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

[Joe Shearer]

Jinnah was great lawyer, mediocre politician and pathetic statesman. Like all good lawyers, he was an expert opportunist.

Perhaps you need to read Ayesha Jalal on the subject. Or look at the old archives of PTH. I believe your view is summary and unfair, and needs review.

 

[shuntmaster]

Perhaps you need to read Ayesha Jalal on the subject. Or look at the old archives of PTH. I believe your view is summary and unfair, and needs review.

You mean Ms. Jalal's theory that the relentless invocation of the racialist neologism “Pakistan”—was all a ploy meant to secure for Muslims greater rights within a united India? Jinnah never wanted partition, but used it as threat to blackmail congress to agree to more than a fair share of power in post-colonial India? How do you explain the events of direct-action day in that context?

 

[Joe Shearer]

You mean Ms. Jalal's theory that the relentless invocation of the racialist neologism “Pakistan”—was all a ploy meant to secure for Muslims greater rights within a united India? Jinnah never wanted partition, but used it as threat to blackmail congress to agree to more than a fair share of power in post-colonial India? How do you explain the events of direct-action day in that context?

Very simply, that Direct Action Day was a bloody day of massacre and counter-massacre in Calcutta, under an independent chief who was bent on bloodshed. Like a contemporary who is much discussed, he interfered actively with the police, and kept them from stopping the first wave of communal attacks. It was only when the attacked communities - more than one - reacted in overwhelming strength that the then Chief Minister unleashed the police. Familiar story.

Regarding MAJ himself, his call for the DAD was a very negative act. No doubt about it. But it was consistent with his suggested motives, however deplorable this consistency might be.

 

[shuntmaster]

Regarding MAJ himself, his call for the DAD was a very negative act. No doubt about it. But it was consistent with his suggested motives, however deplorable this consistency might be.

The direct action day, which happened exactly one year before Indian independence, was the point of no-return for partition of the Indian Subcontinent. Jinnah would be foolish not to know the consequences of the call for the Direct action..

 

[Joe Shearer]

The direct action day, which happened exactly one year
before Indian independence, was the point of no-return for partition of the Indian Subcontinent. Jinnah would be foolish not to know the consequences of the call for the Direct action..

<sigh>

This is less than worthy of you, or anyone who wishes to comment on those events in honesty.

Remind yourself: what were the dates of the INC rejection of the Cabinet Mission plan, as agreed in conference, and the dates of the call for Direct Action Day and the Day itself. That might in turn remind you what actually crystallised the demand for partition. After that crystallisation, what remained to be said? Or done?

 

[Kloitra]

Personally, I believe that Nehru before independence was an overblown figure, Nehru after independence was a pillar of the republic and a great influence on the Indian state; unfortunately, he had influence on both the positive and negative aspects. His deferment to the Lok Sabha in so many instances, when the brute majority of a servile Congress party might have allowed him to ride roughshod over the opposition, is one of his contributions. Protecting the integrity of institutions, protecting the integrity of appointments, of due process, of a million 'little' things proved to be invaluable in building the democratic character of this nation.

But then one also remembers how his gratuitous interference in the Army led to the debacle of 62, and one hesitates.

I disagree. Most, or probably all the big leaders at the time of independence were ideologically strong. Patel, Shastri, and many others. Would you say if Shastri was first PM, he would have misused the power? Notwithstanding that this is all conjecture, we can safely assume all leaders had welfare of India and not personal position in mind. All of them were of same mind regarding democracy. None had a stature so big that others could not put him back on line, had he strayed. Infact Nehru was the one who took independent decisions for the country, without consulting even his home minister. Probably Patel would have done the same. Hard to picture how a figure of the past would have acted in a different situation. But I can't imagine any of them to not maintain the decorum of democracy. Indian democracy was a collective effort and not a single person's outstanding one.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I disagree. Most, or probably all the big leaders at the time of independence were ideologically strong. Patel, Shastri, and many others. Would you say if Shastri was first PM, he would have misused the power? Notwithstanding that this is all conjecture, we can safely assume all leaders had welfare of India and not personal position in mind. All of them were of same mind regarding democracy. None had a stature so big that others could not put him back on line, had he strayed. Infact Nehru was the one who took independent decisions for the country, without consulting even his home minister. Probably Patel would have done the same. Hard to picture how a figure of the past would have acted in a different situation. But I can't imagine any of them to not maintain the decorum of democracy. Indian democracy was a collective effort and not a single person's outstanding one.

On reflection, your view is probably a more accurate reflection of the times than my original post. It was truly a collection of strong and worthy people. Between Patel and Nehru, Patel had the strength and self-confidence not to have taken unilateral decisions, but to have submitted his conclusions to collegiate preview.

All in all, I agree with you. Indian democracy was a collective effort, and not a single person's outstanding one.

 

[niaz]

When I look back on the events since the partition introspectively. I conclude that main reason for the continued democracy in part of the subcontinent that is now India and lack of it in the part of what was Pakistan; this includes Bangla Desh; is the lack of good quality leadership.

It is a famous saying that “It is important to know the past in order to understand the present and change the future”. Before we go any further please indulge me to briefly restate my view of the history.

Few people in Pakistan know that founding father of the Indian Congress was a Scotsman A.O. Hume who in 1885 along with William Wedderburn, Dadabhai Nooroji, Dinshaw Wacha, Womesh Chandra Banerji, Surendarnath Banerji, Manmohen Ghose & Mahadev Govind Ranade created Indian National Congress. All of the founders were members of the Indian Theosophical Society.

For the record Theosophical Society originated in 1875 in New York initially for the purpose of study of Occultism, the Cabala and the Eastern religions. It later moved its Head Qtrs. to Madras (Chennai) and evolved into a non-sectarian entity with universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour as one its main objectives.

One can see that Indian National Congress (INC) was formed by a bunch of elitist intellectuals. It was not until a quarter of century later; during the first decade of the 20Th century that INC aka Congress emerged as major political force.

All notable of the subcontinent eagerly joined INC. Muslim greats such Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Maulana Azad as well as Quaid e Azam were members of the Congress.

Muslim League on the other hand evolved from the Muslim Educational Movement led by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Its founding fathers; primarily the landed gentry such as Nawab Mohsinul Mulk of Dacca; not exactly known for their intellectual prowess.

Looking at what is now Pakistan; political leadership in Punjab was in the hands of the Unionist Muslim League, another party dominated by feudal lords and the landed gentry. KPK was dominated by Bacha Khans Red Shirts, a purely ethic Pashtun political party. Sindh was at that time part of the Bombay Presidency and a demand for formation of separate province dominated her politics which also focussed on the Sindhi nationalism. Baluchistan consisted of territories held by the Sardars ruling their respective tribes living, in all but name, in the Middle Ages.

One can see that the Congress founded by the intellectuals with esoteric ideals, ruled India undisturbed for almost half the century. Whereas lands that now constitute Pakistan was dominated and run mostly by the aristocrats or tribal Sarkar’s who exploited religious, ethnic and provincial differences and carry on to this day. These people do not tolerate differing points of view and treat the country like their fief, thus the military coups.

It is because of the origins of the Congress and nature of her membership, no single leader could impose his will on rest of the party. Even a giant such as Gandhiji could not impose his will on the congress and had to resort to emotional black mail of his famous ‘ Fast unto death’ to get his ideas accepted.

Regret to admit that the intellectuals with high personal integrity were few and far between among the Muslim League cadre. Allama Iqbal did not live to see Pakistan and Quaid e Azam survived barely a year.

Rest of the leaders were intellectual pigmies who always played the ethic/linguistic card to get ahead. Only other notable political leader was ZA Bhutto, but despite his superior intellect, ZAB was a feudal lord at heart and tolerated no difference of opinion.

In my humble opinion; it was because of this plurality resulting in tolerating and even accepting otherwise unpalatable opinions that there was no military takeover in India and the democracy survived unscathed.

However political scene has completely changed. There has been a sharp rise of the right in both the countries. Pakistan has Taliban and Indian has RSS in the guise of BJP. I came across some Indians who sarcastically remarked that in a way it was good that Pakistan separated because having both the hard line Muslim Taliban and hard line Hindu Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangha would have been a disaster for a united India.

It up to the Indians to decide what kind of India they want for the future and frankly I don’t give a fig. My interest lies with Pakistan and Pakistan only.

General public has the fundamental to right to go about their daily chores without fear of being shot, kidnapped for ransom or forced to pay ‘Bhatta’ or protection money. This will not stop until either TTP take over or are completed eliminated. I am hoping that that the current operation will continue until it is decided one way or the other. If majority of Pakistanis want to live in a Somalia or Taliban Afghanistan like Dark Age country, so be it.

 

[VCheng]

General public has the fundamental to right to go about their daily chores without fear of being shot, kidnapped for ransom or forced to pay ‘Bhatta’ or protection money. This will not stop until either TTP take over or are completed eliminated. I am hoping that that the current operation will continue until it is decided one way or the other. If majority of Pakistanis want to live in a Somalia or Taliban Afghanistan like Dark Age country, so be it.

I have often warned that such a tipping point where the religious extremists are in an influential majority may not be that far off for Pakistan.

 

[scorpionx]

When I look back on the events since the partition introspectively. I conclude that main reason for the continued democracy in part of the subcontinent that is now India and lack of it in the part of what was Pakistan; this includes Bangla Desh; is the lack of good quality leadership.

It is a famous saying that “It is important to know the past in order to understand the present and change the future”. Before we go any further please indulge me to briefly restate my view of the history.

Few people in Pakistan know that founding father of the Indian Congress was a Scotsman A.O. Hume who in 1885 along with William Wedderburn, Dadabhai Nooroji, Dinshaw Wacha, Womesh Chandra Banerji, Surendarnath Banerji, Manmohen Ghose & Mahadev Govind Ranade created Indian National Congress. All of the founders were members of the Indian Theosophical Society.

For the record Theosophical Society originated in 1875 in New York initially for the purpose of study of Occultism, the Cabala and the Eastern religions. It later moved its Head Qtrs. to Madras (Chennai) and evolved into a non-sectarian entity with universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour as one its main objectives.

One can see that Indian National Congress (INC) was formed by a bunch of elitist intellectuals. It was not until a quarter of century later; during the first decade of the 20Th century that INC aka Congress emerged as major political force.

All notable of the subcontinent eagerly joined INC. Muslim greats such Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Maulana Azad as well as Quaid e Azam were members of the Congress.

Muslim League on the other hand evolved from the Muslim Educational Movement led by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Its founding fathers; primarily the landed gentry such as Nawab Mohsinul Mulk of Dacca; not exactly known for their intellectual prowess.

Looking at what is now Pakistan; political leadership in Punjab was in the hands of the Unionist Muslim League, another party dominated by feudal lords and the landed gentry. KPK was dominated by Bacha Khans Red Shirts, a purely ethic Pashtun political party. Sindh was at that time part of the Bombay Presidency and a demand for formation of separate province dominated her politics which also focussed on the Sindhi nationalism. Baluchistan consisted of territories held by the Sardars ruling their respective tribes living, in all but name, in the Middle Ages.

One can see that the Congress founded by the intellectuals with esoteric ideals, ruled India undisturbed for almost half the century. Whereas lands that now constitute Pakistan was dominated and run mostly by the aristocrats or tribal Sarkar’s who exploited religious, ethnic and provincial differences and carry on to this day. These people do not tolerate differing points of view and treat the country like their fief, thus the military coups.

It is because of the origins of the Congress and nature of her membership, no single leader could impose his will on rest of the party. Even a giant such as Gandhiji could not impose his will on the congress and had to resort to emotional black mail of his famous ‘ Fast unto death’ to get his ideas accepted.

Regret to admit that the intellectuals with high personal integrity were few and far between among the Muslim League cadre. Allama Iqbal did not live to see Pakistan and Quaid e Azam survived barely a year.

Rest of the leaders were intellectual pigmies who always played the ethic/linguistic card to get ahead. Only other notable political leader was ZA Bhutto, but despite his superior intellect, ZAB was a feudal lord at heart and tolerated no difference of opinion.

In my humble opinion; it was because of this plurality resulting in tolerating and even accepting otherwise unpalatable opinions that there was no military takeover in India and the democracy survived unscathed.


It up to the Indians to decide what kind of India they want for the future and frankly I don’t give a fig. My interest lies with Pakistan and Pakistan only.

General public has the fundamental to right to go about their daily chores without fear of being shot, kidnapped for ransom or forced to pay ‘Bhatta’ or protection money. This will not stop until either TTP take over or are completed eliminated. I am hoping that that the current operation will continue until it is decided one way or the other. If majority of Pakistanis want to live in a Somalia or Taliban Afghanistan like Dark Age country, so be it.

This is an excellent post as usual from you and I feel it necessary to save it for future reference.

However political scene has completely changed. There has been a sharp rise of the right in both the countries. Pakistan has Taliban and Indian has RSS in the guise of BJP. I came across some Indians who sarcastically remarked that in a way it was good that Pakistan separated because having both the hard line Muslim Taliban and hard line Hindu Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangha would have been a disaster for a united India.

There is no doubt that with the rise of BJP rightist nationalism is on the rise in India. But I am not sure if Taliban and RSS really complement each other or not. Taliban defies the state and the state's secular essence. For such disrespect and hatred against liberalism it do not hesitate to kill it's own people,destroy it's own national assets.

On the contrary, RSS in its 90 years of history has seldom resorted to arms and violent measures. It rests its ideological values on retaliation politics and vows to stop further Islamic penetration in Hindu society. In spite of Babri and Godhra, I really doubt if they can venture against the secular constitution of India.

BJP is a political organization and is bound to accept the plurality of this country as it is.It knows quite well that any design as per the Sangh's own rules and ideals might put it on the verge of extinction. So I do not see RSS as an immediate threat to Indian society as Taliban is to the liberal societies of Pakistan. But these are just my personal views and are subjected to correction.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is an excellent post as usual from you and I feel it necessary to save it for future reference.



There is no doubt that with the rise of BJP rightist nationalism is on the rise in India. But I am not sure if Taliban and RSS really complement each other or not. Taliban defies the state and the state's secular essence. For such disrespect and hatred against liberalism it do not hesitate to kill it's own people,destroy it's own national assets.

On the contrary, RSS in its 90 years of history has seldom resorted to arms and violent measures. It rests its ideological values on retaliation politics and vows to stop further Islamic penetration in Hindu society. In spite of Babri and Godhra, I really doubt if they can venture against the secular constitution of India.

BJP is a political organization and is bound to accept the plurality of this country as it is.It knows quite well that any design as per the Sangh's own rules and ideals might put it on the verge of extinction. So I do not see RSS as an immediate threat to Indian society as Taliban is to the liberal societies of Pakistan. But these are just my personal views and are subjected to correction.

I believe that you are being optimistic, but I also hope I am wrong and you are right.

 

[Asian.Century]

Thanks to Modi je, BJP-RSS background of Hindutva ideology which validated two nation theory, which was already the case in point 1947....Had Not two nation theory never existed, Pakistan would not existed today.....Pakistan is the fortress of Islam, Pakistan the only nation conceived on Muslim's faith...

 

[my2cents]

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.

What good is your two nation theory, if it has to be revived periodically for almost 7 decades after independence.

If it is just to assuage your soul then go ahead, because we Indians are not buying it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thanks to Modi je, BJP-RSS background of Hindutva ideology which validated two nation theory, which was already the case in point 1947....Had Not two nation theory never existed, Pakistan would not existed today.....Pakistan is the fortress of Islam, Pakistan the only nation conceived on Muslim's faith...

What a post, and what a poster. Apparently all Jinnah's views on the subject are so much cattle fodder, and it is only the fortress of Islam bit that makes sense to the modern Pakistani.

 

[vsdoc]

Thank you. I will hugely appreciate that. I offer this as a preliminary libation.

Lemma 1: That the English were masters of myth, of myth in literature (Beowulf, Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter), in literary, social and socio-psychological analysis and exegesis (Frazer's Golden Bough, Graves' Greek Myths, even, in a twisted kind of way, Graves' revision of Omar Khayyam) and in history (Francis McDonald Cornford most famously, but others as well); and that they created almost the whole of Indian history, from first principles, setting in place a monumental effort where there was a vacuum of sorts (there were Indian works of history - the vacuum was not perfect!).

Lemma 2: That the masses in south Asia needed myths of their own to justify rising against the British, considering that many of the liberal reasons that might have justified the freedom struggle were not acceptable to the conservative sections that formed much of the masses that were mobilised.

Lemma 3: That the masses that formed Pakistan, overwhelmingly, but not exclusively Muslim, found their myth in the Two Nation Theory.

Lemma 4: That the two nation theory had to be discarded in 1971.

Lemma 5: That the Pakistani nation then re-created an origins myth for itself, in the Indus Man myth, first proposed by Aitzaz Ahsan, thereafter disastrously followed by an unruly pack.

Lemma 6: That the Bangladeshi component of the south Asian mass took up the TNT as its myth of origin, but that this lost much of its gloss in 1953.

Lemma 7: That the Bengali language and the singular identity of the Bengali people became the succeeding, "replacement" myth among a section, but not all sections, of the Bangladeshi population.

Lemma 8: That the Bengali language, to be re-possessed and cleansed and purified and with the original, pre-Halhed Persian and other loan words re-installed ceremoniously, is the successor myth to the TNT as far as another section of Bangladeshi society is concerned.

Lemma 9: That the Indian segment of the population went through two processes of its own.

Lemma 10. That the original was the Congress version, of an undifferentiated mass of people living in communal harmony. That this half-witted notion which grossly ignored all sensible facts on the ground was supplanted by a second myth, still in the making.

Lemma 11: That the social revisionists and the historical neo-revisionists have joined hand, or their strands of thought have merged together, and we are informed that culture and civilisation started in India,

• that Indo-Aryan languages started in India and were exported to the west,
• that the Indus Valley Civilisation was based on a kind of proto-Sanskrit,
• that the Indus Valley Civilisation was actually the Saraswati Civilisation,
• that all Indian society is an undifferentiated mass, except for the alien Abrahamic element that has been injected (and logically are liable to be ejected),
• that the sections that are currently in revolt are in revolt because they have not understood the superiority of the Brahminical/Sanskritised way of life, the importance of surrendering their identity to the general Indic identity, and the need to give up their forests, pastures and grasslands to the overwhelming priority of development.

Lemma 12: That therefore all these national myths have to be viewed with caution, with welders' goggles on, and that each must be subjected to minute inspection and to third-party evaluation before being taken seriously.

Brilliant.

Unfortunately I was on a permanent vacation at the time this was written.

P.S. @Horus disappointed a year plus on from the creation of the thread?

No pogrom? Silly meaty issues presiding instead?

The Hindus should send you a collective apology to atone for the disillusionment you might be currently experiencing in the vapidness of their bloodlust.