How far creation of Pakistan is justified?

I still remember the slogan I heard as a child:

एक धक्का और दो

पाकिस्तान तोड़ दो

The Bharatiya Jana Sangh Party, which was slowly gaining popularity in North India at that time, used to use this slogan on every occasion whenever the borders were shelled with bad intentions from Pakistan. At that time, I did not understand much of this slogan, but I was aware that ten years ago, a new country, Pakistan, was formed by breaking up India. It was understandable then that Pakistan was made for Muslims, but when I reached adolescence, I also began to have a slight knowledge of the philosophy behind Pakistan and came to know that the Punjabis who live in the cities of Uttar Pradesh had earlier lived in the same places that are known today as Pakistan. Therefore, gradually it became clear why the Bharatiya Jana Sangh opposes Pakistan and why this slogan is raised in the meetings of the Jana Sangh when the then government of India writes a strong protest letter on its antics.

In fact, Pakistan was created on the basis of anti-Hinduism, whereas despite the creation of Pakistan, crores of Muslim citizens lived in India. The then leaders of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh used to ridicule Pakistan for writing strong protest letters and used to say that Pakistan opens fire on our soldiers on the border and we write strong protest letters to the government there. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh Party of yesterday is the Bharatiya Janata Party of today. Therefore, the tough stand that the present BJP Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi is taking against Pakistan is hidden in the recent history of India after independence. If we analyze further, after coming to power in 2014, Mr. Modi made every effort to improve India's relations with Pakistan, but Pakistan failed his every good effort.

Pakistan has been spreading terrorism in India since 1989 as if terrorism was an integral part of its foreign policy. The fact is that after the partition of Pakistan in 1971, anti-Hindu sentiments were the main policies adopted by its rulers, which is the foundation of the creation of Pakistan. On the other hand, the leaders of India never accepted this philosophy and on becoming independent, not only declared India a secular country but also gave equal rights to Muslims as Hindu citizens. It can also be said that all the Congress or non-BJP governments in India have given Muslims more rights in a limited area than Hindus. These included a separate religious civil code for Muslims. Although it was limited to domestic rules and regulations, it was above the rights of Hindus. This led to a demand in the 1970s that Muslims should be Indianised.

The surprising thing is that around 1970, this demand was not made by any politician but by the famous film artist. It was raised by Dev Anand and supported by the then very big leader of the Jana Sangh, the late Swami Vivekananda. Balraj Madhok did. But today's burning question is about the existence of Pakistan because it is constantly waging 'Mahaz' in its country in the name of anti-Hindu opposition against India. The biggest proof of this is the incident that took place on April 22 in Pahalgam, Kashmir, in which terrorists from Pakistan killed the tourists who came to visit by asking their religion, but a patriotic Kashmiri citizen also climbed into their hands who wanted to save the lives of Hindu tourists.

This heart-rending incident shocked the entire countrymen, on which Prime Minister Modi said in his first reaction that the terrorists and their supporters will be buried and punished beyond imagination. In fact, this was done by the Government of India and the terror bases were destroyed at nine places in Pakistan and Kashmir, which was living in its slavery. Those who are aware of the history of the circumstances under which Pakistan was created in 1947 will know how the conspiracy to create a new country by cutting India off was done. In fact, the British had given a free hand to Muslim League leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah to mislead Muslims. After the outbreak of World War II in 1942, the British jailed all Congress leaders after August 8, 1942 and released all but Gandhiji in 1945 when the war was over.

For Jinnah, the whole of India was open to politics at that time. Jinnah's Muslim League then raised Hindu-Muslim animosity all over the country and declared that Hindus and Muslims can never live together in a country. They are two different cultures, so their countries should also be different. At that time, the Pasmanda Muslims of India strongly opposed this theory, but in their camp the poor and the poor were more than 80 percent Muslims. Jinnah was accompanied by the majority of the landlords of India and the Ashrafia Muslims, who were considered to be elite.

The British had earlier intended that they would stay in India till 1973, but after the end of World War II, America wanted the British to leave India as soon as possible. The reason for this was that Britain had become bankrupt in this war and the salary of its forces was also going from the American treasury. Due to this, the British gave independence to India in 1947 and made an agreement with Jinnah that the two Muslim-majority states of India would be divided and the Muslim-majority areas would be made Pakistan. Its full description has been given by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, a writer of Pakistani origin, in his book on Jinnah. The question that arises is whether Pakistan is a legitimate country because more Muslims live in India. These Muslims are no less than anyone in patriotism, but in independent India, they were given the gift of freedom only by confining them to the religious realm and left at the mercy of mullahs and clerics.

For this reason, allegations of appeasement are leveled against the Congress and its allies. Despite the fact that Muslims are worse off than Dalits, their patriotism cannot be challenged because they are Indian Muslims first. This is the biggest proof of Pakistan's illegitimate country that more Muslims live in India than Pakistan. Despite this, Pakistan is not ready to give up its anti-Hindu politics. How can a country which believes in such a philosophy be called a legitimate country? So how can we call a country built on rented land as a legitimate country which has no history, no health and no rituals? What else can be said of such a country except to call it an unarmed army?