Honestly, at first I thought that the idea of naming someone to carry on a legacy (even though most people would never realize the connection between Vinayak Savarkar and the name) was simply an extension of the ridiculous idea that violence was the only solution. Then as I reached the end of the article, I realized that naming really does continue a legacy. Though I do not agree with the legacy carried on through that name, I do believe that it is effective. I dont like that Dr. Parchure named children who might seriously object later to what they, without any say, represent because of their name.
1 comment:
right, and it's also kind of interesting to think about whether or not the future vinyaks could change the legacy of vinyak savarkar...
Post a Comment