MJ Akbar's inconsistency plays against him as a writer and politician

Editors note: This is a comment by a reader named Rajendra, that we received in response to the article ‘Why just Akbar? His critics should explain their obstinacy too" that was published on Tuesday. As is Firstpost policy, the comment has been lightly edited for language and grammar. MJ Akbar speaks and writes without any research. His basic flaw is inconsistency. He is here-and-there-type which does not meet the requirement of an unbiased writer. He has every right to do what he wishes, and does not owe any explanation until he does not write in publicly. He spoke wrongly earlier: did he have any logic or proof? He is not believable as a writer. He is also not an administrator or policy maker. What’s his worth as a contesting candidate in politics? What’s his constituency among the voters? If a party has to be voted then what’s his worth as a candidate? Any candidate will be good. What’s the surety that he will stick to what he is stating today?