| [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] |
| [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Author Index] | [Subject Index] |
Wilson wrote in part:
"But where Muslims have had to end colonial rule and build their own nation, national identity has trumped religious uniformity. When the Indonesians threw off Dutch rule and later struggled to end communist influence, they did so in a way that made the creation and maintenance of an Indonesian nation more important than religious or political identity. India, home to more Muslims than much of the Middle East, also relied on nationalism and overcoming British rule to insist on the creation of one nation. Its constitution prohibits discrimination based on religion and promises the free exercise of religious belief."
I have some questions about Mr. Wilson’s premises. I’ll use this paragraph as an illustration; he claims that national identity has trumped religious uniformity in the creation of India. That statement might be true with regard to Muslims if we could pretend Pakistan doesn’t exist. However, Pakistan was there last time I checked, which was this morning. You can’t talk about nation building on the subcontinent and ignore the other nation that was created when colonialism ended. You can’t say Indian Muslims insisted on the creation of one nation, when a large number of them insisted on the creation of Pakistan.
I’m not disagreeing with everything Wilson has to say, as I’d have to finish the article to do that. However, I’m suspicious of people who build elaborate arguments on shoddy foundations.