We just learn that we don’t know anything from history, according to the saying.Georg Hegel
The drama is not that story ignores history, but rather that we overlook it, especially when the information is uncomfortable.
As a result of jihadists ‘ opening fire on Hindu tourists on April 22, the quiet rocks of Pahalgam in Kashmir turned scarlet with assault. 26 people were killed. Except for one nearby Muslim who died protecting the victims, they demanded that all Qur’an verses be recited to detect and protect Muslims.
Just a few times after Asim Munir, the chief general of the Pakistan Army, referred to Kashmir as Pakistan’s” throat spirit” and invoked the two-nation hypothesis, which states that Hindus and Muslims cannot survive, the timing was chilling.
Where the concept disintegrated
Some American scholars were skeptical that India may survive until it gained independence in 1947. Their reasoning was skewed, statistical, and based on Western notions of statehood. How can a divided land remain united when there are too many castes, to many languages, to many gods, and too many sub-nationalisms? However, it wasn’t India that shattered.  ,
The second major split in the story was caused by Bangladesh’s birth.  ,
When philosophy is replaced by story, a country shifts from a forward-looking perspective to a backward-looking storyline. It’s more about defending a variation of the previous than it is about building the future. Today, Pakistan is a perfect example. The declaration of Munir is a proof of it.  ,
Pakistan’s military has ruled through worry for decades, not competence, by producing fear to get consent: Blame enemies when in danger; cover in the flag when accountability is required. Numerous nations are currently adopting this strategy to justify their governments. Neglect costs more than just coverage failure. It deteriorates morally.  ,
Pakistan is a tried condition that is failing internally. However, it wants India to adopt a similar course. We must take a firm decision and make an intelligent response.  ,
The jinnahization of bulk patriotism
Following the attack, American social media, including BJP-linked handles, promoted a Hindu-Muslim matter by questioning religion and not class. This conflicting tale echoes the two-nation principle of Pakistan Army Chief Munir. Why does Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, continue to support the tale that our opponents do?  ,
India now experiences troubling déjà deja from the 1940s American India. In light of the rising magnetization, Modi seems to be following Jinnah’s plan of attack.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was once praised for upholding Hindu-Muslim unity, became antagonistic as Gandhi’s control expanded, enlarging his personal goals toward a distinct Muslim state. He vowed to give Muslims the rights, shelter, and respect they deserve. The end result was a condition that is now the victim of religious extremism, problems, and coups.
Jinnah and Modi have striking similarities that are fundamental rather than persuasive. In times of national uncertainty, both leaders used individuality as weapon. Both made the most of the fear: Modi on the feared social death of Hindus in a liberal nation, and Jinnah on the feared oppression of Muslims in a united India. Both intended to use immigrants as excuses.  ,  ,
In the republican conversation, Jinnah’s tradition cast doubt on Indian Muslims ‘ trust. Modi runs the risk of doing the same to Hindus, turning a moderate majority into a hegemonic crowd.  ,
Jinnah’s Pakistan was founded on the idea that sector would not coexist without diversity. It struggles with its individuality now. His reputation warns against the disintegration of divided societies.
India is currently at a crossroads: to support Gandhi’s diversity or to fall into a Jinnah-style section that undermines the idea of India itself.