What's new

Two Nation Theory originated by Hindus.

As per the poster's opinion, Hindus created Pakistan. All pakistanis should be greatful of Hindus. By the same logic, Quaid - e- azam should be Savarkar not Jinn. Pak historians need to rewrite their history.


if only that were true
 
.
And so far so for so-called non-Violent movement of Gandhi who supported WWII


if the decision of only Gandhi was dominating than he might not had been killed by the likes of sarvarker and Godse

first give me the proof that savarkar was involve in gandhiji's assassination

and he was supporter of 'akhand bharat'
 
Last edited:
.
In his address to the annual session of Muslim League Jinnah mentioned

“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 social orders. It is a dream that the Hindu and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits, and is the cause of most of our troubles, and will lead India to destruction, if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interline together and indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”

This says it all about where were the origins of two nation theory.
 
.
In his address to the annual session of Muslim League Jinnah mentioned

“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 social orders. It is a dream that the Hindu and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits, and is the cause of most of our troubles, and will lead India to destruction, if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interline together and indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”

This says it all about where were the origins of two nation theory.
Bhai, just close this thread, nothing useful will be discussed on this topic. Reason being that there is nothing to discuss. Partition has happened , now a 60+ year old reality. Both countries have wakled many miles in different directions since 1947. Both have acheived to a certain extent and failed to a certain extent. IMpossible to think of joining again. We can think what if we never had partition, then we can also think what if we won the First war of Independence in 1857. give your fingers some rest as far as this is concerend.

But as my final words on this topic. I am glad about partition. I also wonder, why Pakistanis cannot see that had there been no partition, then Muslims would be the most powerful community in india with 35-40% strength because hindus have a knack dividing themselves on various lines. Imagine the resources and decision making at the diposal of muslims of the subcontinent had that happened. Muslim fears of being subjugated would have never happened , because of the HIndu caste system.
That is why I am glad that partition happened because if we had not, we would either have been Islamic or torn in a civil war. For Pak its good they have a state which is 100% muslim but I think they could have been more powerful had they stayed in India. No Hindu leader would have the guts to cause problems for muslims (even now with 12% populaation that is the reality)
 
Last edited:
.
Bhai, just close this thread, nothing useful will be discussed on this topic. Reason being that there is nothing to discuss. Partition has happened , now a 60+ year old reality. Both countries have wakled many miles in different directions since 1947. Both have acheived to a certain extent and failed to a certain extent. IMpossible to think of joining again. We can think what if we never had partition, then we can also think what if we won the First war of Independence in 1857. give your fingers some rest as far as this is concerend.

But as my final words on this topic. I am glad about partition. I also wonder, why Pakistanis cannot see that had there been no partition, then Muslims would be the most powerful community in india with 35-40% strength because hindus have a knack dividing themselves on various lines. Imagine the resources and decision making at the diposal of muslims of the subcontinent had that happened. Muslim fears of being subjugated would have never happened , because of the HIndu caste system.
That is why I am glad that partition happened because if we had not, we would either have been Islamic or torn in a civil war.


Bro, I appreciate your post and I agree with you that partition has happened and irreversible. No body is asking for integration, at least I am not nor do I believe in the Two Nation Theory. However you cannot accept a Bull $hit propaganda that Hindus were the originators of the Two Nation Theory. This has to be corrected.
 
.
Bro, I appreciate your post and I agree with you that partition has happened and irreversible. No body is asking for integration, at least I am not nor do I believe in the Two Nation Theory. However you cannot accept a Bull $hit propaganda that Hindus were the originators of the Two Nation Theory. This has to be corrected.

Ok, that is true. I agree that mainstream congress leaders did not instigate it. Now congress was and is a secular organization.
In my opinion, India chose to be secular because the origins of Congress was secular (ironically founded by an Englishman) and congress party made maximum contribution to the freedom movement. Savarkar claiming the first call for tnt, has come up ni the media several times. I dont know the veracity of these claims. So if savarkar did propose this , then probably a hindu did suggest TNT, for which in my opinion the people of pakistan should garland a statue of his and worship him.
 
.
Ok, that is true. I agree that mainstream congress leaders did not instigate it. Now congress was and is a secular organization.
In my opinion, India chose to be secular because the origins of Congress was secular (ironically founded by an Englishman) and congress party made maximum contribution to the freedom movement. Savarkar claiming the first call for tnt, has come up ni the media several times. I dont know the veracity of these claims. So if savarkar did propose this , then probably a hindu did suggest TNT, for which in my opinion the people of pakistan should garland a statue of his and worship him.


Yes, there were some Hindu elements such as Savarkar who may have suggested TNT. However, at best, they were non entities and did not had huge following
 
.
Yes, there were some Hindu elements such as Savarkar who may have suggested TNT. However, at best, they are non entities

I wouldnt say that, veer Savarkar was a big freedom fighter and a hero in his own right. He has written a lot of material and his love for India is unparalleled. He was also a staunch Hindu but not of the violent type. To say he was a non entity is wrong. it was just that congress was bigger than his ideology. Also the support for Congress in india over the hindutva ideology emphatically proves that India and hinduism are natually secular and tolerant.
 
.
I wouldnt say that, veer Savarkar was a big freedom fighter and a hero in his own right. He has written a lot of material and his love for India is unparalleled. He was also a staunch Hindu but not of the violent type. To say he was a non entity is wrong. it was just that congress was bigger than his ideology. Also the support for Congress in india over the hindutva ideology emphatically proves that India and hinduism are natually secular and tolerant.

I agree that he was a non entity is wrong, however, as you mentioned, Congress was bigger than Savarkar ideology. Anyway, in political stature Jinnah had more follower than Savarkar ever had.
 
. .
MORAL OF THE STORY...


FATHER OF PAKISTAN

QUAID-E-AZAM VEER SAVARKAR

Good now he will be respected by both India and Pakistan.
 
.
@topic/thread starter

Are you implying that TNT is wrong and partition should not have happened? To me it does not matter where it originated. Important question is whether you agree with TNT or not.
 
.
Bhai, just close this thread, nothing useful will be discussed on this topic. Reason being that there is nothing to discuss. Partition has happened , now a 60+ year old reality. Both countries have wakled many miles in different directions since 1947. Both have acheived to a certain extent and failed to a certain extent. IMpossible to think of joining again. We can think what if we never had partition, then we can also think what if we won the First war of Independence in 1857. give your fingers some rest as far as this is concerend.

But as my final words on this topic. I am glad about partition. But, I also wonder, why Pakistanis cannot see that had there been no partition, then Muslims would be the most powerful community in india with 35-40% strength because hindus have a knack dividing themselves on various lines. Imagine the resources and decision making at the diposal of muslims of the subcontinent had that happened. Muslim fears of being subjugated would have never happened , because of the HIndu caste system.
That is why I am glad that partition happened because if we had not, we would either have been Islamic or torn in a civil war. For Pak its good they have a state which is 100% muslim but I think they could have been more powerful had they stayed in India. No Hindu leader would have the guts to cause problems for muslims (even now with 12% populaation that is the reality)
can any Pakistani comment on my opinion.
 
. .
Guys...come on...every1 on this forum is intelligent enough...to
tell that muslims of subcontinent (and later Pakistan) had same culture , same holidays , same language script ( urdu is in arabic script just like persian) and same faith (which plays vital part in a muslim's life) as the muslims in Persia, Arab world and Afghanistan had.
This means that muslims are part of one nation....and they can't stay with hindus...cuz they wanted a seperate state ...with Islamic laws...would it be acceptable to hindus....that they live with muslims in majority and under Islamic law...OBVIOUSLY NO.
SO PLEASE WE SHOULD NOT EVEN DISCUSS THIS TOPIC...CUZ
EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS THESE 2 TYPES OF PEOPLE ARE FROM SEPERATE NATIONS
.with differences ranging from culture, language script, faith , traditions, holidays and literaly everything.....Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) himself told muslims that they are one nation....so plz close this thread.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom