Geelani's views?

An article in Frontline claims:

"In a seminal 1998 essay, the scholar Yoginder Sikand pointed to Geelani’s core beliefs. Muslims and Hindus, Sikand recorded, were to Geelani “members of two different nations despite living in the same territory”. Sikand wrote: “This, Geelani says, is ‘an undeniable truth’.” He wrote that not just in matters of faith, beliefs and customs do the two differ, but that they are also distinct and sharply set apart from each other in such matters as food, clothing and lifestyles. For Muslims to stay among Hindus or in an environment which is very different from their own is said to be as difficult as it is ‘for a fish to stay alive in a desert.’”

I am not sure whether or not these are Geelani's views. Nor am I sure whether or not they are similar to those of Jinnah's. Yet, it is true that Geelani wants Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan and Jinnah may have wanted the same.

But do Muslims want to separate out of an environment which is different from their own as Geelani, or at least Sikand, wants us to believe? Perhaps some do and others do not. For if history were to be our only guide, then we could indeed say that many "Muslims" chose not to migrate to Pakistan. At the least, they thought that the costs to be incurred in such migration were not worth it. Recent migratory trends also confirm that Indian Muslims do not necessarily migrate to environments similar to their own i.e. Pakistan. They migrate more to the U.S. than to Pakistan. Ones who migrate to the Middle East hardly do so for 'cultural similarities'. Thus the notion generated by leaders like Geelani, and media pundits, that Muslims cannot live in environments not similar to their own is complete hogwash.

But then comes the other question. Will "Muslims" impose "their" environment on others if they were able to do so, say because of their numbers? In some sense, this is a trivial question because which "community" or "identity" in India would not like to do the same? Some years back a part of the Sikh community wanted Khalistan. Some Gorkhas wanted Gorkhaland. Some Assamese still want independence. I am sure that the proponents of Khalistan, Gorkhaland and a Liberated Assam wanted/want to impose a bit more of "their" identity on the functioning of these proposed states.

And "identities" have indeed been imposed in India. The communist way of thinking is dominant in West Bengal (even amongst the opposition parties). Lower caste dominance is on your face in Tamil Nadu. Mayawati allowed her bretheren to let their pigs loose in the cities of UP in her previous incarnation as the chief minister. The pollution generated on Diwali nights is imposed on all. If you lay awaake because of your neighbour's jaagran, well then it is a gift from devi maa. If you slip on blood flowing across some Mumbai street on Id then make sure to wash your clothes the next day. And if you happen to be in a theatre without fans on a Id night and are unable to differentiate between the diffent "aromas" trapped inside, then you simply have the freedom of walking out. So what is this big scare of the "Watch out the Muslims are comming to get you with their culture"? To a large extent they have already got India. They ruled India for ages. So what is the big deal?

The issue is politics as we all know it: that is politics of the uncivilized. We are third rate morons without pride. We have no memory. We would identify more with idiots like Geelani and swallow the non-sense spewed out by the 'enlightened media' without even bothering to listen or analyse. Hyderabad will make Hindus and Muslims angry and blame each other. But how many of the victims were Hindus and Muslims? Did they love to die in the same environment?