|Image From: www.imohitkamboj.com|
We are still quoting from history, most certainly of the facts that lie before us. Examine the situation pre-1947 August. Increased freedom activism on many fronts, primarily the Congress which was secular yet classified as Hindu dominion and the other, the Muslim League led by Jinnah.
The major divide came through centuries, both slaved or ruled by Hindu and Muslim kings, the Muslims discovered their partial identity when the Britishers decided to rule them based on their religion. A very inefficient and biased form of governance which was based on profit. There was no ideology other than serving to the Queen of England. Much like the school curriculum divided for different age groups, the people of India as citizens of many other countries being a different front, they used the policy of divide and rule. This led to consciousness but not qualifying in terms of secularism or even a separate country because they misjudged themselves as a new identity over a century.
The Muslim invaders who came from as far as Arab world, Persia, Iran and Turkey could not further define or state their ideological definition yet their present identity was unformed without the specification of role of united India as their motherland. This is inclusive of living, working, doing business, serving and being in harmony with other sections of society. What Jinnah did was unfortunate.
Today, we compulsively fight many wars both in real sense and philosophically with Pakistan over continued efforts by terrorists to claim Kashmir or to ensue seeds of hatred among Indian Muslims. No wonder, we also continually spew the venom on the political leaders who are able to lead the Hindu fraction in some direction while there were hints of friction between Muslims and Hindus. This is a direct observation in relation to Mr. Narendra Modi, the future prime-ministerial candidate from BJP.
This political leader has fought through our constant questioning of secularism while in different part of country, there are sometimes incidents of violence between the two sectarians. Jinnah was not a strong leader or may be he did not had a strong backing of supporters who could follow him, if he chose to determine a different fate. To be a strong leader is to be Mahatma Gandhi who sacrificed his life and his efforts remain undisputed even in the matters of partition because he tried to convince Jinnah and then the public with his unending fasts.
We might not have any expectation other than scare of another ugly event where the government may fail to check the unruly civilians from both the sides when the issues closer will rise up. The truth is that the Congress is unable to judge him as an efficient political leader who can make the people anywhere believe in issues of more wide interest and benefit. It could be about rural development, no racial discrimination or national security. He dominated the election scenario with extensive insights.
Could be we have more dynamic debates, so that we could ask the next Jinnah to stop pressurizing under some doctrine that is not wrong in its entirety being already established as a different country but yet, not at the expense of the billions significant of this country.