I mean, even before independence when Congress won the elections in British India, they gave Muslims hell. Maybe it's just impossible for a Muslim majority state to peacefully coexist in a union with India.
I don't know where and when and how you got this nugget, but it is completely incorrect. If you are referring to the disagreements within the coalition governments formed in 1937, then you should look at the statistics first. If you are referring to anything else, to communal riots, for instance, this was not marked by anything to note. There was no reason for the Congress to 'give Muslims hell', if you go by the election results, as the Muslim League contested and won 25% of reserved Muslim seats, the Congress contested 58 and won around half that number - I can look it up and tell you - and the majority, about 60% + seats, were won by independent provincial parties; in my own Bengal, Sher-e-Bangal Fazlul Huq won, with his Krishak Praja Party, and formed the government. Out of 1500 seats, the Congress won nearly 800; of the restricted nearly 500 reserved Muslim seats, the Muslim League won 100+.
What you are referring to is not clear.
The major communal riot was the Great Calcutta Killing of 1946, where the chief minister, Suhrawardy, responded to the call for a Direct Action Day by unleashing violence. It is on record that for the first day and a half, who were completely dominant, and who died. You can look it up for yourself. Subsequent riots in 1947 were certainly not one-sided.
Perhaps if India were to apply the Pakistani model to Kashmir - make it a basically independent state like AJK whose military and affairs are managed in Islamabad/Delhi - we could see peace in the region.
This was the original condition of the accession by the Maharaja to India.
I can reproduce for your information both the Instrument and the Schedule to it, that defined the powers to be exercised by the Central Government as Defence, External Affairs and Communications, and a few miscellaneous provisions.
It was not implemented due to the Maharaja and to Sheikh Abdullah, who then took the vast bulk of the powers retained by the Maharaja, and handed it over to a J&K State Legislature, whose working was to be defined by the J&K Constituent Assembly.
And policies like rounding up kids and beating them, "encounters," cutting off internet, etc. could be stopped, followed by a demilitarisation.
The demilitarisation apart, everyone opposed to Sanghi ideas of government would agree to this.
Considering the attempts by external forces to alter the circumstances by force, first, in 1947 - 48, then in 1965, where the entire effort has been carefully recorded on the Pakistani side itself, and thereafter continuously from 1971 onwards to date, how would demilitarisation work?
The best thing to do is let them vote for their fate per UNSC resolution 80.
I have already gone on record on various very long exchanges about the Indian stand on this, that is not the Sangh Parivar stand but is based on a clear record of events well-documented by all and still available.
