The author's argument becomes exceptionally lame in several places. 1. When he talks about creativity in the North during the Middle ages. The only thing he mentions there is dances! Let me just say this - for the first time in my life hitherto am I hearing dance as the foremost indicator of creativity. What about the art and architecture in the North? What about the Rajput monuments of Rajasthan, the Mughal architecture (Taj Mahal), the literary achievements including evolution of 2 new languages, Hindi and Urdu, the birth of a new religion, Sikhism? Perhaps, at no other time has India, as a whole, been more creative, than it was in the North alone during the Middle Ages. 2. Christian Imperialism? What has been India's biggest advantage over China? Ans: English language. How much of Indianness do we have in the knowledge being taught in the Indian schools today? Has "Indianness" anyhting to do with the South's "progress"? North is far more traditional (esp. Hindi heartland and northern states) with a bigger understanding of Indianness than the South. I would like to add that articles like this are either a result of pure ignorance or motivated by an intention of false propaganda.
