Shooting fish in a barrel

The United States Constitution does not give equal weight to everyone’s votes. The answer is no, for instance, all states get two Senators, regardless of their population, and Washington DC gets none.

Does this make the US Constitution unsecular? The answer is no, because this unequal weightage is not based on religion.

Does this make the US Constitution worth emulating in this regard? The answer is no. The United States too has paid a heavy price for trying to work around the one-man-one-vote principle. Remember, the original Constitution counted blacks as three-fifth a person as far as counting the population for apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives, (and did not give blacks the vote at all). This three-fifth rule was because the Southern States did not want to accept the consequences of one-man-one-vote. Later on, this would lead to the civil war. Slavery otherwise could have been abolished by the ballot box.

Was Jinnah seeking an equipoise in a United India? We cannot read his mind, we can only read his actions. When Jinnah rejoined politics in the late 30s, he did not join or create a secular party; he did not attempt to court anyone but Muslims. If, as per Jinnah, the Congress was nothing but the party of Caste Hindus, Jinnah did not attempt to create a truly national party, of Muslims, Caste Hindus, non-caste Hindus, Sikhs, etc.

Moreover, Jinnah showed nothing but lip service for the rights of non-Muslims and for the Muslims who lived in Hindu majority areas. This is evident from the actual details of his demands.