A very interesting and nice read after a long time. Personally, what I felt after reading it is that, (assuming it has not been covered in the rest of the writing) the article, in its quest for the concept of Muslim nationalism and nationalist Muslim, has strolled a little bit more in the period between 1937 to 1947; emphasizing strongly on the creation of an exclusive state for Muslims and the further repercussions among political and social quarters.
It is entirely my own perception that, the study of Indian Nationalism and the role of Islam in it will remain incomplete if we exclude four different points at different times of Indian History viz the introduction of Islam in North West and South West of India in eighth century and the nature of its further penetration into the existing societies, a detailed study of the Medina Charter, Mughal emperor Akbar's concept of rahi aql in 16th Century and finally, a more detailed discourse on the Muslim sentiments in North West Frontier province, Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and Bengal (where Musllims enjoyed substantial majority) about a separate Islamic State. Only then, perhaps we will understand better, the role of Islam in Indian (unified) nationalism amidst of massive heterogeneity and its present implications.
PS: No comments, anyone?
The basis for a separate state was the fact that by the turn of the 20th Century, Muslims of the subcontinent, due to their own reasons, had become way way behind the much larger Hindu community. When you see a post man, a clerk, a soldier, an officer, a tax man, a railway engineer (Didn't British take a bunch to Africa as well?) etc being majority Hindus, you tend to harbor some resentment. It's innate human weakness, and they will find ways to correct this disparity. Isn't this the same in the west? When they see a brown guy 'taking local jobs' etc?
Second was the Congress, which was created to help further the participation of native Indians within the British iron handed rule. Since it too became too much Hindu dominated, the politics became hindu dominated as well, which was a cause for concern for Muslims.
Third, in it's initial stages Jinnah actually preached against a separate homeland. Jinnah was a trained barrister, an advocate and a freaking good one. Just like Gandhi. In him, the muslims saw a man who could take on the superior 'Gora sahib' and as such he was asked by Iqbal and others to come join the politics and lead Muslim league, and as such advocate for a separate homeland because by the time 1940s arrived, the pull was too far great.
Now, what better opportunity to get your demands met, when Britain was bankrupt in 1945 and had no cash left to help the Indians? (later evident by their hastily set up partition plan) and thanks to the dyslexic Cyril Radcliffe, the map was anything but along the linguistic/ethnic lines, and omitted a big chunk of J&K altogether.
Many people mistakenly believe that it was Jinnah who created Pakistan. Nope. He did not. It was the wider muslim movement, heck Iqbal had more role to play than Jinnah. Jinnah took it as
pro bono (if that's the correct term for free services) and merely became the representative of the muslims in front of the British and Congress, and as such advocated their demands.
It's not like one day Jinnah dreamed of a separate homeland and he said, let's make Pakistan.
