There has been a new wave of anti-Christian communal violence in Pakistan, with a riot involving as many as 20,000 people in the town of Gojra, west of Lahore.
We normally use the phrase “communal violence” in the Indian context, but reading the particulars of this story in the New York Times, the idea of “communalism” (a particularly South Asian expression of communitarian religious hostility) seems to fit. The recent riots were not on a huge scale — 100 houses belonging to local Christians were burned (compare to 3000 homes of Christians burned in the violence in Orissa last year) — but it’s still frightening and sad.
There is a history of this kind of violence in Pakistan. I don’t know the history in great detail, but Wikipedia has links to several similar incidents in just the past few years. (It often starts with the claim that someone has desecrated the Koran.)
One oddity in the Times coverage was the way they described the size of the Christian community in Pakistan, as comprising “less than five percent of the population.” I gather the number is more like 1.6% — why not simply say, “less than 2%”? Maybe that’s a nitpick.
As a response, the Christian schools in Karachi are on strike for three days. A number of arrests of those involved in the attacks have been made, and President Zardari has strongly condemned them. The Daily Times newspaper has a story with a subheader that the DPO (police chief) in the district has been “booked” as well, but the text of the story actually states that authorities are at this point just thinking about charging him with failing in his duty to keep the peace.
Incidentally, the town of Gojra is in the Toba Tek Singh District of Punjab, an area made famous by Sa’adat Hasan Manto’s story about Partition, “Toba Tek Singh.” Though we’re no longer talking directly about partition, that story about the madness that can sometimes overtake people in the name of religion still feels relevant. Here is a translation of the story, and Professor Fran Pritchett has both the original Urdu and a Devanagari version of the story linked from her site: here.
It is easy to be judgmental of these actions in hindsight. But the army needs to be given the ability to act freely to maintain national security in tense situations.
NOT if they are not Muslim they don’t!
The Pope may not have direct influence, but since so many countries have a sizable Christian population, many of whom are Catholic, his speaking out about it will give it coverage and political support to put pressure on Pakistan to stop the violence. The Pope and the larger global Christian population can do for the Pakistan Christian population what no Sikh or Hindu can do outside Pakistan for the Sikh and Hindu population, not at the same magnitude nor without some risk of being seen as having religious bias, or without India being dragged into it in a tu qoque argument.
Manpreet – I am the same way – have never understood how the most macho of my fellow Punjabis can go around (usually while hammered) bellowing how “Jatt” they are
So anybody want to join me in getting a “Jatt 4 Life” tattoo.
Suki Dillon – “So anybody want to join me in getting a “Jatt 4 Life” tattoo.”
Only if we will also get the biggest Khanda tat on our backs. JAtt for Life, indeed, this one and the next ones. [by the by, do we, Jatt Sikhs, believe in reincarnation or are we too hard core for that sissy stuff]
I’ve always wanted a jatt for life, but they tend to be endogamous, unfortunately.
There is a colonial legacy that pre-dates Partition, one that applies not just to lower caste Hindus. Britian went through a evangelical awakening in the 1800s and Christian missionaries were actively seeking Muslim and Hindu converts in the subcontinent. Some historians say the missionary activity played a major role in trigerring the 1857 war.
Ref-
Imperial fault lines : Jeffrey Cox The Indian Mutiny 1857-58 : Gregory Fremont-Barnes
That was not my intent, though I will fully admit I’m reluctant to make oversimplified statements about how society is organised in Pakistan as opposed to India and then attribute a value judgement to one state or the other in a space like this one. What I was attempting to do (poorly, as usual) was to question and, to some extent, to take apart some of the myths in the ways in which people are talking abotu communalism here and that I myself was led to think about them in. I always hope someone might, at a later date might come along, and reassemble some more accurate statements into a coherent story because i agree that adding complexity and deconstruction are tools, not answers.
If I overstated the case for commonalities, that was in response to what seemed to me to be a near total lack of appreciation for anything Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India might have in common – and specifically Pakistan and India. For example, to take a pretty inoffensive example, if you read the line in the post that talks about how “we” usually think about communalism as an Indian phenomenon – well that’s just weird to me. Why would something that substantially has its origins in things like the British census or the political economy of competing elites in the British empire or the way resource competition plays out in economies of scarcity be unique to India but not present at all in Pakistan and Bangladesh, particularly since the three states have existed for less time than they were part of the same colonial state?
And continue forward to India being secular and Pakistan being Islamic. The Indian state is secular in the sense that it is pluralistic – but Indian politics is dominated by contemporary understandings of Hinduism and religion is very present. But to me the whole argument is silly – neither the Indian state nor the Pakistani state have very much capacity to enforce a particular relgion on the entirety of their populations – it usually happens in pogroms like this one. So what is the relationship of the state (at different levels) to incidents of this type?
Similarly, why is communalism being defined in term sof religion only but not linguistic, caste, or any other group identity and always betewen religions rather than within them. If you changed the word to sectarianism or violent resource competition or violent group politics, then do the differences in communalism in India and Pakistan appear as striking to you?
the point is not that India and Pakistan and Bangladesh are ‘the same’ (which would be a weird and meaningless assertion anyways) – there are major differences because they are not identifical things in the world have have existed somewhat independently of each other for a while now. Nor is the point that matters are so overly complicated that you can’t possibly make any positive assertions (which woudl be overly timid), The point is that the communal mode of politics is deepseated and has economic, piolitical, and historical roots, and these are either through disconnected but shared circumstances, shared origins, or transnational politics present today in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. You can disagree with the argument – or say, maybe, that it’s too strong or that I’m givintg too much import to commuinalism in India but not enough in Pakistan, but don’t say I’m not making an argument. It’s just not fleshed otu in my head enough for me to put it into three lines and then translate to the outside world in a way that will actually help move forward a conversation rather than to simply state ‘this is what i think’ to be followed by a genocide scorecard 😉
This is exactly the problem – who is it that won out in Pakistan? Some people say it was Punjabis and Mujahirs, some people say it was the military, you say it was Islamists, some people say no one won and it is chaos, some people say it was the agrarian landholding class in conjunction with the military, some people say it was ISI, some people say it was the U.S. and Britain., some people say it is the politics of sectarianism itself that has won our. There is probably some truth to all of these, so the question becomes which ones are most relevant in understanding the issue of communal violence against Christians. To be hoenst, I don’t know the answer to that.
However, I do know that simply stating that Pakistan is self-consciously Islamic is not enough of an explanation or a tool for actually addressing communalism when there is frequent intraMuslim sectarian violence in Pakistan. Since Europe was politically self-identified as Christian in the 17th century, can religioyus violence against minority ethnic groups then be safely understood without considering the Reformation or the 30 years war? Did the Anglican church split off from the Catholic Church earlier for reasons of religious doctrine? Obviosuly not. So why explain communalism in Pakistan without explaining in detail and empirically accurately exactly hwo being identified as an Islamic state leads to communalism?
Anyway, that’s the argument – or rather question – it might be right, it might wrong, but there it is.
Pakistan might be a “self-conciously Islamic state” according to razib, but there is definately a section of society that firmly believes in secularism and progressive ideas. It is possibly for a country to be a majority-Muslim state or a “Muslim homeland” while still providing protection and equal rights to its minority citizens. This is the confusion that persists in the idea of Pakistan: Was it intended to be a liberal muslim-majority state or an “Islamic State” run by sharia? Certainly, the father of the nation, Jinnah, envisioned the former and not the latter.
If you read the letters to the editor in today’s (August 5) Dawn, they uniformly condemn the Gojra incident and the use of blasphemy laws to oppress minorities (and really anyone else one wants to oppress). They also argue that part of the problem is the culture of intolerence that is present in Pakistan and unfortunately seems to be growing. I think though, that we should refrain from making generalizations about an entire country. There are definately “Islamists” in Pakistan but there are also a lot of average Muslims who go about their lives, practice their own religion, and don’t believe in oppressing others who don’t share their religion.
Kabir – “It is possibly for a country to be a majority-Muslim state or a “Muslim homeland” while still providing protection and equal rights to its minority citizens.”
Can you provide an example of a state where minorities living under a majority Muslim rule were treated fairly?
Jinnah may have had some ideas of establishing a liberal state but nothing he did after assuming office was in any way in line with his ideas. As Tarek Fatah (in his latest title Mirage) has described, Jinnah assumed almost dictatorial powers over the state, creating a supreme role for himself with no scope for checks or balances, sowed the seeds of conflict in Bangladesh by calling for the imposition of Urdu in E.Pakistan and revoking the status of Bengali as an official language, and all but suspending the Constituent Assembly. It is impossible to find any intellectual, leave alone others, advocating for the amendment of the Constitution of Pakistan and transforming the character of the State into a secular one, in law. Not even a humanist such as Pervez Hoodbhoy (who in private I am sure supports such an idea) dare go that far. The argument that fundamentalists in Pakistan do not win electoral majorities is mistaken. When every political party in Pakistan subscribes to the idea of an Islamic State, they differ from one another only by degrees. There is currently no Muslim majority state where the rights of religious minorities are protected by a religious constitution. Turkey is a proclaimed secular republic and Indonesia swears by it multi-syncretist-traditions and both go to great lengths to keep fundamentalism out of politics.
Seriously, LOL! I mean, really, just look at the treatment of Filipina maids in Saudi, or the treatment of the Chinese in Indonesia. Note to self–stop donations to Yale ’til they close down their “South Asian studies” effort, which is demonizing the straight, Indian, Hindu male as the bogeyman of the subcontinent. . . . Dad, please stop it! Also, “up” is the new “down.”
Can you provide an example of a state where minorities living under a majority Muslim rule were treated fairly?
I will get back to you, when I find out.
Razib wrote: Razib wrote but the muslim equivalent of hindu nationalists long ago won the argument, pakistan is self-consciously an islamic nation. even secular elements who reject sharia as national law won’t dispute that point
Really? Pakistan is a Muslim nation, and can be a Secular Muslim nation. The concept of Indian secularism does not translate across the Radcliffe line (nor does it really work there — there is always a normative majority in any country).
Obviously, the pendulum swung a long way in the Zia years, and hasn’t swung back far enough yet. But, unlike the idea of a ethnically neutral turkish state, the idea of a Secular Muslim state in Pakistan still has legs.
Only if we will also get the biggest Khanda tat on our backs. JAtt for Life, indeed, this one and the next ones. [by the by, do we, Jatt Sikhs, believe in reincarnation or are we too hard core for that sissy stuff]
We jatts are too hardcore for everything.
By the way Manpreet, this friday night I will be outside the 7-11 at 2 in the morning in my car blasting Jazzy-B out of my car stereo and hitting on 16 year old drunk girls and of course wearing a big khanda necklace living jatt life. Hope to see you there and bring backup, just in case some chamars or chooras dare to show up. JATT LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or bangladeshi, nepalese, or north easterners in india.
Really..
I got a few ….
open secret
larger half
clearly confused acting naturally liquid gas
seriously funny Microsoft Works
military intelligence
unbiased opinion
Was it intended to be a liberal muslim-majority state or an “Islamic State” run by sharia?
The Constitution of the State is where you find the answers. Why should a Christian/Hindu/Sikh be subject to Sharia law?
one more…
secular hindu nation
Oh! that exists only in the minds of shiv sainiks like you.
he..he..
Amaun wrote: The Constitution of the State is where you find the answers. Why should a Christian/Hindu/Sikh be subject to Sharia law?
In Pakistan, Christians and Hindu/Sikhs are governed by their own personal law, (Christian law, Hindu law), apart from the infamous Hudood ordinances brought in by Zia — that’s criminal law. Same goes in Bangladesh.
As for “original intent” — post-paritition Pakistan was governed byt he sanme Anglo-Indian law as India. The 1973 constitution provides no insight into Jinnah’s intent.
But I think blasphemy laws takes precedence over every personal law. 🙂
bjp, please. ram janmabhoomi ftw!
Islamic Provisions in the Constitution of 1973 (Source: Wiki)
damn, pakistan has it good. hum bjpvaalon have constant been upset about that christist sonia maino gandi, a BABYSITTER, running the country. if only we could prevent such people by constitution.
i don’t see why this is so silly. there’s nothing intrinsically anti-liberal about islam that can’t be said of other religons. i think once liberalism, and capitalism in particular, is introduced the more doctrinaire aspects of a religion get tempered, like with Christians in the usa. i mean we call those who want voluntary prayer in school fundamentalist here. if that fundamentalism, most religious minortes in muslim dominated states would take it.
of course a “Muslim state” or “Muslim homeland” is problematic, but if thats sounds like a layover before liberalism. Islamic hegemony isn’t going away overnight so we must be pragmatic. if we can get a bunch of israeli like states at this point, i’d take it.
Suki #115, I am sure these actions can be defended in painfully earnest academese. It’s very good for that sort of thing.
Just to make clear the current constitution of Pakistan (the Constitution of 1973, part of which is quoted above) is not the original constitution. Jinnah did not envision a state where all laws had to be in accordance with Quran and Sunnah. That I think is probably the most problematic part of the current constitution, apart from the restriction that only a Muslim can be President or PM and the declaring of Ahmedis to be non-Muslim. I personally think the “Islamic Republic” part is problematic too. I wish the state could just be called the “Republic of Pakistan”. The government also has no right to legislate who is or is not a Muslim. That is an issue simply between the individual and his or her God. For what, it’s worth, the religion of an individual should not matter to the state. At least that’s my point of view.
Regarding secular-minded individuals in Pakistan, I can point you to the articles written on Pak Tea House by Yasser Latif Hamdani (YLH), a constitutional lawyer who is a firm advocate of “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. He has his quirks, including a sometimes irrational visceral reaction to India and all things Indian, but I believe he is sincere about being committed to secularism. His articles and many of the comments will show some of you that not all Pakistanis are “Islamists” or bigoted Muslims and there are people fighting the good fight in Pakistan as well. We should support them rather than generalizing about or denigrating an entire nation.
Hmm… why don’t you move to Pakistan – you can start a Shiv Sena Shakha somewhere in FATA. Don’t forget to live blog the ground breaking ceremony of your Shakha.
why i will move to pakistan. much better to show others who is king in india. too much migrant and muslim trouble already to be fixed here.
125 – I wasn’t aware. . Given how passively the Pakistani intellectual elite, and even the not so elite blogers and public commentators accept the hold of Islam over their constitution tells me that, ideologically, an overwhelming majority of Pakistani Muslims are the Islamic version of Shiv Sena/RSS.
Why have there been no mass protests by Pakistan’s lawyers, which we know they are capable of, demanding that the current constitution be trashed?
To keep things in historical perspective and balance from an academic point of view –
From the NYT article –
And the US govt. was so silent in the 80’s just coz of cold-war whereas such a hue and cry was made for Saddam. Human right subservient to political expediency ?
how so? does it include zardari jokes.
Kabir — It was “Republic of Pakistan” from June 1962 to December 1962, under the original Ayub Khan constitution. The first amendment to the 1960 constitution brought back God’s adjective.
On the web, Manan Ahmed and Ali Eteraz have both written about a deconfessionalized “Pakistan for Pakistanis”. It’s one of those foundational debates that Pak will be having 100 years from now. Anyway, here are some reminisces by Ardeshir Cowasjee with some quotes from his old Friend M.A. Jinnah in the Dawn:
Q. Could you as governor-general make a brief statement on the minorities problem?
A. At present I am only governor-general designate. We will assume for a moment that on August 15 I shall be really the governor-general of Pakistan. On that assumption, let me tell you that I shall not depart from what I said repeatedly with regard to the minorities. Every time I spoke about the minorities I meant what I said and what I said I meant. Minorities to whichever community they may belong will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed. The will have their rights and privileges and no doubt along with this goes the obligations of citizenship. Therefore, the minorities have their responsibilities also, and they will play their part in the affairs of this state. As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance, and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind.
Things didn’t quite turn out that way.
And btw has any of the journalists and human rights campaigners tried to really find out if Koran was really desecrated besides dissecting other issues and stories ? If it has really been then a share of the blame falls on the Pakistan Christians too for all the mess though murder and riots are unpardonable.
Sulabh – “Hmm… why don’t you move to Pakistan – you can start a Shiv Sena Shakha somewhere in FATA. Don’t forget to live blog the ground breaking ceremony of your Shakha.“
Good query, why indeed? I, too, have wondered as to why the brave Shiv Sainiks and Bajrang Dal soldiers or Ram’s soldiers, don’t, en mass, march into Pakistan to help their suffering Hindu brethren or carry out commando style raid to kill/capture Dawood Ibrahim. Heck I would be impressed if Bal Thackeray along with his Sena would display enough guts to go to Kashmir to reclaim the dozens of Hindu temples and thousands of Hindu homes lost to terrorism. If that too is inconvenient, how about ridding their fair city of the Dawood Mafia? The only thing these thugs can do is beat up girls who dare drink or beat up on dirt poor laborers who move from poorer northern states to Bombay, where they subject themselves to back breaking work and abominable living conditions, so they may feed their families.
FRom # 135 – “As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance, and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind.” What sort of a “secular” statesman threatens the citizens of his country? Can you imagine Nehru making similar veiled threats against Muslims in 1947?
Because at present Shiv Sainik Atul is not franchising outside India – Indian market is big enough for him.
Atul sez:
i am not shiv sena. please support bjp for hindu rajya in india.
Thanks Ikram for that comment (# 135). I hope some day we can go back to “Republic of Pakistan” and leave God outside the official business of the state.
@ Manpreet (#132), the lawyers haven’t protested to change the constitution not because some of them don’t believe that this should be done, but because this probably would be a completely impossible task at the moment given the unfortunate hold that islamism has on our society. That’s not to say there aren’t people who deeply believe in secularism, we probably just don’t have a critical mass yet.
@Priya, I think people generally agree that the allegations of desecration were false and that the mob was just using that as an excuse.
Coming back on topic, for those who don’t read Pakistani newspapers:
In pursuance of chief minister’s announcement, Faisalabad Commissioner Tahir Hussain gave cheques on Tuesday to heirs to seven Christians who had died in communal violence Gojra on Saturday. He gave three Rs500,000 cheques to Almas Maseeh, two to Mohsin Hameed, one each to Victor Maseeh and Junaid Ikhlas Earlier, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif said financial assistance would be given to affected families of Christian Colony in two days.
On the same page, another story
Two people were killed when a mob of hundreds of people, including factory workers, attacked a leather processing unit near Muridke on Tuesday over alleged desecration of Quranic verses. Leather unit owner Sheikh Najeeb Zafar is among the dead.
Police however, suspected that desecration issue had been used to instigate workers of East Leather Factory, Khatiala Virkan, and people living in nearby villages to settle some personal score. Police said there had been a simmering dispute between the management and workers over the wages issue.
Why do these things aways happen in Punjab?
The government also has no right to legislate who is or is not a Muslim. That is an issue simply between the individual and his or her God. For what, it’s worth, the religion of an individual should not matter to the state.
Kabir — Not so easy. The idea that “religion” is a personal affair and should have nothing to do with the “state” is a modern idea and relatively new, even in the West. We have to remember that for a long time, the Pope was both the religious and the political head of Christendom. The separation came later and not without a struggle. It is true though that this separation, arising from developments in Christianity and European history, has come to be seen as being “natural” by most in the West and westernised Indians (of whom I am one) and westernised Pakistanis (of whom, you are one I assume) . But India and Pakistan are not Western societies and it is hardly surprising that this idea of “separation” is not accepted by many within these states.
In 2006, following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to George W. Bush, the political scientist Mark Lilla wrote an article in the New York Times exploring how this separation arose in Europe and the US and it’s implications for present-day politics called “The Politics of God.” It makes for enlightening reading. You can see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/lzt63x
For those of us who live in India and Pakistan, there is no easy answer about how to deal with the conflict between those who subscribe to the idea of a “separation” and those who don’t. At least, I can’t think of any good answer.
Kabir,
Of relevance here is also Gandhi’s own take on politics and his differences with the route charted by the European enlightenment — in particular, the separation between “religion” and “politics.” The philosopher Akeel Bilgrami has a book “Gandhi, the philosopher” exploring these and other facets of Gandhi’s thought. The Wikipedia page on Akeel Bilgrami gives a few links including some interviews where you can learn more about his work on Gandhi.
Suresh, You are absolutely right. Seperation of church and state only occurred in the West after centuries of brutal religious wars. Hopefully we in South Asia can learn from the European experience and realize the benefits to be gained by confining religion to its sphere. In hetrogenous and diverse societies, the only way to protect the rights of all citizens is by treating them equally regardless of the faith (if any) they profess. I have no problem with people living there lives according to Islam (or any other religion for that matter), but they don’t have the right to tell me that I have to live my life in that manner as well.
I don’t believe in religious states anywhere in the world. That is why I think the creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state was wrong regardless of how secular an Islamic state Jinnah envisioned. To me this was an act of selfishness and bigotry on a extremely large scale at the cost of many lives during partition and ever since. It is a country created to favor Muslims whether they be secular or religious. If the land truly was supposed to be secular it should have never existed to favor Muslim needs over other religions in India. By creating an Islamic state for Indian Muslims, it made itself vulnerable to Islamization like it has seen over the decades. Of all the religions, more countries are Islamic than any other religion – by far. “…The very name Pakistan inscribes the nature of the problem. It is not a real country or nation but an acronym devised in the 1930s by a Muslim propagandist for partition named Chaudhary Rahmat Ali. It stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Indus-Sind. The stan suffix merely means “land.” In the Urdu language, the resulting acronym means “land of the pure.” It can be easily seen that this very name expresses expansionist tendencies and also conceals discriminatory ones. Kashmir, for example, is part of India. The Afghans are Muslim but not part of Pakistan. Most of Punjab is also in India. Interestingly, too, there is no B in this cobbled-together name, despite the fact that the country originally included the eastern part of Bengal (now Bangladesh, after fighting a war of independence against genocidal Pakistani repression) and still includes Baluchistan, a restive and neglected province that has been fighting a low-level secessionist struggle for decades. The P comes first only because Pakistan is essentially the property of the Punjabi military caste (which hated Benazir Bhutto, for example, because she came from Sind). As I once wrote, the country’s name “might as easily be rendered as ‘Akpistan’ or ‘Kapistan,’ depending on whether the battle to take over Afghanistan or Kashmir is to the fore.”
I could have phrased that a bit more tightly, since the original Pakistani motive for annexing and controlling Afghanistan is precisely the acquisition of “strategic depth” for its never-ending confrontation with India over Kashmir….” Slate, Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/
All of India should have belonged to all Indians of all religions under a secular democracy, which neither favors nor discriminates against any religion, minority or majority.
“…It was because I and my organization never believed in the formula that Muslims and Hindus form separate nations. We do not believe in the two-nation theory, nor in communal hatred or communalism itself. We believed that religion had no place in politics. Therefore, when we launched our movement of “Quit Kashmir” it was not only Muslims who suffered, but our Hindu and Sikh comrades as well….” Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah in the UN Security Council Meeting No.241 held on 5 February 1948 http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/abdulun48.html
That was the dream that should have come true.
The British had their own reasons for supporting the creation of an Islamic state out of India: [Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain … It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan. – Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC23Df04.html
Pakistan was meant from the start to be specifically a new Muslim power not only in South Asia but for other nearby regions in this game against Soviet Russia by the British.
Sameer, it’s fine that you don’t believe in religious states. Neither do I for that matter. But, Pakistan (and Israel) exist, and we can’t change this fact. While the quotes you have pulled make some good points, specifically that the name “land of the pure” can be seen as discriminatory, I have to disagree with two points. First, Hitchens unequivicolly states “Kashmir is part of India.” That is simply false. Kashmir is disputed territory and has been disputed since 1947. At this point, it is neither unequivicolly part of India or Pakistan.
Second, I agree with your wish that Partition not have occured, but part of the reason why it did occur was the (legitimate?) fear among Indian Muslims that in an independent India run by the Congress party of JLN, British domination would simply be replaced by Hindu domination. After all, Hindus did make up the overwhelming numerical majority. Whether this fear was unjustified or not, you and I were not alive in the 1940s and thus were not privy to the concerns of Jinnah and the proponents of a seperate Muslim state in South Asia.
Finally, Pakistan and India now exist seperately. All of us have to deal with that reality. It is in our best interests for our two countries to have good relations with each other, as both Prime Ministers Singh and Gilani realized at Sharm El Sheikh. As MMS said to the BJP: “War is the only alternative to dialogue.” I am glad he has chosen dialogue. Perhaps at some point in the future, some European Union type situation can occur in South Asia thus “reuniting” the subcontinent in a manner of speaking while not replacing the independent nations of Pakistan and India. But for that to occur the secular and progressive elements in Pakistan need to be supported. We already have an uphill fight with our Mullahs. We don’t need Indians questioning the validity of our country’s existence.
Problem is fundamentaly religion..needs to become officially a secular state
http://www.apnaorg.com/research-papers/maini-1/
Me thinks that this is relevant to the arguement
After all, Hindus did make up the overwhelming numerical majority.
Not so, about 25 % of the undivided India was Muslim. At that time, a lot of British Indian army (again quarter), and civil servants were Muslims. One should remember, during the World War II, Churchill and Jinnah had warmed up to each other quite a bit, and that is one of the reason (main one being Direct Action Day and subsequent events in Noahkali and aroud) that WhiteHall took two nation theory very seriously.
More so, the Muslim elites (Muslim League and elites from AMU, etc.) of North India (Delhi/ UP) thought they would never get an equitable power sharing with the Congress after the independence. One should remember they were serious discussions on separate electorates in independent Indian (I am glad that never happened).
Even Jinnah did not believe in two nation theory, at first. It was around 1939-1940, he changed his mind. One should remember, Jinnah was once a top tier Congress leader, and made his name as a lawyer in a sedition case (he argued an Indian asking for independence was not committing sedition).
There is a strong thought (that even includes people like Ayeesha Jalal) that Jinnah never wanted partition (he never gave the ownership of his house in Mumbai, and one pointed even wanted Pakistan Constituent Assembly meet in Delhi). It was a power negotiating strategy that went too far because of Congress calling the bluff again and again, later he could not turn his back on legions of his dedicated supporters, and also his sister (who was the greatest supporter of two nation theory, and took care of him when he secretly suffered from TB).
This all said, Pakistan is now fact of life.