History did something similar with the Lahore Resolution on March 23, 1940, in
which it was said: "The All India Muslim League meeting is of the opinion
that no constitutional plan will be practicable in this country and acceptable
to the Muslims unless it is based on the following principles." Not
formulated: i.e. geographically contiguous areas should be demarcated into
areas where Muslims are the majority, such as the north-eastern and western
parts of India, and should be formed into independent states whose constituent
units are independent and sovereign. Also, appropriate, effective and final
protection of the religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and
other rights and interests of the minorities in these units and regions should
be clearly presented in the constitution with their advice.
The Lahore Agreement, which later became the Pakistan Resolution, and the blood
of sectarian division passed through the river that became the Kingdom of God,
Muhammad Ali Jinnah could not remain without expressing his deep regret by
calling it Pakistan. The religious basis of the partition of Bengal and Punjab
proved to be a boon for them. It was the last British viceroy, Lord
Mountbatten, to persuade the last British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, not to
divide Punjab and Bengal because of his own ideology of religious partition,
until the night before the proposed partition of India. The attempt was
unsuccessful. Rather, it would be better to say that the great pillars of
freedom of the subcontinent, including Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru, had no
illusions that the morning of freedom would turn into a sun-soaked evening.
Mahatma Gandhiji was the only leader and along with him were leaders like
Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, Dr. Umbedkar and Bacha Khan who tried to the last
degree to stop the Hindu Muslim riots. Gandhiji sat on his deathbed to stop the
riots in Delhi, to dispose of Muslim properties and places of worship and to
pay Pakistan's tribute to the treasury, and before he repeated the same process
in Punjab and came to Pakistan, it was a Hindu Rashtra. were killed by the
rioters of K.
Then the same
Quaid-e-Azam (who became the sole spokesperson of the "two-nation
theory" called the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood and became the
creator of a Muslim-majority state) was also killed in the 11th Legislative
Assembly in Karachi. In the form of his secular speech at the inaugural meeting
in August, instead of insisting on the "two nation theory", he
declared the separation of religion from the state and politics. Quaid-i-Azam
said: “You are free. You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to
your mosques and to go to any place of worship in the state of Pakistan. You
belong to any religion, caste or race. The state has nothing to do with it. And
according to Iqbal:
Why did you break from the branch, why did I break from the branch?
According to author Muhammad Wasim (Political Conflict in Pakistan):
"Pakistan seceded from India in 1947. But India did not secede from
Pakistan. The origins of the first major conflict in Pakistan can be traced to
Pakistan's imperative to de-Indianize itself." ... it became an
unconscious and instinctive determination to engage with the new 'other' i.e.
stubbornly, primarily across the border, but also within (i.e. maintaining the
religious divide) ... (later) religion. developed as a marker and formative
factor of national identity first in Pakistan and a generation or two later in
India". But it is strange that the establishment of a majority Muslim
state or an Islamic state in Pakistan (which is a negation of the Lahore
Resolution and Quaid-e-Azam's historical asset speech of 11 August 1947) and
now the progress of Hindutva Parivar in India towards the establishment of
Hindu Rashtra. Our apologists endorse the "two-nation theory". Which,
unfortunately, is actually the tragic end of the religious division of the
subcontinent.
Ranbir Samdar (Introduction – The Reshaping of States and Minds') asks, so was
partition a 'turk taluk', a 'breakdown' of ties, that Jawaharlal Nehru thought
"the plan of partition offered a way out and we adopted it". But,
Sanjay Chaturvedi (The Excess of Geopolitics: The Partition of British India)
asks: "Is 'religious division' or partition a solution to conflict or does
it itself (maintain) the basis for (perpetual) growth of conflict." And
unfortunately In 1947, the Cabinet Mission Plan's rejection of the brilliant
practical and democratic plan of semi-federal and regional autonomous units or
federations has become a permanent scourge for the subcontinent and has
remained a shackle for future generations, from which there is a remote
possibility of salvation. Not seen.
In India, the partition was seen as the "Great Divide" of Indian civilization, with prominent historians such as Romila Thapar questioning the existence of a single nation or Aryan 'race' or civilization (early India). Despite the bloodshed, in which the Congress Party leadership joined in rejecting the loose federal scheme proposed by the Cabinet Mission Plan, the "danger of the 'two-nation theory' with the rise of related majoritarian sectarianism in all three of the subcontinent (ex. ) is keeping sections worried. Pakistan's evolution towards a "military state", based on the threat of an 'eternal enemy' from India. If India feels threatened by Pakistan's alliance with the US, Pakistan is vulnerable It happened and it tried counter-strategic alignment for its survival. This endless series continues till now.
After the expected victory of Narendra Modi in the upcoming elections, if India
will constitutionally revert to becoming a Hindu Rashtra, then Pakistan, as a
majority Muslim state, has now become a cantonment state. March 23 is not a
resolution, but a grand parade and the future is mortgaged to the debtors! Wow,
freedom, so where is it lost?
0 Comments