A truly democratic society welcomes all kind of ideas. The basic test of how strongly democratic a society is- how it responds to ideas that are not dominant. Symbols are very important features of Contemporary Indian society. All kind of symbols has its own importance and space. All political and social debates are running around symbols. The main conflict Of contemporary society is which symbol is more important or less important. The recent AMU’s portrait debate of Jinnah is also part of the symbolic conflict which contemporary society going through. All kind of ideologies and thoughts nurture democratic value of the society and its intellect as they are essential for the intellectual growth of the society. Recent Jinnah controversy is quite different in its nature. This controversy is not about opposite ideas but it’s more about ideas which are enemy to each other. The idea of Jinnah is problematic in itself, as it is the same idea of Jinnah which created Pakistan, the idea of India, on the other hand, was nurtured by the likes of Mahatma Gandhi. While the Idea of India is about inclusion, peace and peaceful coexistence with mutual respect and tolerance as it was ready to accommodate all kind of ideas and communities. The Jinnah’s Idea is more about exclusion, violence and self-centrism because the idea of Pakistan was about land for one particular community. we see these difference in ideas since its inception. Both nations have evolved through guiding principle of their founder. Where Jinnah has taken extreme step like ‘Direct Action Day’ to achieve his goal, Gandhi has taken route of fast, Satyagraha and other mode of Non-Violence. Here we need to remember that the idea of Jinnah is not limited to Jinnah himself it was the same idea which has created the person like Godse who finally took life of Gandhi. The idea of Jinnah doesn’t believe democratic engagement with opposite ideas but it believes to kill Opposite ideas through violence and exclusion. That’s why Jinnah has demanded separate land for religion from his countrymen not through discussion or dialogue but through violence (Direct Action Day). But Gandhi did the opposite, he had liberated this country from the colonial ruler through nonviolence and have opted Satyagraha. The basic difference between Gandhi and Jinnah are the symbol which they have used in their political life and people whom they have represented. Gandhi’s symbol was nonviolence and inclusion but Jinnah’s symbol was exclusion and violence. Gandhi was representing all but Jinnah was representing one community. Till last breath, Gandhi was fighting for peace where Jinnah was all about violence and aggression. Now after 71 years, we are again debating over whether the portrait of Jinnah should exist in India or not. Some are saying that it is a mere portrait and merely by putting the portrait of Jinnah, doesn’t mean endorsement of the idea of Jinnah. An analogy can save us from a lot of facade in the name of intellectual debates here. How about a portrait of Hitler around Jews houses. Howsoever non-offensive and serene the portrait appears it would not fail in erupting, at the minimum, negative emotions if not a complete contempt. So similarly portrait of Jinnah is an idea itself and unlike the inclusive idea of India, this idea is not only opposite to our democratic value but it is also dangerous as it doesn’t believe in democratic engagement. It took the life of Gandhi and we should avoid these ideas thoroughly when violence took over in Myanmar, a British university has stripped down the award which earlier given to Aung San Sui Kyi, Even her portrait was removed from the hall of fame of the university. A portrait is not the only portrait but its symbol and by giving symbolic representation to Jinnah or Godse, we will not do justice to our founding father. The trick problem of whataboutery which defends the idea of Jinnah by giving the illustration of Godse. It must be countered by repeating again and again that the idea of Jinnah and the idea of Godse are not different. They are same. They compliment each other so we need to reject these ideas as these ideas have already divided us not once but twice. We have seen extreme violence and bloodbath on both the occasion (Pakistan and Bangladesh).