Why Pakistan was created.

Why was Pakistan created? 

One answer is that Muslim business magnates like Sir Abdullah Haroon and the Ispahanis wanted a separate Pakistan free of competition from non-Muslim business houses. Jinnah, who had warned that Islamic inheritance law was handicapping Muslim enterprises, was the ideal leader for such a country. 

Another answer- one that Hindus should accept- is that Congress was utterly shit. Its leader was a crackpot who believed that the country's Defense policy should be immediate surrender to any and everybody. Its economic policy should be spinning cotton by hand. Its education policy should be 'Nai Talim' which consisted of teaching kids to spin cotton. Sadly, the thread they produced was unusable. They had been taught to destroy value, not create it. 

Nehru, it is true, was not a crackpot. But he had zero organizational or administrative ability. His 'mass contact' program to reach out to Muslims had failed completely. If anything, it had worsened Shia Sunni relations in Nehru's own state. The man was a fool though, at least, not an open Hindu chauvinist. Still, he thought Stalin's horrible regime was a model worth emulating. But Stalin burned Qurans. Out of the 26,000 mosques in Central Asia he closed all but a thousand. 

Given that both the Congress of the Hindus and the Communist party of the intellectuals were equally shitty, it made sense for Muslims to go their own way in places where they were the majority. Minority Muslims, sadly, would have to rise up through hard work, piety and enterprise. 

However, the two answers given above were not the reason that Dr. S.A Latif, of Hyderabad, mentioned in his book 'The Muslim Problem in India' which suggested that Muslims were just as stupid as Hindus and this was the real problem in India. 

To add to the misfortune of Muslims, the new rulers (i.e. Congress in the Hindu majority Provinces) are really new to the difficult and delicate art of government. Never in their past history were the Hindus called upon to rule over non-Hindus such as Muslims on any large scale. In the declining days of the Mogul Empire, no doubt, a few enterprising individuals from amongst them carved out of the country a number of Hindu principalities. But then their rule in such areas was the rule of rebels enjoying no stability, and before they could build up any traditions of a just rule, they fell under the enervating influence of the British power and direction, and lost all initiative.

This cretin didn't get that he was describing the Nizam and the Nawabs of Bhopal, Rampur etc. The plain fact is that Muslim rulers never learned how to rule over anybody including their own patricidal sons. The Europeans had cohesive Royal families where the younger son supported the elder son's claim to the throne. Europeans might do ethnic cleansing or slaughter 'heretics' on an industrial scale, but they were cohesive and could, on occasion, pursue sensible policies from decade to decade and generation to generation.  

But the bulk of Hindus remained what they were for ages — a subject people.

Like the Muslims- everywhere except Turkey, which was under Ataturk at that time and hence aggressively pursuing an anti-Islamist policy. It had got rid of the Arabic script and adopted the la-deen Latin script.  

And to them is the opportunity given now to control the destinies of the great masses of this sub-continent, not less than 90 millions of whom belong to the martial races of Muslims

who were so martial that they ran the fuck away from General Dyer in the third Afghan War. 

who had ruled over them for centuries. And as has happened so often in history in such cases, the new rulers having no hereditary aptitude for governance have not been able to resist the lure of power, and have therefore developed an urge to put down their erstwhile masters and to force their own culture upon them.

Muslims never gained the knack of ruling over non-Muslims- save in stable monarchies whose Sheikhs enjoyed being very very rich.  The bigger question was whether Muslim polities could transition to civil, mercantile, societies where confessional faith was no bar to equal treatment. Sadly, in South Asia, the answer seems to be no. 

That is the impression which the Muslims in India have received on their minds from what has happened during the last two years in all those provinces which have come under the control of the Hindu majority.

No Province came under the control of the Muslim League because it was shit. 

The Muslim leader, Mr. M. A. Jinnah, than whom no greater patriot lives in the country, has tried to impress upon the leaders of the majority community, that the way they were going was not the way of unity and that it would create endless civil strife and put off indefinitely India's attainment of freedom.

Provincial autonomy had been achieved. Jinnah was not alone in holding up the creation of a Federal Government. The Princes controlled one third of India territory and were in no hurry to slit their own throats.  

But his voice has gone unheeded. He has told them that if a new constitution is to lead the people of India to freedom, that freedom should be for every cultural unit and not for the majority community only.

Which is why Kaffirs should stop being the majority if they are too inconsiderate not to simply fuck off and die already.  

But the Hindu leaders flushed with their new power are not in a mood to come to terms with him on the basis of equality.

Jinnah got less than half the Muslim seats. He wasn't equal to shit.  

Mr. Jinnah has asked for nothing but fair treatment.

It was only fair to treat him as a loser because he had lost. On the other hand, he won the 1946 election hands down. But that was because Congress had shown it was utterly crap during the war.  

His one desire is to have for the country a constitution under which no single community, Muslim or Hindu, should gain an upper hand over the other.

What he got was a country which was a shithole which Hindus would realize they had been lucky to flee.  

The high-command of the Congress, which is essentially Hindu in composition and organisation, would agree to no such proposition. It insists that the voice of the majority, of whatever sort it might be, should prevail in the administration of the country and points out in its support what happens under certain democratic constitutions, by conveniently ignoring the peculiar circumstances of India.

The peculiar circumstance of India was that the Muslims lost by bigoted intransigence everything they had gained by anti-Imperialistic patriotism.

So these people, living a most undemocratic social life, demand democratic institutions, only to exploit them for swamping the whole country with their undemocratic Hindu culture!

Pakistan never got 'democratic institutions'. The problem with 'martial races' is that they end up being ruled by their own Army. Latif, the author of the above, remained in Hyderabad. Undemocratic Hindu culture didn't slit his throat. He didn't live to see the rise of Owaisi who, to his credit, regularly tells the Pakistanis to go fuck themselves. I suppose the Pakistanis could equally well respond that it was Muslims from the wrong side of the border who turned up to fuck their country over. Still, if the Hindus hadn't fallen for the toothless charms of the maha-crackpot, perhaps there was a better way forward.