What else can "we" say about your confused reading of non-existent confusion in this article ? The author's point is well-supported, you too use just another of those abuses as an argument; and in the process, expose your own limitations of comprehension.
The author is not arguing either side of the reservation case ( though his views can of course be discerned by his tone & language ); merely stating so coherently the depressing lacunae in the current arguments pro & against. That one side is merely abusing the second, rather than marshalling facts in support of their stand.
And it's eminently obvious that you couldn't get the thread of the piece right.
God save us from our own country-men, woeful debaters all. And which is precisely the point this writer is making !!!!
P.S. And it is not ".. their you go.. "; should have been ".. there you go.. ". In case it's just an oversight, good for you. Else, it shows up that you could only confusion where none exists !!!!
