Jim from Canada is like the devil who has an undying urge to make mischief.

People try to gain attention by stirring up controversies and he is one of them. He tries to present his arguments using his defunct philosophy.

A recent example is his reply to J P's 'Prepare for the worst' (GDN, July 26). He said Mr Jinnah's arrogance and thirst of power led him to make Pakistan.

Anyone who has any knowledge about M A Jinnah will testify to the statesman's selflessness.

Unlike Jim, I don't wish to incite any hatred between the people of India and Pakistan. But I want to inform Jim, whose knowledge of history leaves a lot to be desired, that it was the British who partitioned colonial India based on population concerns.

India was then and continues to be populated mostly by Hindus. Pakistan had and continues to have a mostly Muslim population.

And there is no comparison between Israel and Pakistan. Israel was built illegally on land captured from Syria and Jordan and is still an illegal state.

Pakistan was recognised by the whole world, including the then League of Nations.

Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of the subcontinent wanted to live in accordance with Islamic teachings and traditions.

Mr Jinnah said: "It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism.

"They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time.

"The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literatures. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.

"Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history.

"They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap.

"To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."

Talking about Partition is a highly sensitive matter for people on both sides and I refrain from comment.

Mr Jinnah was very selfless, there is no question that he was held to be the most incorruptible statesman in Indian history.

About him, Stanley Wolpert said: "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammed Ali Jinnah did all three."

Beverley Nichols, the author of Verdict on India, called him the most important man in Asia.

Lord Lothian said: "Though Jinnah's scheme of partition was good, it would take at least 25 years to take shape. But great wars and great men shorten history, and Jinnah was such a man who could alter the history of a nation."

John Biggs-Davison said: "Although without Gandhi, Hindustan would still have gained independence and without Lenin and Mao, Russia and China would still have endured Communist revolution, without Jinnah, there would have been no Pakistan in 1947."

To end, let me add what Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit said. The Indian political leader and diplomat, one of the world's leading women in public life in the 20th century, first Indian woman to hold a cabinet post and sister of India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, said: "If the Muslim League had 100 Gandhis + 200 Abu Kalams and the Congress only had one M A Jinnah, then India would have never got independence." I hope Jim, with his idle mind, can get over the "chip on his shoulder" and "let the sleeping dogs lie"! N