Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

[ravage]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

@N3m3sis

You forget that there would not have been any fight in the first place. The E. Pakistani disaffection was primarily due to a linguistic movement. Bengali was deemed an “Islamic” language, Bengali “Hindu”, other issues like economic exploitation just added to the alienation. In India’s case, Bengali is already a national language. India also has had many language movements, Anti-Hindi movement in Tamilnadu, being the most famous one. However the solution was not to impose Hindi, but to make Tamil an official language.

You assume that it would not have been a fight in the first place. I see India’s history and see evidence that the same communal dynamics, dating to before partition would have played out. You believe otherwise. Either way theres no way of verifying it whether or not gujrat style bloodbaths would have played out on a grander scale or not.

As a person living in a Non-Muslim country, that violence was a pretext on the part of a tiny Muslim elite ( Educated Muslims from UP and Feudals from Sindh/Punjab) to demand a separate State as they felt that their economic and political interests were under threat in a “Hindu ruled” India ? And the violence and the ensuing prejudices was utilized to generate a mass base amongst the Muslims of India ?

History is understandably interpreted differently by both sides. The theory however is not based solely on the threat or reality of violence. To strongly identify with religion/culture you need not have the threat of violence. It helps make the case though if the country has a history of periodic communal bloodbaths (before partition i.e.)

Yes as reactionary movements are short-lived in a large country like India. Gujarat is 10 % of India. Indian government can not remove him arbitrarily. He is a pretty popular CM as for all his flaws he has made Gujarat the economic powerhouse of India. There is minimum corruption in Guj. Unfortunately for common people the banal issues of *Roti,Kapada,Makan *are much more important. And if he is removed, it is only going to make things worse, as his supporters will once again whip up hatred against Muslims. It will be much more practical to deal with him once he is out of power and mired in some scandal or other

So the idea is that to marginalize him one should keep him as the CM. Whatever the reasons for his popularity, its pretty clear that the state involved in the worst Muslim violence, with state officials widely seen as colluding with the violence (as evidenced by the revocation of Modi’s US visa) didnt really reject BJP or Modi because they blamed them for what happened to Muslims.

Clearly the Indian society has seen BJP negatively because of Gujrat when Modi is toutedby powerful people as the future PM of India.

@N3m3sis

Ravage,
Neither you or me are in any situation to judge the motive of violence against Muslims in China. What is statistically known is that Muslims have been reduced to a minority in their own province.

And the relevance of that is…

Every Indian ( except RSS supporters) will tell you that 2-nation theory is false ( as 150 million Muslims live in India) .

Not really. I have many Indian relatives, and while some of them are nationalists, many of them identify with Pakistan (ideologically)

What I have been arguing is that the Partition has facilitated creation of *conditions, *partially at least especially in the case of Gujarat, on whose premise it was based.

Once again, its simply incorrect to claim that the partition or sense of separate identity was based on the premise of violence or Muslim squalor. Violence against Muslims and their relative squalor, which predates the partition, only demonstrates the need for it in a more obvious way.