Re: A Muslim Indian never lives in peace
[QUOTE]
Iqbal's prophecy wasnt that Muslims would be impoverished in India (although even with the wealthy Muslims included, they were economically less well-off). Furthermore there is only a certain amount of wealth 'wealthy' Muslims could have taken with them to Pakistan. The wealth and income they had was based in India, and thats where it remained.
[/QUOTE]
You completely missed my point. A wealthy and educated elite class of Muslims was necessary to give leadership to Indian Muslims and guide them in a positive direction. However after the migration of Muslims Elite from India after Partition, the Mullahs assumed the leadership for the poor Muslims of India and largely dictate the social and religious discourse. This is the reason that even today the personal laws of Indian Muslims are even more regressive than those of Pakistan. The opportunistic (often Hindu) politicians made alliances with these Mullahs and exploit them as a vote bank.If a Hindu criticizes these Mullahs and their version of Islam, he is labeled as Islamophobic or worse a RSS-walla. The rise of orthodoxy amongst the Indian Muslims had a equal and opposite reaction from the Hindu society. One sees the echo of this in the British society with the rise of parties like BNP and EDL.
In other words, Iqbal's prophecy that - Muslims and Hindus- can't live together, was partially fulfilled when educated Muslims left India and Indian Muslims were denied an enlightened leadership.
[QUOTE]
no, we simply agree that Muslim countries are irrelevant when discussing a 'two-nation' theory applied to Muslim minorities.
[/QUOTE]
The OP said that A Muslim Indian never lives in peace, my argument is that Indian Muslims lives in much more peace than a Pakistani Muslim.
Regarding China, the only thing that you have proven is that the discrimination and killings of Uighar Muslims were further exacerbated by ethnic/cultural differences. In Urumqui the repression was not just by State Police but even normal Hans rioted against the Muslims. All this we know even when media is heavily censured in China, God knows what else goes on behind the bamboo curtain.
[QUOTE]
the fact that it was Muslims that suffered most and generally suffer most in communal violence in modern, post-colonial India. The 'kartoot' of Muslim invaders is besides the point.
[/QUOTE]
Historically, societies in the Indian subcontinent have been largely peaceful interrupted by despicable incidents of horrible violence. Partition never solved this problem. Indeed it was based on a intolerant premise - that Hindus and Muslims can't live together. After independence, a need was felt to justify Pakistan's creation to Pakistani citizens. Rather than appreciacion for diversity, intolerance for the "other" and a desire for a monolithic society was inculcated into the social discourse. Ahmadis were the first casualty during the 1952 anti-Ahamdi riots. Shias were brutally repressed in Gilgit. Both these minority sects continue to face widespread discrimination and violence. The desire for a homogeneous Muslim society also widened various ethnic schisms in Pakistan including Punjabi/Bangla, Mohajir/Sindhi, Pashtun/Mohajir, Pashtun/Punjabi, Balochi/Punjabi, etc.
OTOH, in India one sees that consistent anti-Indian stance and policy by Pakistan has exacerbated the problems of Muslims as it has given a convenient stick in the hands of the right wing forces. A curious fact: in 1984 General Election BJP only won 2 Parliamentary seats. In 1989 elections BJP scored 85 seats, incidentally the same year when the Pakistan backed mujahideen were terrorizing the Kashmiri Pandits.
So I leave it to you to conclude whether Partition was good or bad from the POV of Muslims of pre-Partition India.
