Re: A Muslim Indian never lives in peace
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.
Many Indians like to give the reasons behind Partition their own spin. It was never a case of whether Muslims could or could not live with Hindus. You need to realise this. The premise of partition, as you believe, as you state, is wholly untrue.
The idea behind Partition was that Muslims could never prosper living under a Hindu majority **whilst *remaining true to their cultural, socio-political and religious truths (you need to realise that Islam is not a religion indiginous to India and several of its elementary idiosyncrasies are incompatible with Hindu India's realities); that they would never achieve their full aspirations when outnumbered by Hindus 3:1, and that a democratic set-up with a Hindu majority would deny Muslims a) an independent political voice and most importantly b) the right to freely practise their religion. This is beautifully demonstrated by Allama Iqbal (r.a.) in one of his verses:Mullah ko jo hai Hind main sajday ki ijazat,*
** Nadan ye samjhta hai kay Islam hai azaad.**
The British had, in a matter of a century, reversed a social order that had developed over the last three-quarter millenium. From being the educated, ruling elite of India, Muslims became the most backward, uneducated and resourceless peoples. It is no joke that the British vastly preferred their Hindu/Sikh subjects over their Muslims one; you need look only at such banal matters like the preference of Hindu over Urdu and Farsi as well as the development of the heretic Qadiani sect designed to internally weaken Islam.
Anyhow, the premise is one we still maintain. For Muslims to propser in India, they must visibly 'Indianify/Hinduify/Secularise' - I wonder how many Muslims would make it to the post of Indian VP if they did not completely shed Orthodox Islam. If they kept beards, prayed 5 times a day, called for Islamic brotherhood, criticised India's killings of Kashmiris, saw themselves as Muslims first and Indians second *et al. *Pakistan has discrmination too, and it has certainly not, as of yet, lived up to its full potential, but the failure of Pakistan's children to fulfill the dreams of their forefathers does not make those dreams invalid. We have had Christian Chief Justices of Pakistan, Hindu justices of the Supreme Court, Hindu players in our cricket team, Christian singers, Ahmedi politicians, not to mention half of our PMs/Presidents have been Shia'. All of this without them having to become Muslims or similar to Muslims (or in the case of Shia Muslims without them having to become Sunni Muslims or similar to Sunni Muslims). Our own Rana Bhagwandas was in India a few years ago on a personal pilgrimage. What would you do if your VP attended a Deobandi Conference organised by the Jamat-e-Islami in Nowshera?
Hell, it takes one or two statements from Shahrukh Khan about the lack of Pakistani players in the IPL and your whole country goes crazy, whereas our own Altaf Hussain has publicly called Partition a blunder, IN INDIA and is still loved by millions. What a joke.
The Shia-Sunni conflict you mention is at a level low enough to be insignificant. You need to realise something: Pakistan has the world's second largest number of Sunnis (after Indonesia) and the world's second largest number of Shia's (after Iran). If the level of communal violence was at the level you would describe, Pakistan would be on fire. Given how hetergenous our society is, Pakistanis are for the most part pluralistic and accepting of others; which is why in most localities, you will find a Shia' mosque, a Berelvi mosque, a Deobandi mosque, an Ahl-e-Hadith mosque, a Christian church... etc *without issue. So for you to say that Shia's face wide-spread discrimination is simply **not* the case. Qaid-e-Azam was a Shia, Bhutto was a Shia, Benazir is a Shia, Zardari is a Shia... People may not like them, but that was hardly because of the madhab they belonged to.
As for the need to forge an identity, you must realise that every society tries to do this; India too has attempted to promote its own nationalistic brand, both to its internal population and to the international community at large; 'Mother India,' 'World's Largest Democracy', 'Incredible India' etc etc, brands which has been very successful in fooling the world and covering the fact that your country is in instances more screwed over than Sub-Saharan Africa. But does that outward glitter conceal the fact that your NW corridor is on fire? Or that Kashmir is suddenly a major pain in your ass again?
India is simply put, in my opinion, too big to sustain itself; you are a much, much, much more hetergenous society than China. You have too many differences of opinion, too many political differences, too many communities, beliefs, languages and religions. You are as Winston Churchill said "merely a geographical expression... [and]... no more a single country than the equator." I would worry about India's own future existence than Pakistan's failures.
