the islamic prism 79distinct nation, diff erent from the majority Hindus. This in turn led to the
Muslim League projecting itself as the sole representative of the Indian
Muslims, and it challenged the right of the other parties, especially the
INC, to speak for, let alone represent, Indian Muslims. As Farzana Shaikh
aptly summed up, Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s “claim for parity developed
steadily from simple po liti cal parity between League and Congress to com-
munal parity between Muslims and Hindus and culminated fi nally in the
demand for ideological parity between Muslims and non- Muslims.”^37
Endorsing the Muslim League’s right to speak exclusively on behalf of
Indian Muslims would have harmed the INC and transformed it into a
Hindu and not Indian po liti cal force. The INC being Hindu- dominated
merely refl ected the demographic realities of India and was not driven by
any religious exclusivist agenda. Accepting the Muslim League’s right to
speak on behalf of Indian Muslims would have meant recognizing the
right of other religious and ethnic groups having separate po liti cal repre-
sen ta tions. That would have been suicidal both for the Congress Party
and for the in de pen dent India it was seeking. Therefore, much to the an-
noyance and anger of Jinnah, the INC continued to give prominent posi-
tions to Muslims within the party and even elected Maulana Abul Kalam
Azad as its president in 1940, a position that he held until 1945.^38
Having rejected the Muslim League’s argument of Muslims being a
distinct nation, the INC could not accept similar claims by Jews in Pales-
tine. For “many nationalist Muslims in the... Congress, who subscribed
to the idea of a secular and undivided Indian state and to whom the idea
of religion being the basis of nationality” was undesirable, the two- nation
theory of the Muslim League was unacceptable.^39 Any dilution of its op-
position to a Jewish national home in Palestine would have exposed the
Congress Party and made its stand vis-à- vis the Muslim League vulnera-
ble and untenable. For India and its leaders, especially the Muslim lead-
ers within the INC (such as Azad), Jewish nationalism in Palestine re-
fl ected their own trauma over the exclusivist notion represented by the
Muslim League. Refl ecting this domestic Indian situation, the INC op-
posed religion- based partition both in India and in Palestine.^40
Unfortunately, however, the Congress Party advocated two diff erent
solutions for the challenges posed by religion- based nationalism. In the
Indian context, it was prepared to accept a communal- based partition
as the price for freedom from the British. Though not subscribing to
the two- nation theory of the Muslim League, the INC leaders, especially
Nehru, accepted partition along religious lines, with Muslim- majority