Did Two Nation Theory Die in 1971 After Creation of Bangladesh?

[Capt.Popeye]

1. Lok Sabha,16 Dec1971. Indira Gandhi rises and declares, "Mr Speaker,today the Two Nation Theory is dead". Thus she reveals the primary goal of fueling the disturbances leading to the 1971 War.

2. Palam Airport,10 Jan 1972. :"I am a Muslim and I am a Bengalee",declares Sheikh Mujib on his way home from captivity in Pakistan.

3. Let's go backward. Says Shere Bangla,PM of Bengal in his speech moving the 1940 Lahore Resolution,"I am first a Muslim and then a Bengalee".

4. Says Suhrowardy, PM of Bengal in moving the 1946 Delhi Resolution, " Let me now honestly declare,every Muslim of Bengal is ready and prepared to lay down his life for Pakistan. Now I call upon you, Mr Jinnah,test us."

5. Indira-Ji,you were wrong. The Two Nation Theory, meaning Muslims are a nation by themselves, is intact and thriving. Assam, P/bangla,Kerala - Lakswadip,Andaman-Nicobar and Junagadh are soon going to strengthen the rank of separatist Muslims.

Again smoking POT are you, now ???
Try getting Mars and Jupiter to join your separated Muslims first. Even that may be easier.
Of course; before that a_sad miah you have to sort out the most important issue of all: who or what is a muslim?
That issue itself has been plaguing you for so long.
Litle wonder that: there just aint no "chumma-chumma within the ummah" !

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

The separation of East Pakistan was no doubt the biggest tragedy in the history of Pakistan. However, it should not be regarded as death of Two Nation Theory. First of all Bangladesh, though no more a part of Pakistan but still is neither a Hindu state nor a secular state rather is a Muslim State. The elite of West Pakistan were not able to understand the real situation in East Pakistan and they absolutely failed to tackle it. In spite of all these mistakes by the government, the involvement of the foreign hand in separation of East Pakistan, is a solid reality. Those who cry today upon the cross-border terrorism in Kashmir (in spite of the fact that there is no international border in Kashmir) have totally forgotten the hands and faces behind the Muktibahini. The way the Bangla youth was brain washed by Hindu teachers and scholars is an open secret. The fact is that not much literature was available in the Bangla language about Islam, neither any translation of Iqbal nor of Moududi. On the other hand Robinder Nath Tegore and Chander Mukr Ji were very popular.

The Muslim Bangladesh though no more a part of Pakistan is independent from the fright of Hindu domination.

Ms. Indra Gandhi statement about the creation of Bangladesh, was by itself a proof of the existence of the Two-Nation Theory. She claimed that today we have taken the revenge of the 1000 years slavery but in 1971 Pakistan was just 24 years old!!! Then what was she referring to by mentioning the 1000 years? Definitely she was talking about the era when Muslims ruled India. This means Pakistan didno’t emerge neither with the advent of British to India, nor is a result of Divide and Conquer, nor is a conspiracy of the Muslim League, nor is a symbol of nationalism based on territory.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Pakistani should stop using word ‘partition’ when referring to Pakistan’s independence.This term Partition is incorrect & endorsement of Nehru’s Akhund Bharat. India in its present form was not a legal entity before 15 August 1947. It’s wrong to say Pakistan was ‘partitioned’ out of India. The nation that adopted the name of “Pakistan” already existed within the amalgam of religions, cultures and ethnicities that formed pre-1947 India

 

[SQ8]

Again smoking POT are you, now ???
Try getting Mars and Jupiter to join your separated Muslims first. Even that may be easier.
Of course; before that a_sad miah you have to sort out the most important issue of all: who or what is a muslim?
That issue itself has been plaguing you for so long.
Litle wonder that: there just aint no "chumma-chumma within the ummah" !

Before jumping the gun Captain.. might I point out that the very divisions that plague the Muslims of the subcontinent might have been less potent(and perhaps less dangerous) had the idea of the two nation theory gone through(and I have alluded to this idea in my earlier posts if you have the time). And while not the degree that asad sb points out .. there is a general feeling of being left out that bubbles under the surface. It is nowhere near the separatist situation(nor will it likely be unless serious communal riots and governmental bias appears) but it might be fertile enough to lead to the formation of a successor to the Indian Muslim League provided there is leadership to catalyse it.
The following are quote relevant in this matter.

http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/largercontext.pdf

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Again smoking POT are you, now ???
Try getting Mars and Jupiter to join your separated Muslims first. Even that may be easier.
Of course; before that a_sad miah you have to sort out the most important issue of all: who or what is a muslim?
That issue itself has been plaguing you for so long.
Litle wonder that: there just aint no "chumma-chumma within the ummah" !

The confusion about the link between Pakistan and Islam mostly arises out of lack of familiarity and misinterpretation of the Muslim struggle in the context of Indian independence. Sometimes it is deliberate and facts are taken out of context, misquoted and misrepresented to fit a particular point of view.

Pakistan was not ‘created as an Islamic ideological state’ but demanded as a separate homeland for the Muslims of India when all attempts to secure safeguards for their political, economic and religious interests inside a United India failed. Islam is a universal religion that cannot be confined to or bound within any geographical limits.The concept of Muslims being a separate nation was not born overnight. It had a long history arising out of their subjugation and suppression under the British rule

 

[Nassr]

I am not where the unrelated part really lies. I read the links when I posted and the author still does not provide a cohesive link as to how the creation of Pakistan along monotheistic lines has anything to do with somehow the aspiration of the Meluhha. The area described for the Meluhha encompasses all these areas .

Yet somehow in your defence you chose to ignore them in trying to apply selective logic based on the defence "I know more about the IVC". The movement of two nation theory has ZERO links with the boundaries of the IVC and as such many of the leadership of these areas had to be convinced to join into Pakistani nation. There was little evidence of the Meluhha linkage in any of the process and as such it seems a selective ignorance of history to skip the entire process of the Pakistan movement to just link Meluhha to make some sort of backstory to the "Pakistan existed since the the IVC" theory.

First of all pick the right map for display which can correctly describe the expanse of IVC and not a goose egg drawn by somebody.

How can you ignore the separate identity of a people known as Meluhha, politically and geographically maintained for over 7000-8000 years with a contemporary paradigm. History is a continuation of thousands of years of known findings and events. It can not be ignored because you have may have a bias or may not have the depth of its understanding.

Just because a mention of monotheism has been made, you automatically link it with current religiosity and thus Islam as it also is a monotheistic practice. IVC existed some thousands of years before the advent of Islam and Christianity and Jewish faith and Vedic culture. So merely stating that ooohhh because a mention of monotheistic nature of IVC is made, it must be linked to Islam or Muslim Pakistan. This is a misnomer which people with shallow knowledge and thinking jump to. Do read about monotheism in ancient times, particularly of the contemporary IVC era, to attain appropriate knowledge before making frivolous linkages.

There was no Pakistan that existed at the time IVC was prevalent and neither did India. But the history and archeology does provide ample links to the continuation of thousands of years of happenings, this land which was later called Pakistan, had undergone. And the fact that this land remained as a separate political entity for thousands of years except for an aberration of some hundreds of years, till the emergence of Pakistan, does provide ample linkages of how history repeats and resurrects itself.

And yes, the landmass of Pakistan did exist as a separate political entity since the times of Meluhha and the Gangetic valley and its adjoining plains remained segregated except during the times of Mauryas, Muslims and British.

If the continuation of historical happenings, linkages and facts are not as important, then why may I ask are you discussing the contemporary history of Two Nation Theory.

 

[Sugarcane]

First of all pick the right map for display which can correctly describe the expanse of IVC and not a goose egg drawn by somebody.

View attachment 10311


How can you ignore the separate identity of a people known as Meluhha, politically and geographically maintained for over 7000-8000 years with a contemporary paradigm. History is a continuation of thousands of years of known findings and events. It can not be ignored because you have may have a bias or may not have the depth of its understanding.

Just because a mention of monotheism has been made, you automatically link it with current religiosity and thus Islam as it also is a monotheistic practice. IVC existed some thousands of years before the advent of Islam and Christianity and Jewish faith and Vedic culture. So merely stating that ooohhh because a mention of monotheistic nature of IVC is made, it must be linked to Islam or Muslim Pakistan. This is a misnomer which people with shallow knowledge and thinking jump to. Do read about monotheism in ancient times, particularly of the contemporary IVC era, to attain appropriate knowledge before making frivolous linkages.

There was no Pakistan that existed at the time IVC was prevalent and neither did India. But the history and archeology does provide ample links to the continuation of thousands of years of happenings, this land which was later called Pakistan, had undergone. And the fact that this land remained as a separate political entity for thousands of years except for an aberration of some hundreds of years, till the emergence of Pakistan, does provide ample linkages of how history repeats and resurrects itself.

And yes, the landmass of Pakistan did exist as a separate political entity since the times of Meluhha and the Gangetic valley and its adjoining plains remained segregated except during the times of Mauryas, Muslims and British.

If the continuation of historical happenings, linkages and facts are not as important, then why may I ask are you discussing the contemporary history of Two Nation Theory.

Dude - Oscar is right, there is no connection between TNT & IVC --- nobody mentioned IVC in history of Pakistan's movement. If we go by your theory than you should denounce TNT based on religion because people living within boundaries of IVC changed their religion many time and even today they are not all Muslim.

 

[SQ8]

First of all pick the right map for display which can correctly describe the expanse of IVC and not a goose egg drawn by somebody.

View attachment 10311


How can you ignore the separate identity of a people known as Meluhha, politically and geographically maintained for over 7000-8000 years with a contemporary paradigm. History is a continuation of thousands of years of known findings and events. It can not be ignored because you have may have a bias or may not have the depth of its understanding.

Just because a mention of monotheism has been made, you automatically link it with current religiosity and thus Islam as it also is a monotheistic practice. IVC existed some thousands of years before the advent of Islam and Christianity and Jewish faith and Vedic culture. So merely stating that ooohhh because a mention of monotheistic nature of IVC is made, it must be linked to Islam or Muslim Pakistan. This is a misnomer which people with shallow knowledge and thinking jump to. Do read about monotheism in ancient times, particularly of the contemporary IVC era, to attain appropriate knowledge before making frivolous linkages.

There was no Pakistan that existed at the time IVC was prevalent and neither did India. But the history and archeology does provide ample links to the continuation of thousands of years of happenings, this land which was later called Pakistan, had undergone. And the fact that this land remained as a separate political entity for thousands of years except for an aberration of some hundreds of years, till the emergence of Pakistan, does provide ample linkages of how history repeats and resurrects itself.

And yes, the landmass of Pakistan did exist as a separate political entity since the times of Meluhha and the Gangetic valley and its adjoining plains remained segregated except during the times of Mauryas, Muslims and British.

If the continuation of historical happenings, linkages and facts are not as important, then why may I ask are you discussing the contemporary history of Two Nation Theory.

From the Second Article.


Major events of religio-political virtue impacted the period of existence of Indus Valley Civilization (7000 – 1300) which peaked between 3000 – 2000 BC and having declined from 1900 BC onwards till losing its trace around 1300 BC. This time period was laden with probable emergence of Prophets Nuh (Noah), Hud (Eber), Saleh (Shela) and certainly according to most scholars, the emergence of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) around 2000 BC, till Prophets Musa (Moses) 1436 – 1316 BC and Haroon (Aaron) 1439 – 1317 BC. All these Prophets spread the belief in one God (monotheism) and interestingly, as accepted by most scholars, the people of Indus Valley Civilization were the only ones who believed in monotheism out of the three contemporary civilizations.

One may find the answer within the known historical aspects related to the spread of early monotheism. The time period of its emergence, its precursor, the peak and the decline of Indus Valley Civilization clearly relates it to the probable known historical influence of Prophets of that era, who spread monotheism. The possibility that there may have been a Prophet present amongst them, whose influence chartered the course of this remarkable civilization, can not be thus completely ruled out.

These societal influences may also help solve the riddle as to why this civilization started declining after 1900 BC. Were there any linkages between the birth of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) around 2000 BC in Sumer (Mesopotamia), who also spread monotheism. If such a probability has a measure of belief, the priests, the governing elite and a part of the population may have migrated to Sumer (Mesopotamia) after the news of Prophet Ibrahim’s (Abraham) proclamations would have reached Indus Valley. The remaining population, leaving those who could not and did not follow them to Sumer in search of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), were left ungoverned and thus initiated the gradual collapse of Indus Valley Civilization which many have attributed to various natural calamities, indications of which have never been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.

After the decline and fading out of Indus Valley Civilization, it took many more centuries in formation of an alternative local culture and life style. This apparently took the form of ancient Vedic Hindu culture which emerged during its declining period or after the civilization had faded out. The influence was quite apparent in the then emerging Vedic Hindu culture and was pronounced by the fact that it also propagated monotheism in its earlier instance, which however was later diluted to polytheism.

It took many more centuries to bring the Ganges Valley and its adjoining planes under this new found influence. Monotheism, though in a different format, did stretch its wings again and again during the course of later history, in the form of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, though majority continued to revert back or follow Vedic Hindu culture. The arrival of Muslims however, effected a gradual and major change and the people of Indus Valley Civilization again accepted the virtues of monotheism which they had followed thousands of years earlier.

It was this civilizational clash between monotheism and polytheism which brought to fore the Meluhha in the form of Pakistan in 1947 and re-enacted it as an embodiment of a long lost great civilization.

Apart from the sudden linkages to monotheism made on the view of particular scholars that the IVC religion was monoastic in nature there is no solid proof to link the claims that Islam is the natural fit into this monothesim bracket of the IVC , the author has chosen to blanket misstate timelines of Sikhism as well. When as such it originated well into Muslim rule and I dont need to be a self proclaimed IVC expert to know that. Somehow selective timelining which you accuse me of essentially reeks in your post.
Your own map shows the Indian state of Gujrat and borders of Mahrastra affected by the IVC yet you went bezerk trying to prove that it was not so.
You are trying to link 7000 years of history into some single trend by blanket ignorance of historical events in an attempt to justify your viewpoint; yet you have the guile to accuse me of bias when you cannot keep yourself objective and seemingly are forced to resort to demeaning me to try and push the "superiority" of your logic. I am not the one making the links, It is the article you posted that made so. Either you have no idea what you posted or are copy pasting information you yourself dont understand fully and hence cannot explain it..and then making angry remarks trying to prove a feeble point..which really does you no favours and has little effect on me maintaining that there are NO links to the IVC with the two nation theory or the emergence of Pakistan.

 

[kurup]

5. Indira-Ji,you were wrong. The Two Nation Theory, meaning Muslims are a nation by themselves, is intact and thriving. Assam, P/bangla,Kerala - Lakswadip,Andaman-Nicobar and Junagadh are soon going to strengthen the rank of separatist Muslims.

In your dreams may be they are going to strengthen , in real world not .

 

[Nassr]

@ LoveIcon, @ Oscar

O Bhai Log please understand the context here. Khan A. Sufyan is only highlighting the historical context of events and happenings and is certainly not explaining the religiosity of religions. This is a very important point to understand here.

In many cases the religious scriptures are used to ascertain the historical events or happenings, as contemporary historical record of a particular era may not be available. The historians and analysts have been doing this since long and have related the happenings with explanations given in religious scriptures of various religions. This form of historical referencing has been practiced by renowned historians or historical analysts all over the world.

History of Republic of India has been related to references made in the Rig Veda, the epic Mahabharata and other Vedic and Hindu scriptures. The biblical referencing of historical events, the timelines of the eras of various Prophets and other related historical events are referenced to cite history of the era. So is the case with Islam and other religions. This is not related to religiosity in any manner – it is related to explanation of history and conduct of historical analyses.

In the papers written by Khan A. Sufyan, he does the same. The Indian historians and many westerners relate the happenings of IVC era with Rig Veda and other Vedic scriptures and cite references from it. This has been done as history of the era is vague and is not known in entirety. Khan A. Sufyan is probably one of those few if not the first one, who have cited references from Abrahamic description of timelines and happenings. Why was it not done before – there can be many reasons which could be highlighted but this is not under discussion here.

The problem here is that because he mentions monotheism, which is the primary Abrahamic propagation, he is being accused of a bias. When the same thing is being propagated by the Indians and westerners citing the Vedic/Hindu scriptures like Rig Veda and Mahabharata, it is accepted as a norm – why is this so. Probably because he is a Muslim and is from Pakistan. And probably because there is a so-called Muslim Terrorism cycle underway, everything and anything of historical value cited by a Muslim and a Pakistani is viewed and coloured with a bias. He has been slighted by westerners by being called **** and in search of a homeland that never was.

Contrarily, he is using the Abrahamic explanation of events and highlighting a purely historical happening which has never been analysed before in the manner he did. Instead of appreciating his research efforts, we accuse him of being a ****, because he is the only one who is challenging the earlier held historical non-facts. He has mentioned in both the papers that I cited, that historically, the people of Pakistan during various times were monotheists, Vedic/Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims etc. I wonder if the mention of Muslim hurt some so much.

When I read Khan A. Sufyan mentioning Jinnah’s interviews, I read a book which had compilation of Quaid e Azam’s interviews given to foreign journalists. In one such interview he explained the geopolitical importance of Pakistan. This interview was taken before the creation of Pakistan. It was an eye opener for me. He could not have given his vision if he was not aware of history in so much detail. And his vision of Pakistan’s geopolitical importance is remarkably true to this day as well – and it could not have been ascertained without the kind of understanding of history that Jinnah had with regard to the inherent separate identity of this land of ours.

The sense and spirit of history can only be understood if it is viewed and seen in continuity and not in isolation. All events are related to earlier happenings. After all, there were people who lived in the land we call Pakistan before the advent of Islam. Who were these people and how does the history relate to the present in essence and continuity, is at the heart of all this.

You may not agree with me, please don’t. But please do not under-rate historical prevalence of the fact that this land of our, whatever we call it – Meluhha, Pakistan or any other name – it remained as a separate political entity for major part of its over 9000 years of known continuous history and only remained as one political unit with old India for a short aberated time.

And please, appreciate those who bring such facts to life instead of resorting to historical isolationism.

 

[INDIC]

@ LoveIcon, @ Oscar

O Bhai Log please understand the context here. Khan A. Sufyan is only highlighting the historical context of events and happenings and is certainly not explaining the religiosity of religions. This is a very important point to understand here.

In many cases the religious scriptures are used to ascertain the historical events or happenings, as contemporary historical record of a particular era may not be available. The historians and analysts have been doing this since long and have related the happenings with explanations given in religious scriptures of various religions. This form of historical referencing has been practiced by renowned historians or historical analysts all over the world.

History of Republic of India has been related to references made in the Rig Veda, the epic Mahabharata and other Vedic and Hindu scriptures. The biblical referencing of historical events, the timelines of the eras of various Prophets and other related historical events are referenced to cite history of the era. So is the case with Islam and other religions. This is not related to religiosity in any manner – it is related to explanation of history and conduct of historical analyses.

In the papers written by Khan A. Sufyan, he does the same. The Indian historians and many westerners relate the happenings of IVC era with Rig Veda and other Vedic scriptures and cite references from it. This has been done as history of the era is vague and is not known in entirety. Khan A. Sufyan is probably one of those few if not the first one, who have cited references from Abrahamic description of timelines and happenings. Why was it not done before – there can be many reasons which could be highlighted but this is not under discussion here.

The problem here is that because he mentions monotheism, which is the primary Abrahamic propagation, he is being accused of a bias. When the same thing is being propagated by the Indians and westerners citing the Vedic/Hindu scriptures like Rig Veda and Mahabharata, it is accepted as a norm – why is this so. Probably because he is a Muslim and is from Pakistan. And probably because there is a so-called Muslim Terrorism cycle underway, everything and anything of historical value cited by a Muslim and a Pakistani is viewed and coloured with a bias. He has been slighted by westerners by being called **** and in search of a homeland that never was.

Contrarily, he is using the Abrahamic explanation of events and highlighting a purely historical happening which has never been analysed before in the manner he did. Instead of appreciating his research efforts, we accuse him of being a ****, because he is the only one who is challenging the earlier held historical non-facts. He has mentioned in both the papers that I cited, that historically, the people of Pakistan during various times were monotheists, Vedic/Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims etc. I wonder if the mention of Muslim hurt some so much.

When I read Khan A. Sufyan mentioning Jinnah’s interviews, I read a book which had compilation of Quaid e Azam’s interviews given to foreign journalists. In one such interview he explained the geopolitical importance of Pakistan. This interview was taken before the creation of Pakistan. It was an eye opener for me. He could not have given his vision if he was not aware of history in so much detail. And his vision of Pakistan’s geopolitical importance is remarkably true to this day as well – and it could not have been ascertained without the kind of understanding of history that Jinnah had with regard to the inherent separate identity of this land of ours.

The sense and spirit of history can only be understood if it is viewed and seen in continuity and not in isolation. All events are related to earlier happenings. After all, there were people who lived in the land we call Pakistan before the advent of Islam. Who were these people and how does the history relate to the present in essence and continuity, is at the heart of all this.

You may not agree with me, please don’t. But please do not under-rate historical prevalence of the fact that this land of our, whatever we call it – Meluhha, Pakistan or any other name – it remained as a separate political entity for major part of its over 9000 years of known continuous history and only remained as one political unit with old India for a short aberated time.

And please, appreciate those who bring such facts to life instead of resorting to historical isolationism.

Pakistan movement originated in UP and Bengal, you must have an idea where Muslim League was formed. Both Punjab and Sindh were under unionist politics of Punjab Unionist party and Sindh Ittehad Party respectively, while NWFP was a Congress stronghold and Balochistan was a princely state.

BTW why did Pakistan chose a non-Meluhhan Urdu language.

 

[pk_baloch]

 
aray bahe kiya masla he ..mera msg kahan gaya

 

[Ajatashatru]

Two nation theory was dead the day when one-third of Muslims of Republic of India decided not to leave for Pakistan. This clearly showed that there were some Muslims in India who were tolerant of other religions and who did not believe that Muslims formed a different nation but that all Indians form one nation.

 

[pk_baloch]

BTW why did Pakistan chose a non-Meluhhan Urdu language.

urdu is orginated from sanskrit,persian,arabic and turkish languages ,and sanskrit orgin is pakistan punjab ,also Arab brought arabic language first in pakistan land ,same with other invaders so how basic urdu was not orginated in pakistan AND non - Meluhhan? punjabi is the mother of urdu

 

[M. Sarmad]

All those who say that there are more muslims in India than there are in Pakistan (Muslims decided to stay in India and not go to Pakistan),this disproves two nation theory , are unaware that a "mass migration" was never intended under the partition plan .. Infact no migration was intended at all. It was a counter balance , There would be muslims in India and there would be hindus in Pakistan .. The problem arose because of biasness of the redcliffe award !! Muslim majority areas were given to India in order to provide them a land route to jammu , the hometown of Mr. Nehru , who was very keen to annex his hometown to India .. It was the partition of Punjab and bengal which triggered violence and mass migrations ..
Two Nation Theory can never die , as it is a religious doctrine . at max you would be able to say that Muslims of India failed to implement it properly . Fall of USSR is not the failure of Socialism , its the failure of soviets in its implementation ..

Two nation theory was dead the day when one-third of Muslims of Republic of India decided not to leave for Pakistan. This clearly showed that there were some Muslims in India who were tolerant of other religions and who did not believe that Muslims formed a different nation but that all Indians form one nation.