Two Nation Theory

[Xeric]

YLH is perhaps the most dedicated guy amongst the youth.

@Xeric:- History cannot be viewed through one lens. If you read Ayesha Jalal's work, she concludes that even until Jan. 1947, Jinnah was not really asking for Independence, rather a far greater share in a confederation and the call for Pakistan was a political tool. For people like us to disagree with her, it is wrong for her work is based on decades of study. Other historians have disagreed with her. Even those who agree with the liberalist point of view including Mubarak Ali.

Some of the letters in the Jinnah Papers do lay credence to these claims. The fact of the matter is that anybody who tries to interpret today the two nation theory outside the state sponsored version is somehow labeled anti-Pakistan and questioning the very nature of our existence. It is the historian's duty to analyze it but people start calling them "go back to India" and stuff, which is dis heartening.

This happens to be a very concise article by YLH. You can go through his work at PTH and Chowk to get a better gist of his work. He has a very good grasp on history.

Chowk writers: Yasser Hamdani intro and articles

SW, my concern is not over 'digging' the truth from those dirt laden manuscripts hidden deep inside some library or museum. What concerns me is the 'exaggeration' that is engineered even though the 'truth' can yet not be ascertained. See, it's too early to give a verdict over something just on the basis of some new study and research. Yes, either the researcher should prove his claim a 100% and let others to roll over their beds or he/she should acknowledge that his/her research is still underway and whatever he/she has written is subject to the conclusion of the research i.e. his claims can be wrong or not exactly what he/she had initially thought them to be.

It's just like one man who comes up with some credible (though insufficient) proof and gives a verdict over the 63 years old understanding that most of us like to believe in. i hope you must have seen that '50 Minute' program on Geo News where Hamid Mir suggested that our current National Anthem in fact is not our 'real' NA. It was an enchanting debate. Though his 'research' did present some proofs but then those were quite rubbished off by his opponents. It was clear by the end of that debate that Mir's claim though gave us a new direction to look in, but they are not at all worthy enough to change our current NA.

So that's what i demand.

One should debate but this holds good ONLY for those issues that are controversial and has some loophole among them. Jinnah created a whole new country and today after 6 decades we are still in doubts whether he exactly wanted a separate country or otherwise!

If i still remember my social studies (and that something that i have read from independent sources) Jinnah joined the Congress in 1896. Like most of the Congressmen at the time Jinnah did not favor outright independence for the sole reason of acceding to the British influences on education, law, culture and industry as beneficial to India.

It was Jinnah who was appointed to the Sandhurst committee, which helped establish the Indian Military Academy at Dehra Dun. Moreover, during WW I Jinnah joined other Indian moderates in supporting the British war effort, hoping that Indians would be rewarded with political freedoms.

Interestingly, Jinnah had initially avoided joining Muslim League when it was founded regarding it as too Muslim oriented. But then he decided to provide leadership to the Muslim minority and joined the league in 1913. So now some uber liberals can claim that see, Jinnah never wanted to join the ML as he was not a maulana, he just did it (on temporary basis) so that the Muslims minority can be given some revival, but guess what he indeed lead ML to the creation of Pakistan and also served the Nation as its leader therefater. So it's just a rubbish claim.

As for the Two Nation Theory, well as i have pointed out earlier that the theory did had a religion connection, which can be termed equal or may be more in intensity to the nationalistic factors, but then it never did had any linkage with the kind of Islam that we see today. Just to present Pakistan as a 'moderate' Islamic country and to gain that liberal, moderate and tolerant tag as a writer it is not at all worthy enough to put our (basis) of existence at stake, believe me there are other ways to gain those fancy trademarks.

So to conclude, neither Jinnah wanted a Molvi Pakistan nor did the Two Nation Theory was based on zibah kar do, goli mar do Islam. Pakistan was created as a Muslim state on the basis of (but not this was not the sole basis/reason) Islam as at that time religion was used to gather people in addition to that cultural, lingual, traditional, food, life style, customs related factors.

Religion was just another serial in that long list which formed the basis of Pakistan and nothing else!

 

[Joe Shearer]

@toxic_pus

I must be brief, because there is another task to be done on priority, and it would be discourteous to get diverted to something else.

In the context of TNT, when did the Muslim community decide that they are incompatible with the Hindus? Clearly when Jinnah was breathing fire about TNT, the Muslim peasantry was almost entirely behind Gandhi.

This is an illusion. Check the voting figures; the Muslims were nearly unanimously behind the Muslim League, the efforts of the Mullahs notwithstanding.

In fact at the time of Partition the staying back of majority of Muslims in India also runs counter to your claim, or rather allusion, that the Muslim community had decided that they were incompatible with Hindus. In reality it was just a handful of Muslim elites who decided on behalf of all other Muslims in the subcontinent that Muslims were incompatible with Hindus.

Now how is that different from, say for example, the Taliban’s attempt to decide, on behalf of all other Muslims, what is ‘pure’ Islam.

Again, a misreading of the facts.

When you say the Muslim elite, whom are you referring to? The older elite, the remnants of the imperial and various provincial courts were not the Muslim League's movers and shakers, it was what has been called the 'salariat', the new professional classes trained in western ways at Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's westernising institution. But that is a minor detail. Your point lies elsewhere. It is about the support that the Muslim League got, and the actual physical situation on the ground that came about, and the reaction of the supposed supporters to this situation on the ground.

Let me try again. I assume goodwill on all sides, for if you are determined to field a case against Pakistan from its origins till today, all reasoned argument fails.

1. The alienation related to the fear of a minority of being overborne by a majority. They sought safeguards. So did the Scheduled Castes seek safeguards; Ambedkar, without even the fig-leaf of an organisation that Jinnah had, decided to work within the system (I hope you have no illusions on the score of his attitude towards the Congress or Gandhi, and that you will not quote his willingness to work on constitution-building as evidence that he was in fact a crypto-Congressman) and seek reservations embedded within the constitution. The Sikhs tried in vain to work out an arrangement for themselves, leading an exasperated Mountbatten to dub them "Brave idiots"! The others, forest tribals in the forest tracts, north-eastern hillsmen, even the Tamils under the Justice Party, never got going; it was too early for them, and they neither had Jinnah's charisma and credibility in high places nor the numbers that he commanded throughout India.

This was not, as subsequent events within independent India have shown, empty matters. Each minority found its own, violent way to make its objections to caste Hindu subjugation known. The Muslims articulated it first, organised first, got lucky with a leader, and almost made it. Thanks to Congress intransigence, their bluff was called and they found themselves forced to face either physical partition or the death of all that they had struggled for. They reluctantly chose partition.

2. That was not the script. It should have been a confederation in three parts, with awesome powers to the constituents, and only residual powers to the 'centre'. There was to have been no movement, only the balancing effect of two very powerful units moderating the behaviour of the Hindus in the third. There would have been free travel, freedom for everyone to settle anywhere in the confederation, a constitution made jointly (one of the sticking points of a Muslim League-Congress agreement was Jinnah's insistence that constituent assembly delegates would be bound to act as corporate members of a group, and not be free to act as individuals).

3. Nobody knew what was going to happen. Glance over the calendar for those days. The final breakdown came when Nehru reneged on his commitment to the Cabinet Mission, and Jinnah realised that time was up; there was no help for it but partition.

4. You mention that Gandhi was followed by the bulk of the Muslim peasants and Jinnah by the Muslim elite. Please glance through the voting figures. I had said earlier that the Muslims were wholly with the ML. I am sorry: that was an exaggeration.

I should add that Bacha Khan's Pathans were not, emphatically not. That is a separate chapter, and I don't want to divert attention. Fazlul Haq's constituency were not, initially, as long as the great man himself hesitated, unsure of what to do. Suhrawardy pushed him into a direction, he went along and lost political momentum permanently. Bengal went Muslim League. Finally, ironically, the 'feudals', as modern-day Pakistanis exasperatingly refer to them, in the Punjab went their own merry way. The Unionists joined up with the Muslim League only when it became clear that there was no alternative but the League for Muslims.

To sum up, the difference between the Taliban and the Muslim League was that Muslims voted, in British-run elections, for the Muslim League.

Yes that’s correct. But TNT is not based on the concept of ‘nationhood’ that Europe espouses. TNT basically states that religion, and religion alone makes disparate communities homogeneous. Thus, as I have mentioned earlier, a Bengali is not a Bengali first, but is foremost a Muslim (or a Hindu) and by being a Muslim (or a Hindu) their aspirations are same as, for example, a Punjabi. That is entirely opposite of European ‘nationhood’.

I agree with you on this. Let me now take 2000 words to say what you have said in 20!

You may have noticed that I mentioned elsewhere, in introducing my comments on Deepak75's posting, that the TNT was not convincing. It was not convincing in hindsight.

It turns out that

1. Human beings form their identity from one or the other identifier - attributes, if you wish. Religion is one such, ethnic origin is another, language is a third, location might be a fourth.

2. One or the other attribute may take over all the others in importance at a time of perceived imminent loss of identity. In this case, it was religion. Everything else was covered as long as Muslims felt that they were perceived as Muslims, as a bloc. There is no point in trying to persuade them that they were wrong then, or that they are wrong today, or that they will be wrong in future. This was their perception, that they were in danger of being swamped by numbers, and to them, that was reality.

3. Once their religious identity was preserved, the people concerned found that they were simultaneously, to use the language of identity, a Punjabi nation, and a Sindhi nation and a Baluch nation and a Pashtun nation and so on. This had been unimportant earlier, it now became important.

4. Finally, it is a cardinal error to assume that the 'nation' in the term Two Nation Theory means an independent, sovereign country with a flag and an anthem of its own. I am unable to write in detail about such subjects within the limits of a forum such as this, and the tolerance of the moderators; you may care to look at the Celtic Nations. For a contrary view, to be fair, read Stalin on Marxism and the National Question. The sense in which the TNT proponents were using the word Nation was precisely the one which Stalin attacked.

I really personally feel that the TNT was limited in its understanding of identity and in a sense led to the alienation of the Bengali nation.

I hope you find this useful.

 

[Xeric]

That is a dicey argument. Apparently Baluchistanis 'fear for the rights' of their 'community'. Are they then justified in their claim to break away from Pakistan?

Balochistan is not just home to Baloch people; there is also a sizeable Pashtun population who dont have any issues with the Federation.

As of the 1998 census, Balochistan had a population of 6.6 million inhabitants, representing approximately 5% of the Pakistani population. According to the 2008 Pakistan Statistical Year Book, households whose primary language is Balochi represent 54.8% of Balochistan's population the rest are Pashtons, Sindhi, Punjabi, Saraiki and Urdu speakers.

Indeed out of 27 districts of Balochistan 9 have 80% Pashtun population who dont give a tosh about Azad Balochistan.

Also, would you like to tell us how many out of those 54% Balochs favor independence? Well allow me to enlighten you, they are in hundreds, not even thousands. BRA, BLA etc are just an extension of certain proxies and that's it. The provincial capital Quetta is a mesh of all the ethnicities that reside in Balochistan and infact it is also said that there are more Balochs in Karachi then there are in entire Balochistan.

Seriously, wasnt that comparison of Kashmir with Balochistan absurd and lame enough that you people have now started comparing Balochistan with Indo-Pak Partition...??!!

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

xeric u dont need to reply to troll...

 

[Raghu]

Shia-Sunni and inter-tribal, inter-ethnic conflicts exist in many other nations as well, not just Pakistan. And just because sectarian or ethnic conflicts exist in nations does not mean that the rationale behind nationhood is in question. People who supported Pakistan chose to identify themselves as distinct from Indians (as do people of any nation with respect to another nation) and continue to do so.

If u go by history its more complex than that.

IMO It was primarily religion.

Pakistan was created by Muslims of UP and east Pakistan rather than by any Punjabi or Sindhi which currently Pakistan opting out of Indian Union based on distinct ethnic identity.ML derive its support base from Muslims of UP,Bihar and Bengal while it had comparatively less against regional parties of erstwhile Punjab , Sindh and NWFP those later on formed as the states of Todays Pakistan.

Its only ironic that Muslim league always had more support among Indian Muslims most of who could never leave Indian after its Independence, but supported ML's cause for creation of a Muslim state of Pakistan based on no other distinctness from a Hindu neighbor living side by side apart from the fact that they profess two different religion.

 

[k_n]

If u go by history its more complex than that.

IMO It was primarily religion.

Pakistan was created by Muslims of UP and east Pakistan rather than by any Punjabi or Sindhi which currently Pakistan opting out of Indian Union based on distinct ethnic identity.ML derive its support base from Muslims of UP,Bihar and Bengal while it had comparatively less against regional parties of erstwhile Punjab , Sindh and NWFP those later on formed as the states of Todays Pakistan.

Its only ironic that Muslim league always had more support among Indian Muslims most of who could never leave Indian after its Independence, but supported ML's cause for creation of a Muslim state of Pakistan based on no other distinctness from a Hindu neighbor living side by side apart from the fact that they profess two different religion.

A valid point !

Just a quick check of Muslim electorates in elections of 1946 and ML's performance gives this comment enough weight .
But lets not go there mate . Why give the Saffron Brigade another 'excuse' to demonise a particular community

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If u go by history its more complex than that.

IMO It was primarily religion.

Pakistan was created by Muslims of UP and east Pakistan rather than by any Punjabi or Sindhi which currently Pakistan opting out of Indian Union based on distinct ethnic identity.ML derive its support base from Muslims of UP,Bihar and Bengal while it had comparatively less against regional parties of erstwhile Punjab , Sindh and NWFP those later on formed as the states of Todays Pakistan.

Its only ironic that Muslim league always had more support among Indian Muslims most of who could never leave Indian after its Independence, but supported ML's cause for creation of a Muslim state of Pakistan based on no other distinctness from a Hindu neighbor living side by side apart from the fact that they profess two different religion.

I think the issue of electorate and support for the ML and Pakistan has been covered pretty well in posts subsequent to my post you responded to.

 

[Raghu]

A valid point !

Just a quick check of Muslim electorates in elections of 1946 and ML's performance gives this comment enough weight .
But lets not go there mate . Why give the Saffron Brigade another 'excuse' to demonise a particular community

No ,we shouldn't forget that india was solely based on Religion.
History always repeat itself.Lets be honest with ourselves

IMO ,its fault of any community that India got partitioned .Its more of natural outcome of its pre 1947 composition of India.Its fool hardy to believe India could stayed together by other means.Even todays India is outcome of our "religious composition' and we have smaller or bigger insurgency problems any composition isn't full proof.

PS : Partition isn't responsible for problems between India and Pakistan.If there weren't irritants such as unresolved land disputes ,relationship between could been normal even very cordial.

 

[Raghu]

I think the issue of electorate and support for the ML and Pakistan has been covered pretty well in posts subsequent to my post you responded to.

Yaa,i didnt have chance to go through them before posting that reply.

 

[k_n]

For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India

There is no entity as a 'Multinational' India .
The whole idea of identifying religious communities as seperate 'Nations' within a state is short - sighted .

Here I would like to ask the ardent supporters of 'Two Nation Theory' as Mr. M A Jinnah himself might have seen it , how do they justify massive propaganda campaigns launched by MLeaguers deseminating the 'Ideology' that glorified the 'diffences' b/w Hindus and Muslims through its mouthpieces and pamphlets and the rallies held by its prominent leadership , the same 'Ideology' ( Different food habbits , Different dressing habbits , Different ways of worship and what not ... the all famous 'I WANT TO EAT THE SAME COW WHICH A HINDU WORSHIPS ' n many more ) that resonates with many Pakistanis in 21st century Pakistan , many of them present in this foum itself .
Besides , the idea of seperate electorates for different religious communities never had any popularity within the minds and fore-sight of the leaders in Congress ranks . Its something Pakistan sticks with to this day .

Here , its not a big deal to make out that Mr. M A Jinnah indeed 'won' ( if you want me to put it that way ) the National status for Muslims . That status is the citizenship of Pakistan . Yes , his actions were indeed focussed on getting Congress to negotiate on power sharing with the League and ensuring the British delivered but the path he chose to traverse was that of confrontation not ASSYMILATION . His upbringing and psyche was Secular but his Legacy and Actions are NOT

 

[desiman]

I hope you guys read his works where he destroys the common Indian argument against the two nation theory, its relevancy and their main arguments against the partition. I respect YLH for he has the necessary knowledge to defend the two nation theory in its purest form, the one that was put forward and argued upon by Jinnah. Read this one for instance :- Pakistan, Two Nation Theory and Secularism: Response to an Indian Poster Pak Tea House

His defence of Jinnah and his relevancy today is not based on Jinnah's perceived secularism rather a complete appreciation of his personality.



My grandfathers were proud to be Indians and Pakistanis.

Nationalism is different from patriotism. Nationalism is an ideology that teaches you to hate people you have never met.

lol you can really donate your brain to many here, just a pleasure to read your comments sir, pure pleasure

 

[desiman]

This is the thing, Indians need to pick up a dictionary. Respect and having multicultural friends has nothing to do with secularism. This is the typical Indian excuse, Oh we're so secular look at Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Amir Khan.

Secularism is separation of state and religion.

Your state is siding with Hindus with the destruction of the Babri Masjid

Your state perpetuated the massacre of 2000 Muslims in Gujarat to avenge the deaths of 50 Hindus

For believes in 'ahimsa' you sure massacre a lot of people now and then.

Secularism is separation of state and religion. If you're not even able to prosecute genocidal maniacs due to religious considerations, you're not a secularism. You're a big black mark on secularism for that matter.

Thats where every single Pakistani on this forum is wrong. let me start -

1) The Indian constitution is the most indepth and detailed constitution on this planet. Considering the India is the most multicultural and diverse nation in the world by far, The constitution was made in such a way that it satisfies everyone needs. For all those crying about Muslim right in India, India has a completely different set of laws for Muslims that take care of their cultural differences. The Muslim Personal law is more detailed in muslim laws that the Pakistani constitution and offers the chance for a muslim to live his/her life as a devote muslim without the fear of prosecution.

Indian Penal code embodies tenets of Islam, Hinduism: Gujarat HC - India - The Times of India


2) Its become fashionable for Pakistani's on this forum to crib about the same issue again and again mainly Gujrat and the Babri Masjid. First of all these incidents were fueled by Political identities and not the general public. Such incidents are a crime under every rule of law in India and are being investigated. Such incidents are not because of lapses or discrimination on the national level but because of cheap political vote bank thinking. The huge huge success of Muslims in India is testament to the fact that muslims have the same rights as a hindu.

3)Secularism is the separation of the state and religion and that is something that India is built on but the same cannot be said about Pakistan which cannot separate itself from Islam. India on the other hand is increasingly getting more diverse and less religiously oriented as seen from many recent events. The number of religion related incidents were infact lower in number than what happened in the United States.

so my request to all Pakistanis, stop worrying about Indian muslims as they are very well taken care of and are on the path to success. Indian muslims are among the most liberal and free thinking muslims out there and are part of India's growing middle class. Me being an India muslim myself can be proud to say that I am from India and that India has given me whatever i needed. Those who want to do something in life will do it regardless and those who dont will always find excuses to hide their own weakness.

 

[desiman]

Well many Pakistani's wont like this but it is documented fact that a good majority of Muslims in India were behind Gandhi and not Jinnah. The huge numbers of Muslim who decided to stay in India is testament to that. Regions like Hyderabad and south India were disagreed to India's partition and never considered moving to Pakistan. The fact of the mater is that the British took advantage of the rivalry between Jinnah and Nehru and then turned it into a religious conflict mainly in Northern India to result in India being divided. But saying that all muslims in India wanted a new state is nothing but a big lie. Only 20-30% actually did and that was also only in the northern parts. An analysis of Pakistan's population and immigration patterns before and after 1947 will basically tell you the truth.

 

[rubyjackass]

Why did the founders of the modern Indian nation refuse to accept that the British and South Asians could live together then? Are the 'distinctions' there, not also as much self imposed as they are between residents of North West Pakistan and Eastern/Southern India?

Are we not all descendant from the same tribe in Africa?

Why was no attempt made for the various territories in British India to be be made part of the United Kingdom, and instead of 'Independence', demand equal rights for all residents?

The worst argument ever. British could not live together because they did not want to. If the Queen made India her home or at least if the governors did so, if they sent their kids to schools in India, then the British could have mingled in the Indian society as well. In fact there were people who demanded this kind of equal rights, people who thought India would do well under British rule but with more autonomy. We can live together with anyone who treats us as equal. That is where I hope the world is heading for.


oops too late sorry

 

[peacekeeper]

Why we all always start discussing and digging a thing which has gone 6 decade ago

we all should move forward

we should except that we are three nations