The conception of a land called India was created by the Muslims, before whose rule its several parts were known by different names. In fact, having seldom known political unity, it was a collection of several countries with their distinctive languages and customs, though it had a certain amount of homogeneity because of a common outlook on life, inspired by Vedantic philosophy of the Brahamanic Hindi elite.

The first ever impact of Islam in India came through an invasion from the Arabian Peninsula in 712 AD. The story of Mohammad Bin Qasim is one of the romances of history. The valley of Indus was invaded in 712 AD, by the Islamic Army of Al-Hajjaj, the governor of Chaldea. The young general conquered city after city, from Daibul, Rawar, and Brahmanabad in quick succession, paving the way for the conquest of the citadel of Multan. Mohammad Bin Qasim, inspired by the teaching and practices of Islam, gave the liberal terms that the Arabs usually offered to all but inveterate foes. He imposed the customary poll-tax, took hostages for good conduct, and spared the people's lands and lives. He even left their shrines undesecrated: ‘The temples,’ he proclaimed, ‘shall be inviolate, like the churches of the Christians, the Synagogues of the Jews, and the altars of the Magians.’ The Brahmans were protected and entrusted with high offices, for which their education made them indispensable; and the conqueror's instructions to all his officers were wise and conciliatory: —' Deal honestly,' he commanded, between the people and the governor; if there be distribution, distribute equitably, and fix the revenue according to the ability to pay. Be in concord among yourselves, and wrangle not, that the country be not vexed.' Thus was the conduct of the Muslim rulers, adorned with their Islamic values, culture and customs, in the very bosom of a premier region of India. The influence of Islamic mysticism and religious practices was, not only recognizable in the major centre of Multan, but the imprints of its magnetism spread far and wide into Sind, Punjab and capital Delhi, where the vestiges of Islamic culture are clearly manifest.

Under the Muslim rulers of Delhi, from the Slave Dynasty (11th Century), the Khiljis, the Tughlaqs, the Lodhis; and finally, the mighty Mughals from 1526 AD onwards, India was dominated by Muslims rule; hence was familiar with Islamic faith and culture. Thus, Europeans and Indians themselves got used to the idea of India being in fact or potentially a single political unit with many a diverse religio-cultural dimensions, which have become firmly established.

In the colonial period, India became the source of British wealth and power and Europe was dazzled with the brilliance of the brightest jewel in the British crown. Thus, was built a legend about India that entered fiction and song. And this was one, ostensibly undivided India, but factually segmented into varied racial, religious and cultured identities. The fissures remained hidden because they only helped the British in building up their power and were of little concern to anyone else.

As for the identity of Muslims, despite all of the above facts, leaders like Gandhi and his cult posed the question: How can a body of converts be a nation? But a faith such as Islam, does not only habituate the believers to a set of customs and practices, but bequeaths an entirely new personality, adorned with monotheism.

Both Hinduism and Islam are different from the religions prevalent in the West. In antithesis to Hinduism, Islam is a religion with a credo and no one can legitimately call himself a Muslim if he ceases to believe in God, His unity and the mission of the Prophet, Muhammad. Islam also has built up a system of law that governs society. It believes in the existence of an organized community of believers. As is well-known, the earliest settlers were Arab merchants who had established themselves in important seaports along the Western coastline of India. Here many an Arab merchants married Hindu wives, many of whom become devout practitioners of Islam, even surpassing the degree of faith, achieved and practised by their spouses.

These settlements, when they started, were majorly Turkish and Central Asian, but soon small numbers of converts joined them. Because they faced common dangers, they were soon integrated into well-knit communities. The Muslim population of the subcontinent absorbed layer upon layer of Arabs, Turks, Afghans, Iranians and others. They could no longer call themselves Turks, Iranians or Arabs because they had ceased to be any of these. Hence, they adopted the name of 'Muslims of India' and within the subcontinent itself they called themselves merely 'Muslims'. Implied in the Hindu thinking was the fallacious assumption that the Muslims of the subcontinent had everything in common with the Hindus except their religion. The situation in fact was that the two peoples had little in common. It needs to be emphasized that Islam and Hinduism build two entirely different kinds of society. But it was not only social structure that was different. The variance ran through all the details and nuances.

The division runs through literature as well. The best examples to illustrate this point are Hindi and Urdu. Urdu, written in a modified Arabic script had a large percentage of Arabic, Persian and Turkish words, in that order of frequency. Hindi was written in a Sanskritic script and had a similarly high percentage of Sanskrit words. In this manner one language could become quite unintelligible to one who knew only the other. And when it came to poetry, the difference went much deeper. In Urdu, the forms, the thought and the imagery were borrowed from Iran and Central Asia; in Hindi they were indigenous. Urdu believes more in metaphor than in simile, more in abstraction than in description, more in mystic verities than in mundane love, more in the philosophy of emotions than in actual emotions. Hindi poetry relies for its charm upon a portrayal of the local environment.

It would be tedious for the viewer if this discussion is prolonged too much to cover other fields as well. But the difference persists almost everywhere. Whether it is painting or music, the difference is quite obvious, and sharp in the overall cultural mosaic. 10. How could two peoples with such divergence in their outlook, beliefs, mores, tastes and inclinations be moulded into one with-out making one, or the other, or both to sacrifice something that had entered into the innermost recesses of their very souls? Under British rule, Hindus had organized a number of revivalist movements and were in haste to discard all traces of Muslim influence. The Muslims knew that in such a situation, the sacrifice, if it had to be made, would have to be entirely theirs. Their one concern ever since they set their foot in the subcontinent had been to preserve their faith, their culture and their separate entity.

After the fall of the Mughal Empire and the establishment of British rule, the Muslims were subjected to discrimination and hostility. The Hindus had no compunction in taking advantage of the situation. They showed no fellow feeling for the Muslims in their adversity. Of course, the lesson was not lost upon the Muslims. When the Hindus organized the Indian National Congress under British inspiration, the Muslims showed no confidence in it. No two peoples, who have such different views of history, can have that shared perception of grief or felicity; of triumph or defeat, which is considered to be the basis of national feeling and ethos.

The Muslims had themselves been victims of the idea that they were a religious minority. They were not familiar with life in the West and when the British called them a religious minority, they came to believe that the term represented their international standing correctly. Their instincts, however, did not support their forcibly assumed stance. Their holding themselves aloof from the Indian National Congress when it was organized, was a natural response that they did not consider themselves to be a part of "the Indian nation”. When they demanded separate electorates, their deputation demanded of the viceroy "that the Muslims of India should not be regarded as a mere minority, but as a nation within a nation whose rights and obligations should be guaranteed by Statute". The Status of being a mere minority continued to worry the Muslims. Maulana Mohamed Ali Johar said in the Round Table Conference that "... the Musalmans constitute not a minority in the sense in which the late war and its sequel has habituated us to consider European minorities... A community that in India alone must be numbering more than 70 millions cannot easily be called a minority.”

When the Muslim majority areas also began to contribute to the leadership of the community, a change was bound to occur. Chaudhary Rahmat Ali, for instance, saw the greatest aberration in the Muslims being called Indians. And once, after the courage to take up the cudgels against a pervasive falsehood, the inhibitions created by the lack of acceptance of their true identity, and substituting it with erroneous catchwords and phrases, and by misleading patterns of thought, vanished as if the nations had never existed. Then led by a great leader, Qaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the nation marched to its destiny of sovereign status and won the battle for Pakistan. and here onwards follows the story of the missionary zeal, utmost application of Jinnah’s faith inspired devotion that the Muslim nation inhabiting India, became a nation to reckon with.