Doesnt that then mean that one must not fall into the trap of x vs y? but, rather expose the fundamentalist - exactly as now when they have shown their hand. Folks stating Hindu vs Muslim on this thread are doing what the divisionist fundamentalists want. A clear division helps with the building of enclaves that you warn about.
Certainly the govt must act firmly and that is what is missing so far. I'm not sure why it is missing across all states. That is the weakest link.
Why are you not sure abut why it is "missing"? Why does it become impossible to expose the fundamentalists among Islamists? Our political leadership is supposed to have been seasoned in a long crucible of anti-imperialist struggle. Over 100 years of playing politics, isnt it? So if such a seasoned bunch is not doing the "exposing", never did so - except attack those individuals who were also competing for personal power - but never attacked the ideological and institutional basis of fundamentalism in the Muslim, there must be a reason, isn it?
I have been very close to veteran and current leaders from the left-of-centre to "centrist" in power. In private they all say that once the Muslim is faced with choosing between the "Muslim" identity and anything else, they become "uncontrollable". It was such "uncontrollab-ility" that apparently made Partition impossible to prevent, and since then it is that same fear of "uncontrollability" that makes the "secularists" concede so much. In discussions, repeatedly the "Hindu" or even the "Maoists" and sometimes the "Sikhs" are dissed as not worthy of attention - with a certain sneer and dismissive tone - for being too idealistic and philosophical. This particular political leadership pride themselves on being the only ones on Indian soil who understand how to hold on to power. They fear no other force except the Muslim and to a certain extent the "Christian" - the latter not because of their "uncontrollability", but becuase of the fear of foreign fallout.
We cannot be naive and idealistic in our application of "no-division" idealism. What the no-division rhetoric translates into in reality is that you cannot expose anything that is claimed to hurt "sentiments" of a certain community - which means you cannot make non-Muslims aware of the method and tactics by which Islamists have always proceeded on their road to power. This theory of no-division was basically a retreat and ideological defeat before the very shrewd Dantonist tatcic of the mullahcracy - who violently protested each and every critique, every exposure. Ultimately the no-division rhetoric plays into the very hands of fundamentalism.
No matter what is conceded, what is accepted, what is compromised on - the mullahcracy will never flinch from their long term goal of absolute power. Theirs is a real danger because they apparently provide the hope for any population that sees itself pushed out of competition for goodies in an increasingly knowledge based economy - by providing an alternative based on guaranteed consumption based on a more primitive, looting, agrarian and "natural physical dominance hierarchy" by which say women would be more tradeable and accessible, etc. You can shut your eyes or shut your mouth - that may seem to buy peace for the time being. But it will affect in no way the expansionist plans.