I had to give a presentation in my online history class on the partition of India- caused. This is what I said--->

PS- my history teacher is a leftist, communist Catholic who once shut me up while I was disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory and the myth of -23.9% GDP

*-*

Good afternoon respected teacher. The topic I have chosen for my project is the partition of India.

My Hypothesis for the topic is- The partition was caused due to the personal interest of politicians- Nehru, Gandhi and Jinnah along with the Islamic religious separatist theology

of Darul Harab and Darul Islam.

Starting with the Two Nation theory-
The history of the Two Nation theory is as old as the advent of Islam in India. The theory is and has always been there on paper. It just needed someone to lead an organized movement to implement the words

into action which Muhammad Ali Jinnah did in 1947.

For according to the theology of Islam, Islam divides the world into 2- Momin and Kaffir. Believers and Non Believers. Muslim and non Muslim.

Nations into 2. Darul Islam- where the Islamic rule persists and the law is driven by

the guidelines given in the Quran and Hadis according to Sunnah and Darul Harab- where Muslims are in a significantly high number but not in majority, nor is the establishment Islamic and here it is the duty of the neighbouring Islamic countries to aid the Muslims of this country

to overthrow the Kaffir regime and establish their own.

While I say this, I also have the words of the Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr. BR Ambedkar's that support my findings, for he wrote in his book, Pakistan: the partition of India in 1946 and I quote,

"The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does

not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”

While Jinnah proposed and Nehru accepted the partition due to their hunger for power, Gandhi supported it due to his ways of minority appeasement, especially Muslim appeasement. This claim is supported by the Mahatma's own words uttered in the speech prayer meeting of April, 1947

in new Delhi and I quote, "Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in

a new world by sacrificing our lives."

As we speak about political personalities, we must also note what the views of those from the field of literature were with regards to this issue. The legendary poet, author, song writer and the man who is the creator of our national

anthem, adjectives fall short of describing him, the Great, Shree Rabindranath Tagore had said and I quote,
“There are two religions in earth, which have distinct enmity against all other religions. These two are Christianity and Islam. They are not just satisfied with observing

their own religions, but are determined to destroy all other religions. That’s why the only way to make peace with them is to embrace their religions.”

Source:- Original Works of Rabindranath vol 24 page 375

Coming to the conclusion and learning from these findings, I'm pretty

sure that none of us knew about this other side of Tagore, Ambedakar and Gandhi apart from what's taught to us in schools which gives a very different personality of these leaders- strong enough for us to doubt that they could also have this view. We all have been told time and

again, about Ambedkar's critical views on Hinduism with regards to The discriminatory Caste system and the day when he publicly burnt The Manusmriti and became Buddhist, but his views on Islam are something that most of us are hearing for the first time for the Indian history

since the past 73 years has been written not by Historians but rather Distorians.

My question- Why this hypocrisy?

The bottom line of this astonishment that I observe now, which I wish I were not to observe is that History should be taught to us as

it is- and not selectively through manipulation. Unless and until true history is taught to us, we will never be able to create a future free of fear.

Thank you.
Jai Hind.
Bharat mata ki Jai.