Torah and recite it if you are truthful.” (So the Jews brought the Torah). And the religious teacher who was teaching it to them, put his hand over the Verse of Ar-Rajm and started reading what was written above and below the place hidden with his hand, but he did not read the Verse of Ar-Rajm. ‘Abdullah bin Salam removed his (i.e. the teacher’s) hand from the Verse of Ar-Rajm and said, “What is this?” So when the Jews saw that Verse, they said, “This is the Verse of Ar-Rajm.” So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones.
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 79)
>>>>>
To cut a long story short, I believe that the new coin is a tribute to the wisdom of Shariat. Note that quite recently, Shariat was made the guiding force of law-making in J&K, without nary a squeal of protest from liberals. Note also that Lashkar-e-Tayyaba flags were hosted at a recent PDP rally, again without a sqeual of protest from secular Congress party. Note also that Congress party enacted a new law to protect secularism and to establish the primacy of Shariat when it was threatened by Shahbano verdict.
All of this evidence lends credence to my view that the symbol on the new 2-rupee coin is neither a Christian cross, nor symbolic of Hindu Patriarchy, but essentially a tribute paid by liberals to Shariat.
And I am glad you saw penises. Keep it up.
On 05.03.07 Gaurav says:
Thank god that for every D’ Souza there is Varma otherwise distribution of crap will become unbalanced.
On 05.03.07 Ritwik says:
Jai,
Wow! I’m impressed! Your reply made my comment worthwhile.
On 05.03.07 socal says:
Arrrr Jai, Ritwik seems like just another wannabe contrarian Bong with plenty of time to kill. Must be here to appease his ego by inciting a flame war. You’re playing to the gallery with that post of yours.
On 05.03.07 Ritwik says:
socal,
One minor correction. Bihari.
On 05.03.07 socal says:
Umm…geography doesn’t always jive well with culture.
On 05.04.07 mt says:
“I see the Shubh-Labh swastika dots. I also see four phallic structures, all heading towards a common centre that is about to be penetrated against its own will”
Learning Hinduism from American Indologists has Ritwik holding his penis when crossing a temple it seems. Such wisdom can only come from an open mind.
On 05.04.07 Ritwik Priya says:
mt,
“Learning Hinduism from American Indologists” ROTFLMAO
This gets even better. I will wait a little more for such brilliant analyses as yours before I explain what I actually meant.
By the way, I had another epiphany. Mathematics is a christian conspiracy. Do think deeply.
On 05.05.07 Matt says:
I would humbly request that the language English be repealed forthwith as its origins are not in India, and this blog converted to HIndi and Devnagiri script. The coin is only a minor offence compared to English.
On 05.07.07 Harish Duggirala says:
“I would humbly request that the language English be repealed forthwith as its origins are not in India, and this blog converted to HIndi and Devnagiri script. The coin is only a minor offence compared to English.”
May I humbly request that you check into the nearest secular nuthouse.
On 05.16.07 Bombat Flyer says:
Amit Varma uvaca :”I’m not scared of my biases getting pointed out. Indeed, my greatest one is well known: I’m biased towards individual freedom.”
When people are asked about their weaknesses in an interview, a stock answer is, “sometimes I work so hard that I lose all sense of time” or something of that sort.
On 05.28.07 netsuffering says:
The comments are certainly interesting and humorous, About amit verma and his india uncut, he compares his blog to his house, then he should restrict access to his blog only to like minded people using a login system, his policies remind me of another person Tanzim akthar of truth vs falsehood blog who also followed the policy of banning comments but commenting frequently on other indiatimes blogs (after a failed attempt at moderation of negative comments). Everyone have their biases some accept them, many dont but are pompously self righteous.
LOL gaurav and jai
OT start a blog please
Rithwik according to ur theory there should be a hakenkruis err swastika around them dots nest ce pas?
The fact that secular govt channel DD (mostly regional like dd oriya north east etc)also now transmits preachings of born again aussi christian missionaries,
allow people on tourist visas to openly preach Christianity,and singularly target the Modi govt only increase suspicions in the coin controversy about passive brainwashing.
Also the sonia (manmohan)govt has been following a policy of interference and pressurization and downright intimidation in an attempt to persue its goals from getting the obc qouta or the pm asking the courts to fall in line and not overstep limits or the cbi bending over backwords to unfreeze q accounts and the lungi clad fm commenting that inflation is under control when facts clearly pointed otherwise,making blunders in tax policies, shooting letters to psu banks on priority lending to muslims or interest rate capping etc
On 07.29.07 PSN says:
Hi,
As a secular Indian, it concerns me to see the use of a religious symbol such as the crusader’s cross on the recently issued Re2 coins in order to promote religion. Why is the map of India missing and Satyamev Jayate smudged/omitted on these coins? I believe that the use of ANY religious symbols on the nation’s currency for propagation of religion is a gross violation of India’s ’secular’ principles. It violates the Constitution of India which proclaims that India is a ’secular’ state. Here’s the link in case you are interested in reading the protest petition against the ‘cross’ on the Re2 coin. http://www.petitiononline.com/cross2cn/petition.html
On 07.30.07 Priya N Sadhu says:
Hi guys!
Here’s my 2 cents worth on the 2 rupee controversy.
It doesn’t matter whether the ‘cross’ (or ‘cross like symbol’) on the new 2 rupee coin has been printed intentionally or unintentionally. The conclusion, in my view, is the same.
If the motive behind printing the ‘cross’ on the coin is intentional, then shame upon the Govt! The public should demand the immediate withdrawal of this non-secular coin. India’s ‘secular’ values must not be compromised at any cost. On the flip side, if the ‘cross’ on the coin may be attributable to nothing more than poor taste and designing, and is indeed unintentional, it would befit the Govt to recall this coin ASAP, just to avoid any potential issues that may arise because of the design’s ‘likeness’ to a ‘cross’ (this would also help clear the Govt of any pseudo-secular charges imposed upon it by the public…..kind of makes you wonder why this hasn’t happened as yet, doesn’t it?).
Oh! And one more thing! From a usability standpoint, this coin really stinks.
The coin scores a big, fat ‘zero’ no matter how you flip it! Let’s show this worthless coin the ‘EXIT’ sign!
Proud, Secular Indian.
On 07.31.07 Priya N Sadhu says:
Hi Sandeep,
As you may have noticed, I have submitted the same comment twice…..actually, I made some very minor changes to my comment after submitting it the first time. That’s why I had to re-submit the comment. PLEASE USE THE COMMENT THAT I SUBMITTED THE SECOND TIME (i.e., in case you choose to post it). THANKS A MILLION!
Priya N Sadhu
On 07.31.07 Priya N Sadhu says:
Hi again Sandeep,
YOU MUST THINK THAT I’M MAD.IN MY PREVIOUS REQUEST I MEANT TO SAY, PLEASE KEEP MY FIRST COMMENT. THROW OUT THE SECOND! I’VE HAD A REALLY LONG DAY. FORGIVE ME!
IN CASE YOU CHOOSE TO POST IT, PLEASE USE MY FIRST COMMENT (the one submitted on July 30, 2007 at 11:53 pm)! Thanks again, and I promise I won’t change my mind anymore!
Have a great day!
Priya
On 07.31.07 Priya N Sadhu says:
Hi again folks!
Just a minor clarification.
In my previous comment, I wrote, “this would also help clear the Govt of any pseudo-secular charges imposed upon it by the public……….kind of makes you wonder why this hasn’t happened as yet, doesn’t it?).
The sentence should read as follows: “recalling the coin would also help clear the Govt of any pseudo-secular charges imposed upon it by the public……….in light of this fact, doesn’t it make you wonder why the Govt hasn’t recalled the 2 rupee coin as yet?”
Thanks,
Priya
On 06.29.08 surbhi maheshwari says:
hi,amit,how are you?You are cool,ssmart,intelligent.I am surbhi maheshwari.I am 15 years old.I live in kashipur.My favourite serial like aanu ki ho gayi waah bhai waah.I am telling you aanu real name is srijeeta.Plz aap jab tak planning banao aur uske baad aap shaadi kar lijiye aur mein chanti hoon aanu shaadi karna chahati isliye uske papa aur aapke papa ki ladai ho gayi thi serial mein.My e-mail id surbhimaheshwari506@yahoo.com.My birthday is on 19 februrary.Plz tell me what is your e-mail id and birthday.I love you so much.Ok