History is neutral; its task is to  construct and deconstruct myths which  are generally created to protect and defend the interests of some groups and individuals with the help of historical facts . These facts are sometimes distorted to  serve the interest of powerful groups and sometimes  they are invented to justify their acts. Myths have such power and charm  that  they capture the mind and soul of the people. They create a halo of mystery and romance around  them with such force that they become a part of culture and people see in them accomplishment of their dreams. Any attempt to deconstruct these myths is regarded as an attack on culture and traditions which would upset the whole structure of a society. Nobody wants to see the myths decomposed or corrected because with the passage of time people are emotionally involved in the process of myth making which subsequently become vital part of their thinking; without them they feel hollowness in their lives.

 One such myth in our  recent history is the myth of Muslim separatism in the Indian subcontinent which ultimately led to the partition of 1947. The myth is created with such vigour and energy and with such emotions that it has become an integral part of our psyche. Any denial or rejection of it is tantamount to treason. The careful study, however, shows that the whole myth of  Muslim separatism is created  at the end of the 19^th century and beginning of the 20^th century  to serve the interest of the elite classes of the north Indian Muslims.

 After the partition of 1947, the theoretical base of the Muslim separatism and the two nation is given by a group of historians in order to justify the Partition of 1947. I.H.Qureshi in his book “The Muslim community of the  Indo-Pakistan sub-continent” highlights the composition of the Muslim society and its separate character in the Indian environment  which was maintained  throughout  history and resisted all attempts of assimilation and integration.Shaikh Ikram in his book “Muslim Rule in India Pakistan” traces the Muslim separatism from the very beginning of the Muslim history and gives credit to individuals who struggled successfully to keep the Muslim identity intact such as Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi known as Mujadid Alf Sani, Shah Wali Ullah and his family. The trend of recent Muslim Separatism are pointed out by A.Hamid’s book the “Muslim separatism in India” which includes Saiyyid Ahmad Khan, Iqbal , and Jinnah who strengthened and completed the separatism which finally resulted in creating a separate country. This interpretation of history is dutifully followed by other Pakistani historians and text books writers which established the belief that historically the Muslim community always remained separate in the past and  the creation of  a new homeland is the logical conclusion of historically separateness of the two nations: the Hindus and the Muslims. This interpretation, thus, provides a theoretical base of the Pakistani state.

 If we analyse this interpretation, the basic assumption is that the Muslims in the subcontinent was a monolith community distinct with the Hindus in every aspect of life. However, historical facts contradict this assumption; in reality it was not a monolith community  but a community of many identities within its own structure. It shared no common historical memories, no common language, and no common culture. After the fall of the Sultans of Delhi, regional Muslim dynasties emerged in  South India, Bengal and Gujarat where the Muslim communities remained integrated with the local culture. These regional Muslim communities established their separate identity not related to the North Indian Muslims. To these Muslims, the rulers of Delhi were always aggressors who invaded their countries and enslaved them. The great Mughals in the collective memory of the Bengalis, Sindhis,  South Indian , or Kashmiri Muslims were imperialists who colonised their countries and imposed a foreign rule there. Therefore, each one of them had a different past and different historical memory. Their heroes were those who resisted against the Mughal such as Malik Ambar in the South and Khush Hal Khan Khatak in the Frontier. The writing of the regional and nationalist historiography is giving quite different outlook, opposing the North Indian centric view of history.

 Socially, the Muslim community was also divided into two distinct groups: those who migrated from Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan and the Arab world and settled in India permanently; and those local inhabitants who were converted to Islam. Division between foreign and local origin Muslim remained very sharp throughout the history of the Indian subcontinent. The foreign origin Muslims treated the local Muslims with contempt and abhorred to have  any social and cultural relations with them. They maintained their purity of blood not to have any matrimonial alliance with them. This also followed a clash in the field of culture. The immigrants brought their own cultural traditions and festivals which were alien to the local culture. It divided the Muslim community not only culturally but also religiously. The immigrants Muslims living in the urban centres followed the high religion while the local Muslims, entrenched in their local cultural traditions, observed popular religion. Prof. Mujeeb in his book “The Indian Muslims” gives a number of such examples when the local Muslims, after their conversion, retained their  local values and customs. In Alwar and Bharatpur the  Meo community  had purely Hindu names and added Khan to signify their Muslim identity. They celebrated Divali,  Desehra and Janam ashtami, the Hindu festivals .The Minas, an allied tribe to the Meos, practised  Dharech, (the custom of marrying a woman who had become a widow to a man of low caste) worshipped Bhairon, a form of Shiva. Such half Muslim and half Hindu groups were scattered throughout  India  and survived without any hostility. However, this cultural and religious division created  separate identities within the Muslim community . Moreover, regional cultural differences were also there even among the elite classes. The South Indian Muslim was culturally different from the Begali Muslim and the Sindhi from the Punjabi and the Rajasthani  so on and so forth.

 Though Persian language remained the official language  during the Muslim rule, but it was the language of the elite classes and not only of the Muslims but also of the Hindus. The local languages retained their role in the daily lives of the common people including the  local Muslim community in every  part of India . Those Muslims who were not in the official circle, continued to speak their regional and local languages. This language difference also kept the community divided.

 The question is that  the Muslim community which was divided culturally, socially, and linguistically, how and under what circumstances the religious consciousness undermined and subordinated all their separate identities? In the first stage the colonial rulers were  responsible in creating separation between the Hindus and the Muslims. As Prof. Francis Robinson  in “Separatism among Indian Muslims” writes: “A prominent feature of the British rule in the nineteenth century was a tendency to see its Indian subjects primarily not as members of different races, nor as speakers of different languages, nor even as representatives of different interests, but as the followers of different faiths. Men were recognised first as Parsis, Hindus, or Muslims.” Mill in a book on the Indian History divided the historical periods in the Hindu, Muslim, and British periods. In the Gazetteers,  local customs and festivals were classified as Hindu and Muslim. Warren Hastings during the period of his governor generalship ordered to prepare separate Hindu and Muslim personal laws. Whether it was the policy of divide or rule is difficult to say but it is evident that the policy of British government sowed the seeds of religious consciousness which was later on politicised by the political leaders of both communities.

 Nations are created artificially. Paul Brass in his book “ Language, Religion and Politics in North India” traces the process of  nation building. According to him language and religion are two important factors which play active role in the construction of a nation; but they are not given realities and can be altered  according to the needs. The second factor in nation building is creation of symbols by political elite classes . The third factor is the role of political organizations which weld different groups and create a group consciousness  among them. Following this process ethnic groups become communities, then nationalities and ultimately assume the status of a nation. In north India, political elite of the Muslims used religion as a symbol  to unite different cultural, social, and linguistic groups. Later on,  Urdu language was also added to strengthened the process . Though Urdu  language was adopted by the North Indian Muslim in the early 19^th century instead of Persian , soon it became a cultural  symbol and appealed also  those Muslims whose mother tongue was not Urdu..

 The symbols of religion and language  were accepted by the different Muslim communities because of the  political atmosphere .On the other hand, the Hindu community was also organising itself socially and culturally which created a reaction among the Muslim elite to loose their social status and privileges. However, up to 1923, there was not so much emphasis on the Muslim separatism, on the contrary attempts were made by the Muslim leaders to work along with the Hindu leaders and share with them political power which the colonial government wanted to give the Indian through different reforms. This cooperation is evident in the Lukhnow  pact of 1916 and the cooperation of both communities  during the Khilafat  campaign. The incident of Caura Chauri, in 1922 and the failure of the Khilafat movement were the turning points which isolated the two communities. The election of 1937 completely alienated them with each other.

 Based on these facts, the case of the Muslim separatism was constructed. The starting point became the Hindi-Urdu conflict. The Hindu launched a campaign to replace Urdu by Hindi as a court language. It followed the partition of Bengal, the separate electorate, distribution of government jobs, and political representation in the elected bodies .It added the prejudicial attitude of government against them which made them an oppressed community. 1930s was the period when  communal heroes were created on both sides. History was rewritten with communalist approach. When the Hindu tried to reconvert the Indian Muslim by launching the campaign of Shudhi and Sangatan, the Muslim responded by  organizing Tabligh and Tanzim. Especially, the Tabligh worked in those communities who retained the Hindu traditions such as the Meos. They were persuaded  to identify them with the Muslims by changing their social and cultural life. The communalist feelings on both side  hardened their attitude against each other. Thus, the separate and distinct identity was formulated and shaped under particular and specific historical circumstances. Democratic system of representation in which numerical strength plays  vital role frightened the Muslim elite that it would keep them outside the political power permanently. Thus, the separateness of the Muslim community was the result of the historical forces of a given time. It suited the interests of Muslim political leadership who wanted  to get share in political power by using it. It was preached again and again that the Indian Muslims had their own separate history, culture, customs, laws, and way of life. The impression was given that with such differences it was not possible for the two communities to live together. It ultimately led to the demand of a separate homeland which was accomplished on 14^th August 1947.

 The question is that what happened to the Muslim nationhood after the independence. The whole concept of Muslim unity changed as soon as the new country came into being. The two strong symbols of Muslim nationhood: religion and language (Urdu), both were challenged by the regional elite as antithetical to their interests. Centralisation by the name of religion was rejected. The provincial political leadership organised  the movements based on the regional languages. Bengal was the first which challenged centralisation in the name of religion and responded by Bengali nationalism based on language. Later on, the same process was followed by Sindh. The recent phenomenon of Muhajir movement is also based on Urdu language.Thus, language undermined religion as a symbol and greatly weakened the roots of religious nationalism. Further, Urdu lost its charm and power to weld those in one community whose mother tongue is not Urdu.Within 50 yers these two symbols of the Muslim separatism of the past are disintegrated  and the Pakistani nation emerged as fragmented and broken into a number of pieces. It is  time for us to ponder over the problem: whether to build the nation on territorial and secular basis or  face severe problems which are emerging in communal and sectarian conflicts. And it is because of our insistence to have strong religious nationalism which have no space for religious minorities.