“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
Georg hegel
The tragedy is not that history fails to speak, but that we fail to listen – especially when the message is uncomfortable.
On April 22, the peaceful hills of Pahalgam in Kashmir turned crimson with violence as terrorists opened fire on Hindu tourists, killing 26 people. They demanded recitation of Qur’an verses to identify and spare Muslims – except for one local Muslim who died protecting the victims.
The symbolism was chilling, the timing precise: just a few days after Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir referred to Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein” and invoked the two-nation theory – that Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist.
Where the theory fell apart
When India gained independence in 1947, many Western intellectuals doubted it would last. Their logic was cold, statistical and rooted in the Western understanding of nationhood. With too many castes, too many languages, too many gods and too many sub- nationalisms, how can a fractured land stay united. Yet it wasn’t India that fractured.
Bangladesh’s birth was the first loud crack in the myth.
When a nation replaces ideology with history, it shifts from a forward-looking vision to a backward-looking narrative. It’s less about building the future and more about defending a version of the past. Pakistan today is a prime example. Munir ‘s statement is a testament to it.
For decades, Pakistan’s military has ruled through fear, not competence – by manufacturing fear to gain consent: Blame enemies when under risk, and wrap in the flag when accountability is needed. Today many countries are following this model to legitimize their regimes. The cost of denial isn’t just policy failure. It’s a moral decay.
Pakistan is a failed state and it’s failing from within. But it wants India to follow a similar path. The onus is on us to act decisively and respond intelligently.
The Jinnahization of majority nationalism
After the attack,Indian social media, including BJP-linked handles, pushed divisive content – religion was questioned, not caste – framing it as a Hindu-Muslim issue. This divisive narrative echoes Pakistan Army Chief Munir’s two-nation theory. So why is Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reinforcing the very narrative our adversaries promote?
India today faces a troubling déjà vu of 1940s British India. Modi seems to echo Jinnah’s playbook – using identity politics to consolidate power amid rising polarization.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, once praised as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, turned divisive as Gandhi’s influence grew – demanding a separate Muslim state for his personal ambition. He promised a utopia state in which dignity, power and protection to Muslims. The result was a state now plagued by coups, crises and religious extremism.
The similarities between Jinnah and Modi are not just rhetorical – they are structural. Both leaders weaponized identity in moments of national uncertainty. Both capitalized on fear: Jinnah on the imagined persecution of Muslims in a united India; Modi on the imagined cultural extinction of Hindus in a secular republic. Both set out to turn minorities into scapegoats.
Jinnah’s legacy cast suspicion on Indian Muslims’ credibility in the nationalist discourse. Modi risks doing the same to Hindus – transforming a tolerant majority into a majoritarian mob.
Jinnah’s Pakistan was founded on the belief that coexistence was impossible, sacrificing pluralism for division. Today, it struggles with its identity. His legacy warns that nations built on division rarely fulfil their promises of dignity.
Today India now stands at a crossroads: to uphold Gandhi’s pluralism or descend into a Jinnah-style division that weakens the very idea of India.
Ravi Kant is a columnist and correspondent for Asia Times based in New Delhi. He mainly writes on economics, international politics and technology. He has wide experience in the financial world and some of his research and analyses have been quoted by the US Congress, Harvard University and Wikipedia ( Chinese Dream) . He is also the author of the book Coronavirus: A Pandemic or Plandemic. He tweets @Rk_humour.