Slide 1The Role of the Muslim League in the national movement & its impact on the future course of India & Pakistan
1 Answer | Add Yours
It seems as if this is taken from a presentation or some type of Powerpoint work. If this is the case, all of the thoughts featured here on enotes might have to be seen as secondary to what is presented in the slide show. With that in mind, the Muslim League played a major role in articulating the vision of what modern India is seen as right now. The Muslim League, headed at the time by Muhammed Ali Jinnah, was instrumental in devising the two solution state. This policy argued with the newly conferred status of independence on the subcontinent, there should be two nations to reflect the two dominant identities of the region. Jinnah said as much in a speech in 1940 in Lahore:
"Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature... It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state."
In actuality, the Muslim League had proposed the "two nation" idea as early as 1930, when there had been sentiment percolating that the future of India did not include a voice for the Muslim experience. The Muslim League was a prominent voice for the advocates of the two state solution at a time when the question of Independence was fraught with uncertainty and doubt. While the league did put forth the idea of separate states, it should be noted that there were attempts, particularly by Jinnah, to try to work with Hindus and Muslims in a convergent vision of India. I am not certain that it is fair or historically accurate to play Partition as something only the Muslims drove for and the Hindus simply "sat on their hands" and did nothing. I think that the argument would be that both nations' leadership could have done more to prevent the hostilities brewing between both groups and certainly could have done more to quell the violence that each group perpetrated upon the other.
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotes