1. Congress leadership: Nehru and Gandhi underestimated Jinnah, Muslim League, its ambitions and outreach. In the 1920s, Gandhi neglected Jinnah and appealed to Muslims for a common cause, which seemed harmless at that time.In the 1930s, Nehru, assured of the backing of his socialist ideology and the support among the Muslim bases for the same, arrogantly believed that Muslims won't be moved by a party based on faith. It later turned out he was false.In the 1930s, Jinnah was willing to negotiate an agreement with the leadership, but was constantly ignored. This is going over my head. Arrogance and underestimation of someone doesn't go unpunished. However blame is to be equally shared by all the top leaders. In the 1940s, ML with almost a million members had no compulsion to bow out. He had no reason to cut a deal now. He was demanding recklessly. He refused to allow first independence , then partition. I may not comment on the course of history had this been allowed.While Gandhi tried his best possible to stop the painful separation, Nehru wasn't ready to the idea of Jinnah being the first Prime Minister of the independent India till the very end. Patel hoped partition would show Jinnah the fault in his ideas and would seal his fate. Thus the failure of Congress leadership and the rise of Jinnah is interlinked.
2. Jinnah and the Muslim League: He instigated religious passions and fears among the masses since the 30s.He was more concerned with the fact that Muslims and Hindus didn't intermarry or interdine and that Congress didn't have Muslim representatives in the 1946 Provincial Elections. He claimed in his 1940 Muslim League Presidential Address that cultures, literature and way of living and views on life were different of the two communities. The theory of one nation had been carried along too far and that it was nothing but a far fetched dream. I don't think partition gave too much peace either.The provinvcial elections were held on the lines of religion and demand for a new country, rather than on the promises of growth and "independence".Direct Action Day was a call by this great leader. What else do you expect from such a gathering at such a crucial point of time on such a critical issue. If countries could be made by gatherings and processions, I'm going out on the streets to demand the Shubham Kingdom! The violence, retaliation and counter violence led to the inevitable- Partition of two brothers, fighting for petty issues, not ready to listen and even the parents acting as stubborn kids.
Maysville road: Jackson vetoed the bill on the grounds that federal funding of intrastate projects of this nature was unconstitutional. He declared that such bills violated the principle that the federal government should not be involved in local economic affairs. Jackson also pointed out that funding for these kinds of projects interfered with paying off the national debt.
National Bank veto: <span>As his term continued, Jackson truly grew a desire to crush the Second Bank of the United States. Over time he had decided that it could not continue as it was, and that it did not warrant reform. It must be destroyed. Jackson's reason for this conclusion was an amalgamation of his past financial problems, his views on states' rights, and his Tennessee roots. </span>
sentence 3 should be revised.
What Sanford Dole believed would be the outcome of the unification is that it would lead to growth in the precedents and growth in America.
<h3>The Unification of Hawaii</h3>
This was the unification and the bringing together of the Hawaii Islands by the King.
The unification took place in the year 1810, after the kingdoms of the Kauaʻi and Niʻihau decided to join the Hawaiians on their own accord.
Read more on Hawaii here:
brainly.com/question/506325
