it may be incorrect to demonise Jinnah, but it is equally silly to call the creator of a religion-based country secular! what advani said in pakistan is pure politics, just as what he did at Babri was, and the crticism he is receiving today is something he has been deserving since a long long time
I can understand the confusion of a lot of people, especially the older generation, when it comes to why the writer is saying some things. I do agree that there is some ambiguity in the article about the stand of the writer, but I also do think that it is not necessary for a writer to put forth a strong stance or provide all the answers to all the world's problems. This is a very well written piece, and seems like a good step for us Indians to take, for we seem to get too emotional and belligerent about most issues, refusing to see the grays between the black & white. But, I repeat, considering they've witnessed a lot more than us, I understand as well as respect the older generation's refusal to concur with everything that has been said, for somewhere, they are right too. Lastly, I would ask all my country people, especially the younger lot - the future of our country - to develop the strength to see the bad in ourselves and the good in others; for that's the only way to improvement, and improvement is the best victory (if that's what we want).
The author has a very distorted opinion. Only the DK cadres are brought up on this staple of the Ramayana being some Aryan conspiracy against the Dravidians.
>>>are swathes of land in south India that do not accept the popular version of the Ramayana which
This article is a complete lie!! Dravidian land!! don't u know that, that theory is not completely debunked. Its only the leftist (read anti-hindu) forces in india who still harp on that theory. stop the lies and accept the truth. Jinnah was dumb and no amount of leftist white-washing is going to change that.
Well, your article was full of air and no substance. Written just for the sake of writing something. One does not need to know the whole history of Jinnah to conclude that he was "not secular". The simple fact is this, if a man can ask for division of one multicultural country , it will require a great degree of suspension of disbelief to consider him a secular. How and why he turned from a secular to non-secular is irrelevant. The fact is, he became a fundamentalist and remained so till his death. Comparing Gandhi and Jinnah is simply stupid. Gandhi never championed a hindu rashtra and went to great length to avoid partition unlike Jinnah who was more than happy to see the bloodshed in order to realise his own political ambitions.
