India vehemently ratifies the two nation theory after 8 decades of denial.

[M. Sarmad]

On March 22 1940 Jinnah said

1. “ It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions ......... "

On 11 August 1947, Jinnah said exactly opposite of his March 22 1940 speech.

2. “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”


Choose First Speech: Pakistan was meant to be a nation exclusive for Muslims, where they won't have to live with Hindus.
Choose Second Speech: Pakistan was meant to be a secular state where Hindu and Muslims will live together.

With this conflicting speeches, entire Pakistan still confused after 7 decades.

Your argument is predicated on the misunderstanding that the two-nation theory stated that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist, which is not true. This is a common misunderstanding that has been associated with the two-nation theory but it certainly has nothing to do with the two-nation theory as Jinnah understood it. In January 1940, Jinnah wrote an article called ‘The constitutional maladies of India’ in which he first articulated the two-nation theory, which, mind you, had been articulated by others long before him. In it he argued that Hindus and Muslims were two nations and that these two nations had to work together and “share in the governance of their common motherland”, i.e. India, so that India could emerge as a “great nation”. This does not preclude coexistence by any stretch of the imagination. In his speech during the Lahore session, Jinnah argued that these two nations could not evolve a common nationality. Here was a man who had spent 30 odd years trying to bring Hindus and Muslims together who, on the face of it, had become pessimistic about this unity. The resolution that came out of this session in that fateful March 1940, though ambiguous over independence and autonomy of the state or states proposed, was thoroughly unambiguous about the fact that there would be Hindu minorities in such a state or states as there would be Muslim minorities in India. Therefore, coexistence of Hindus and Muslims was always part of the Lahore Resolution as well as Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan ........

All nationalisms — based on an ostensibly religious, racial or cultural identity — are by nature exclusive in some form. However, Jinnah clearly drew the distinction between group nationalism in whatever form and the idea of citizenship. Jinnah had always argued that the state had to treat all its citizens equally. His vision of Pakistan was of an inclusive and democratic state, which did not distinguish between a citizen on the basis of his or her faith. This was a consistent commitment throughout his life and his contributions to India as a legislator from 1910 to 1946 show precisely that. The August 11 speech was no contradiction; it was a concise summary of what Jinnah had stood for all his life — as Gokhale once described him — a man entirely free of bias against any community or people. !!

 

[shuntmaster]

The veracity of two nation theory will ever be questioned until majority of indian muslims peacefully coexist with their neighbours. That is a big problem to Pakistanis today. They cannot get their head around the fact that muslims in india live more peaceful and prosperous lives than muslims in Pakistan. Or, even the fact that indian muslims can even support a hindu nationalist like modi. This goes completely against their worldview.

 

[Cyberian]

It's about time the cow was finally slaughtered and we celebrated the creation of the Muslim Pakistan, Thanked ALLAH Subhanahu Wa-Ta'Allah abundantly and remembered our forefather for the sacrifices they made.

 

[M. Sarmad]

For India’s Persecuted Muslim Minority, Caution Follows Hindu Party’s Victory

By GARDINER HARRIS MAY 16, 2014

NEW DELHI — Like real estate agents the world over, Rahul Rewal asks his clients if they have children or pets, since both limit options. But there is another crucial but often unspoken question: Are they Muslim?

“I tailor the list of places that I show Muslims because many landlords, even in upper-class neighborhoods, will not rent to them,” Mr. Rewal said. “Most don’t even bother hiding their bigotry.”

Discrimination against Muslims in India is so rampant that many barely muster outrage when telling of the withdrawn apartment offers, rejected job applications and turned-down loans that are part of living in the country for them. As a group, Muslims have fallen badly behind Hindus in recent decades in education, employment and economic status, with persistent discrimination a key reason. Muslims are more likely to live in villages without schools or medical facilities and less likely to qualify for bank loans.

“Fear is a basic part of politics, and it’s actually how politicians gain respect, but for us fear also comes from the general public,” said Zahir Alam, the imam of Bari Masjid, a mosque in East Delhi, in an interview Friday. “The meaning of minority has never been clearer than it is today.”

The B.J.P. is led by Narendra Modi, who is widely expected to become India’s next prime minister. Mr. Modi — a Hindu, like a majority of Indians — has a fraught relationship with Muslims, who make up about 15 percent of the country. He was in charge of the western state of Gujarat in 2002 when uncontrolled rioting caused 1,000 deaths, mostly among Muslims. He has also been linked with a police assassination squad that largely targeted Muslims.

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

View attachment 30866

Today after 8 decades of self inflicted denial the Hindu majority of India have finally ratified the two nation theory for themselves, by themselves on the democratic ballot box without compulsion or coercion. A resounding victory for the Hindu nationalist leader Narendra Modi indeed is a new chapter in South Asian history. For his Hindu nation he represents a strong leader, for Muslims of India he remains the butcher of Gujarat with blood on his hands.

With his fundamental support coming from the right wing Hindu camp of the BJP being sufficient for such a victory, the BJP did not care about the Muslim vote for the first time ever. They were simply sidelined as no effective election campaign was mounted to attract the Muslim vote. This electoral segregation will have a deep imprint and strategic implications on Indian social makeup of the future. Since the Muslim vote is not included, their participation in an overwhelmingly BJP govt will cease to exist.

For Pakistan it marks the end of an ideological battle spanning 8 decades. This is a victory we must celebrate, as our historic pretext has dawned into the day of correctness and approval. Visionaries who coined the two nation theory saw this day coming 8 decades ago. Its because of their genius, connection to our past, hard work and sacrifices that we Pakistanis today see the dawn of a day which proved us 'historically right' from this side of the border. It also therefore proves that the struggle of our ancestors for independence was both historically correct and strategically right, henceforth the long treacherous journey, that has tested the Pakistani time and again, has been worth it.

What tomorrow holds for India's Muslim is unknown, though for us we can finally rest this debate and move on with our nation building, knowing that our struggle had been righteous despite the tact of Gandhi and Nehru in order to convince our forefathers to the contrary. Those who asked us for proofs and ridiculed us, themselves have democratically ratified the robustness and righteousness of our historic narrative.

Let it be a source of humility and confidence for the Pakistani, as those who conspired to mislead our march in the past, today find themselves marching willingly and proudly along a parallel route, the same route our ancestors had created. Today we can safely write this for the historians that the future of sub continent was shaped by none other than our ancestors.

"The truth can only be delayed"

Aeronaut.

And We Indians vehemently Reject these Malicious Allegations against our esteemed Prime Minister and Our Country.

 

[INDIC]

Your argument is predicated on the misunderstanding that the two-nation theory stated that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist, which is not true. This is a common misunderstanding that has been associated with the two-nation theory but it certainly has nothing to do with the two-nation theory as Jinnah understood it. In January 1940, Jinnah wrote an article called ‘The constitutional maladies of India’ in which he first articulated the two-nation theory, which, mind you, had been articulated by others long before him. In it he argued that Hindus and Muslims were two nations and that these two nations had to work together and “share in the governance of their common motherland”, i.e. India, so that India could emerge as a “great nation”. This does not preclude coexistence by any stretch of the imagination. In his speech during the Lahore session, Jinnah argued that these two nations could not evolve a common nationality. Here was a man who had spent 30 odd years trying to bring Hindus and Muslims together who, on the face of it, had become pessimistic about this unity. The resolution that came out of this session in that fateful March 1940, though ambiguous over independence and autonomy of the state or states proposed, was thoroughly unambiguous about the fact that there would be Hindu minorities in such a state or states as there would be Muslim minorities in India. Therefore, coexistence of Hindus and Muslims was always part of the Lahore Resolution as well as Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan ........

All nationalisms — based on an ostensibly religious, racial or cultural identity — are by nature exclusive in some form. However, Jinnah clearly drew the distinction between group nationalism in whatever form and the idea of citizenship. Jinnah had always argued that the state had to treat all its citizens equally. His vision of Pakistan was of an inclusive and democratic state, which did not distinguish between a citizen on the basis of his or her faith. This was a consistent commitment throughout his life and his contributions to India as a legislator from 1910 to 1946 show precisely that. The August 11 speech was no contradiction; it was a concise summary of what Jinnah had stood for all his life — as Gokhale once described him — a man entirely free of bias against any community or people. !!

just some fancy comment. As I wrote

Choose First Speech of 22 March 1940: Pakistan was meant to be a nation exclusive for Muslims, where they won't have to live with Hindus.
Choose Second Speech 11 August 1947: Pakistan was meant to be a secular state where Hindu and Muslims will live together.

With this conflicting speeches, entire Pakistan still confused after 7 decades.

 

[jaunty]

Indian Muslims vehemently denied TNT Poll data shows large number of Muslims voted for Modi : Highlights, News - India Today

 

[American Eagle]

Aeronaut, you might wish this to be so. But you are wrong.

India is the largest democracy in SW/SE Asia, and remains so.

You simply are continuing a religious prejudice that you carry. Nothing more.

Look at what India continue to achieve in a securlar nation.

SECULAR is what you do not understand. Too bad.

Someday if Pakistan becomes more secular it can advance more in all fields of endeavor. Until then Pakistan remains bogged
down with extremist religious terrorists and terrorism.

Think why you live in Australia instead of Pakistan.

In India you have the opportunity to be elected from the "Pink Hippopotamus Party" if you offer the most appealing secular program and platform for mainstream Indians.

Think negative, life will be negative.

Think positive, life will be positive.

 

[Kompromat]

Aeronaut, you might wish this to be so. But you are wrong.

India is the largest democracy in SW/SE Asia, and remains so.

You simply are continuing a religious prejudice that you carry. Nothing more.

Look at what India continue to achieve in a securlar nation.

SECULAR is what you do not understand. Too bad.

Someday if Pakistan becomes more secular it can advance more in all fields of endeavor. Until then Pakistan remains bogged
down with extremist religious terrorists and terrorism.

Think why you live in Australia instead of Pakistan.

In India you have the opportunity to be elected from the "Pink Hippopotamus Party" if you offer the most appealing secular program and platform for mainstream Indians.

Think negative, life will be negative.

Think positive, life will be positive.

With all due respect sir, i'm forced to say that you are utterly out of touch with this subject.

The new govt of India is NOT a secular govt. It is a 'Hindu Nationalist' party which has won this election mainly due to Hindu vote. The BJP hasn't even campaigned to get the Muslim vote this time around.

Secularism in India has been defeated and rejected. Its a self defeating bogus idea that only works for complexities of the Christian Anglo Saxon European cultures or sub cultures.

American narrative that secularism is the only way is just like what Lenin's narrative was for communism and it is failing just as communism did.

 

[Iggy]

With all due respect sir, i'm forced to say that you are utterly out of touch with this subject.
The new govt of India is NOT a secular govt. It is a 'Hindu Nationalist' party which has won this election mainly due to Hindu vote. The BJP hasn't even campaigned to get the Muslim vote this time around.

Secularism in India has been defeated and rejected. Its a self defeating bogus idea that only works for complexities of the Christian Anglo Saxon European cultures or sub cultures.

American narrative that secularism is the only way is just likw what Lenin's narrative was for communism.

About the bolded part, what do you meant?? Already many posts indicate that BJP won in Muslim dominated areas. And how you think BJP would have campaigned for Muslim votes?? Playing minority card like other political parties? Or should have offered special privileges to Muslims only?

And about secularism in India is defeated and rejected?? by whom? We the people in India elected our representatives we seem fit to be Prime Minister.. We ended a reign of the most corrupt regime in India. How you find it as a rejection and defeat of secularism?? It is still strong in this country..

 

[Kompromat]

@seiko

The statement is self explaining. Observers like Reuters and BBC have stated the same opinion.

 

[Iggy]

@seiko

The statement is self explaining. Observers like Reuters and BBC have stated the same opinion.

Not at all.. If it is just an another statement from you with out any explanation then I am fine with it..

 

[Secur]

For India - TNT never had any significance. Neither positive nor negative. We never felt the need to prove it right nor wrong.

That doesn't seem to explain the constant reminders to Pakistanis on this very forum about how the Two Nation theory not having any basis in reality or a figment of Muslim League's imagination . The way I see it , for India to appear secular , TNT has to be opposed/denied . Whatever way you try to put this victory , there's no way you can deny Modi over-usage and long term dependency on Hindu nationalist card , the reputation of BJP as an anti-Muslim political party and the historical association with VHP and RSS . These are cold hard facts that people are skipping constantly or trying to rationalize .

 

[Iggy]

It's about time the cow was finally slaughtered and we celebrated the creation of the Muslim Pakistan, Thanked ALLAH Subhanahu Wa-Ta'Allah abundantly and remembered our forefather for the sacrifices they made.

You needed 8 decades to finally get a justification to create a nation itself is pathetic enough for not to celebrate...

 

[INDIC]

That doesn't seem to explain the constant reminders to Pakistanis on this very forum about how the Two Nation theory not having any basis in reality or a figment of Muslim League's imagination . The way I see it , for India to appear secular , TNT has to be opposed/denied . Whatever way you try to put this victory , there's no way you can deny Modi over-usage and long term dependency on Hindu nationalist card , the reputation of BJP as an anti-Muslim political party and the historical association with VHP and RSS . These are cold hard facts that people are skipping constantly or trying to rationalize .

Our Indianness comes from our historical Indian identity, we don't care about some hypothetical theory, since the word Pakistan was invented in some hostel of Cambridge university by Rahmat Ali in 1930s, you have to rely on some theory and proof to prove your identity.