Wrong parallel

I am a bit busy but just wanted to comment on this article. While I do agree with the basic thrust of the article, which is the religious character of the so called independence movement, the parallel between agitation by Hindus of  Jammu and by Muslim League is historically incorrect.

The reason Partition took place was not because Muslims feared for their lives and safety in united India, but, in short, because of democracy. Democracy meant electoral supremacy of Hindus, which meant that Hindus rather than Muslims would have an upper hand in power.

Such an arrangement was unacceptable to Muslim League, a coalition of Muslim intellectuals, gentry and clerics. Congress, in contrast, protested that such concerns were misplaced as there were no reasons to believe that Hindus would ever constitute a monolithic bloc. But to Muslim League even a distant possibility for such an eventuality was unimaginable.

Again, it was not for safety. To Muslim establishment, for any arrangement to be acceptable, a parity between Hindus and Muslims was must at minimum. The reason for this is not very hard to discern either, for them they were a superior people, not also by virtue of history of conquest over Hindus, but also because they were the followers of true faith, as opposed to the kaffirs. Congress couldn't agree to it, because this would have opened a Pandora's box. Result was Partition and resulting carnage.

In contrast, Hindus in J&K have considerable grievances. They, as the example of Kashmiri Pundits shows, have reason to worry for their safety. They also have, justified, resentment against Valley hegemony and discrimination by center for appeasing the separatists.

Therefore there is no justification to compare the two cases.

Updated:  There is of course this little bit of historical revisionism whereby RSS/Hindu MahaSabha/Veer Savarkar are elevated to co-villainy of  partition along with Muslim League, whereas the truth, and one which would have been clear enough if only our historical narrative were not a monopoly of secular fascists and if  Hindus were not so disgustingly Dhimmi, is that  a) they were marginal players and b) they didn't have same opinions reg. Partition although I have come to the same conclusion as Veer Savarkar now.