Who was to acknowledge the claim of "being Indian and Muslim"? It had to be Jinnah, no?
“If you could be Indian and Muslim you would have no identity crisis”
Kindly, do not steal your opponents’ line and then throw it back at them pretending it is yours. Had the claim to being Indian and Muslim been acknowledged, there would have been no issues.
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions 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, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans 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. (All India Muslim League Presidential Address delivered at Lahore, on March 22–23, 1940)To pakteahouse, of course not - Jinnah is the hero. The above was just a bargaining position, hiding a deep desire for the unity of India if only those $#*! Congress mind-readers would see beyond the above and concede what Jinnah wanted!
For the record, here is Shiv's comment which provoked the response above.
You Pakistanis are Indians. If you could be Indian and Muslim you would have no identity crisis. The problem arose from believing that Islam would have to play second fiddle to the kafir Hindus who worship penises and cowdung.
Every Indian state is a Pakistan minus the Islamic extremism. Let me correct that – every Indian state has its own trademark form of extremism – not necessarily Islamic. Islamic extremism in India gets fierce competition from other assholes who are as bigoted and backward and I am not referring only to your friends the Hindutvadis. Yes Islamic extremism does give other extremists a run for their money in some states – but unlike Pakistan, no walkover is handed to Islamic extremists in the naive belief that they need help more than other bhenchods.
Technically the law and a secular constitution is above all these fighting Indiots. And the Indian state has managed to maintain a monopoly on violence. The latter is the biggest mistake made in Pakistan. The “state” in Pakistan does not maintain a monopoly on coercive force. This is a fundamental requirement of statehood. Google for “Monopoly on violence”.
If anoyne has bothered to read it why do you think Naipaul named his book “India – a million mutinies now”? There are a million mutinies in India – not just anti Shia or anti Ahmedi or anti Kafir. Islamic extremism in India cannot dominate over other angry people clamoring for something or other. And those mutineers do not get free arms from the state to fight the wars that the state (establishment/army) wants to fight.
Pakistan was created to give first place to the Muslims who went there. The same mutinies that happen in India have continued in Pakistan. But because sunni Islam was the dominant group – you guys gave it first place and you have gradually eliminated Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and are now busy eliminating Qadianis and perhaps Shias. That is because Pakistan the state never understood that a nation consists of many people with different viewpoints and beliefs. You guys wanted Islam and now it is still not pure enough.
Congress’ definition of Indian, Muslim, Indian and Muslim, Indian nationalist, Muslim nationalist etc. was to enforce its monopoly even if it lead to Partition. Muslim League disagreed. It’s definition of Indian and Muslim was not to be acknowledged, and despite not managing even 5% of these Indian-and-Muslims’ vote, Congress claimed to represent all Indians and assert its monopoly on these definitions. Partition followed.
Then, only after Partition and not before, did Congress turn to bagging itself the Indian Muslim vote. That is the start of an entirely separate history. Partition signifies an even greater disconnect and separation in pre- and post-partition history in case of Pakistan.