The writer’s attempt to demonise the majoritarian community while portraying the main minority community as victim is evident (“India’s plural soul”, December 6). Gopalkrishna Gandhi cleverly mentions the demolition of the Babri Masjid as an act of aggression but forgets to acknowledge archaeological evidence submitted by the ASI. The mention of Gujarat 2002 is incomplete without mentioning the cause, which in turn triggered large-scale riots and led to large-scale displacement and deaths. Both 1992 and 2002 are two dark chapters in the history of modern India, but attempting to demonise one community and portraying the other as victim will only lead to further polarisation. The wrongs done by both communities need to be acknowledged.
Avinash Verma,
New Delhi
Yes, India does have a plural soul, which means the “acknowledgement of a diversity of political systems”. If India had an Ashoka it also had Samudragupta; if it had Akbar, there also existed Maharana Pratap and Chhatrapati Shivaji. If Gandhi was the Mahatma, Vivekanada was the Swami, and if Nehru was a towering stalwart of the Congress, no less were Bose and Sardar Patel. Finally, in authoring the Constitution, Ambedkar was ably assisted by many. The perception of plurality was so far articulated by one storyteller. Today, that storyteller has changed and so must the story. Tomorrow will come another storyteller and yet another story. If political systems can be deemed to be good, bad and ugly, plurality demands that the existence of all of these be acknowledged. Otherwise, the essence of plurality will lose its relevance.
Ravindra Ramarao,
Bengaluru
