Original post by Yawn!Erm....no.
Firstly, if Muslims were underrepresented in politics, then how can there have been a Muslim League in the first place? Also as early as the mid-1930 local elections in India, Muslim candidates were given reserved seats and other non-religion based parties that won states like Punjab and Bengal were led by Muslim leaders. There was no under-representation of Muslims in politics. Nehru was not backed because he was Hindu. He was backed because he advocated a strong centralist dominated independent India that would concentrate power in their hands. You (and others like you) seem determined to put religious spins on everything, even where there is none.
From historian Yasmin Khan, ''a descendent of Punjabi Muslims who were forced to flee the slaughter of 1947''
''As recently as the late 1930s, the most likely outcome seemed to be a united India with equal representation of Muslims and Hindus (and seats for Sikhs and others) in the legislature. That was what everyone was fighting for.
Jinnah certainly didn’t want a Pakistan – perhaps not even after it happened. A pork-eating, whisky-drinking secularist, the Muslim League leader disdained religious extremism and spent most of his life fighting for equal rights for Muslims in India, not for separation.
“I do not think Jinnah wanted Pakistan,” one of his confidantes wrote. “Right till 1946 he was prepared to work for one united India. So all the time he was talking in terms of Pakistan, this was, I always believed, a bargaining point for him.” Events then forced him to stick with the Pakistan line; he was likely horrified with the results.''
From Mountbatten who actually presided over the negotiations of Partition with Jinnah.
''The last thing Jinnah wanted was that we should go. He said first he didn't want a separate Pakistan, just wanted us to stay and hold the reins for them. But the Hindus wanted us to go because they had gone to British universities, they were all terribly imbued with sort of Fabian ideas and they just thought it was wrong that the British should be ruling India. I mentioned that we ruled with the consent, with the affection, of the vast masses. No doubt of that. But the intelligent, educated people didn't like it. So that this is one of the things one was up against.''
''So how could we meet the Congress Party's desire without transferring power? We couldn't. We were obliged to the transfer of power. Nobody, particularly me, wished to have any partition in India. It was a ghastly thought. And it wasn't going to work. It wasn't really going to work because, you see, if you look at the distribution of the Muslim population in India, it's all over India. I don't suppose that we were able to separate more than half the Muslims and make them into East and West Pakistan. The rest of them were all over India. Most were perfectly happy to stay.''
''You see, I found it very difficult to believe that an educated man, a man of apparently goodwill, with great affection and admiration for the British, a man who'd shown me consideration, although of a rather cold sort, I found it rather difficult to believe that he would accept India becoming a second class power, and destroy everything, and produce what he himself had said would be an unviable Pakistan.''
'Your' Jinnah, lol. Your reaction shows that you cannot separate emotion from fact. As for those quotes.....HELLO.....he was a politician. He was securing a leadership position in a new state he was creating, of course he would say these things. How naive are you? Jinnah was not even a devout Muslim. He only played that card (very hard) to win popular support from Muslims for Pakistan, and even then, many Muslims did not support him. Afterward, he tried to backtrack from the religious hysteria he had whipped up, but too late. he died before he could clean up his mess.
How are those two points even related in any way, lol? I'm sure you like to believe all that since the harsh truth is far less glorious. You've willingly pulled the wool over your eyes because it's easier to believe lies. No one is denying that Jinnah altered the course of history - He altered it for the worst. Ironically enough, mainly for Pakistanis.
You can display your patriotism as much as you like, but that's not really the issue here. You keep going on about the 'bad Indians', but the fact is that India is miles better than Pakistan and that gap will only get bigger. You can stew in your delusions of Muslims being persecuted in India and safe in Pakistan as much as you want, yet Muslims in India are presidents, actors/actresses, cricketers, politicians, news anchors and their votes are important in any election. When Indian Muslims were trapped in Yemen, the (Hindu/Sikh dominated) Indian military got them out. Even your own Pakistani singers, actors/actresses come over (including for citizenship). If India is so terrible to Muslims, why would they?
Personally, I couldn't care less if you want to be proud Pakistanis....good for you. I don't see you as any different to proud French or proud South Africans. But you can ditch the whole 'India is terrible to Muslims and Pakistan is a haven for them' card. That has already been exposed as a lie, and trying to impose your false, manufactured history on others to justify it is not gonna fly.