Two Nation Theory

[Solomon2]

We can live together with anyone who treats us as equal. That is where I hope the world is heading for.

What do you mean by, "equal"?

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Personal email exchange.

A reply from Norman Finkelstein.


"In my opinion Gandhi was right on the fundamental question: Muslim and Hindu Indians belonged to one nation. Jinnah's "two-nation" theory was untrue. It should also be clear by now that the idea of Pakistan was a disaster. The Muslims of Pakistan would have been better off struggling for their full rights in an unpartitioned India, just as African-Americans fought for their full rights in the US."


In reply I quoted Mr. Jinnah

"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. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and 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 final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

Thank you for the input.

It was two years ago that research into the question of identity started for me personally; prior to that, as an amateur historian, I had taken the view that facts on the ground mattered, not people's perceptions. The reason for getting side-tracked, if it is that, was that a very persuasive and articulate friend explained to me the question of real vs. perceived domination. He himself is a Pathan of the bluest of blue blood - a Sadozai, if that means anything - but settled in Lahore for generations, and proud to be a 'typical' Lahori.

What we sometimes fail to understand is what happens to a minority in psychological terms. My business, after I left defence and aerospace, took me into Bangladesh very frequently. My associates there were committed to prepare and deliver a facility as their part of a joint venture, and it was frustrating to face repeated delays. One day, the truth came out: the workmen had been taking frequent holidays, or absenting themselves and generally proving to be feckless and irresponsible. "We don't know what to do with these guys. They asked for and got the best rates, got the time frames they wanted, got a bonus offer for finishing on time, a huge bonus offer for finishing ahead of time, and yet they just vanish from time to time and we can't do anything about it!" My associates felt that this was due to education; this community simply didn't take to education, as a result, the only jobs it could get were menial ones, the women never went to school, leave alone anything further, they were not encouraged to leave home or work, the young men were idlers and wasters who would rather fight for pay than do an honest day's work....the list ran on.

The point of the story of course is that they were the minority community in Bangladesh. I met them later; very nice to talk to, but whipped and demoralised. I come from the same stock; it was a shock to realise that staying back in Bangladesh might have meant descending to their levels in a few generations.

Being a minority means carrying a psychological burden which is unimaginable. It is bad in South Asia, but from all accounts, does exist in the first world too. Those who are corresponding from Europe and from North America need to think it over without coming to foregone, predetermined conclusions defined by the need to score points. It was precisely this fear that motivated the educated classes among Muslims of the UP and other Indian provinces, not the Punjab, Bengal certainly, to start thinking about minority safeguards.

The first effort was election reservations. Very soon, with the first elections under the 35 regulations, the realisation came that such reserved seats achieved precisely nothing. The duly elected minority representatives went into the assembly and there sat quietly while the majority, at that time, the Congress, briskly went about managing affairs by itself, naturally, with no regard for the feelings, wishes or fear of the few. The Muslim League realised that reservations, with all the other levers of power in the hands of the majority working with a few 'trophy' Muslims, would not work. It was this that propelled the drive for 'safeguards', which finally found expression in the demand for 'homelands'.

Let us go into this one more time. There is no hurry; nobody is going anywhere. The only difficulty is with people who do not wish to understand something that contradicts their predetermined mindset. I ask simply that we leave behind our entrenched positions and look at things from the other chap's point of view.

The Muslim League demand for homelands was not a demand for a separate country. There were numerous bellicose resolutions and fiery speeches, but all the reins were in the hands of one resolute man. When it came to negotiation, he made it clear that they wanted more than seat reservations, they wanted segregated legislatures, legislatures in states to be Muslim-majority. To avoid being steamrolled by the overall Hindu majority in other states, the voice, the influence, the voting weight of the Muslim majority states was to be equated artificially to the Hindu majority states.

But there was then no demand for physical partition or two different countries. Jinnah is a hugely misunderstood man.

There was no question of migrations, or exchanges of populations; forming the state of Jharkhand did not imply chasing out Santhals and Oraons from Assam, for instance, or Bengal; it merely gave the Santhals and Oraons an opportunity to form governments with their own people in an Adivasi-majority state. Similarly for Gorkhaland; the Darjeeling Gorkhas are not asking for every Gurkha everywhere in India to come and join them. Until July and August 1946, there was no claim for a separation of these Muslim majority states from the rest, no question of partition; the claim was for independence, together, as equals, equated by an arrangement intended solely to keep up the confidence of one of the largest minorities in any future scenario.

By no means was the argument that Muslims were already facing difficulties in British India. Instead, the argument was that with the diversity of issues, cultural, social, food-related, marriage-related, and, of course, religious, separating a Muslim from a Hindu, it was impossible to consider that the two communities would have identical views on subjects of concern when the populations' views were aggregated.

It was nothing to do, at that stage, with daily violence; rather, what worried Muslims who thought about these issues was the thought of a daily attrition in small ways, symbolic ways - music before mosques, cutting the tram-lines to let the taziya pass at Muharram - and the thought of losing ground inexorably in other larger ways - investment in Muslim education, for instance, versus investment in other communities, being a very major worry.

Yasser Latif Hamdani once argued that if I wanted to judge the effects of this fear on the ground, I should look at the efflorescence of culture, of literature, poetry and music, in Pakistan, and to compare it with our own Muslim population. The numbers are very nearly the same; had I considered for one minute, leaving aside Bollywood and a numerous brood of plastic-bottomed cultural parodies, what contribution we have had on the cultural scene from our Muslim population compared to that in Pakistan?

The remark hurt; I was inclined to throw Madhubala in his face; I wanted to tell him about my father's friendship with Vilayat Khan Sahib, and his preference for that erratic genius' music, although Ravi Shankar's family and we are fellow East Bengalis and almost equally friendly at a family level; I wanted to point to the wealth of music from the pens of a gifted generation of composers and musicians. There were a thousand bitter rejoinders on the tip of my tongue, and they remained unsaid, because the sad fact is that he was right.

There is a song called 'El Condor Pasa' which sums up the situation beyond words; I recommend it for a better understanding of the psychology of the minority than any rational analysis can provide.

Religion was just one factor.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

All of Subcontinent leader were in congress first including Mr. Jinnah but after

The Division of Bengal, 1905-12
In 1905 the British governor general, Lord George Curzon, divided Bengal into eastern and western sectors in order to improve administrative control of the huge and populous province. Curzon established a new province called Eastern Bengal and Assam, which had its capital at Dhaka. The new province of West Bengal (the present-day state of West Bengal in India) had its capital at Calcutta, which also was the capital of British India. During the next few years, the long neglected and predominantly Muslim eastern region of Bengal made strides in education and communications. Many Bengali Muslims viewed the partition as initial recognition of their cultural and political separation from the Hindu majority population. Curzon's decision, however, was ardently challenged by the educated and largely Hindu upper classes of Calcutta. The Indian National Congress (Congress), a Hindu-dominated political organization founded in 1885 and supported by the Calcutta elite, initiated a well-planned campaign against Curzon, accusing him of trying to undermine the nationalist movement that had been spearheaded by Bengal. Congress leaders objected that Curzon's partition of Bengal deprived Bengali Hindus of a majority in either new province--in effect a tactic of divide and rule. In response, they launched a movement to force the British to annul the partition. A swadeshi (a devotee of one's own country) movement boycotted British-made goods and encouraged the production and use of Indian-made goods to take their place. Swadeshi agitation spread throughout India and became a major plank in the Congress platform. Muslims generally favored the partition of Bengal but could not compete with the more politically articulate and economically powerful Hindus. In 1912 the British voided the partition of Bengal, a decision that heightened the growing estrangement between the Muslims and Hindus in many parts of the country. The reunited province was reconstituted as a presidency and the capital of India was moved from Calcutta to the less politically electric atmosphere of New Delhi. The reunion of divided Bengal was perceived by Muslims as a British accommodation to Hindu pressures.

Bangladesh - The Division of Bengal, 1905-12

 

[Bang Galore]

.

What we sometimes fail to understand is what happens to a minority in psychological terms. My business, after I left defence and aerospace, took me into Bangladesh very frequently. My associates there were committed to prepare and deliver a facility as their part of a joint venture, and it was frustrating to face repeated delays. One day, the truth came out: the workmen had been taking frequent holidays, or absenting themselves and generally proving to be feckless and irresponsible. "We don't know what to do with these guys. They asked for and got the best rates, got the time frames they wanted, got a bonus offer for finishing on time, a huge bonus offer for finishing ahead of time, and yet they just vanish from time to time and we can't do anything about it!" My associates felt that this was due to education; this community simply didn't take to education, as a result, the only jobs it could get were menial ones, the women never went to school, leave alone anything further, they were not encouraged to leave home or work, the young men were idlers and wasters who would rather fight for pay than do an honest day's work....the list ran on.

The point of the story of course is that they were the minority community in Bangladesh. I met them later; very nice to talk to, but whipped and demoralised. I come from the same stock; it was a shock to realise that staying back in Bangladesh might have meant descending to their levels in a few generations.

Being a minority means carrying a psychological burden which is unimaginable. It is bad in South Asia, but from all accounts, does exist in the first world too.

I believe it's important to keep in mind the social & economic background of the minorities both in India & Bangladesh. Muslims are not the only minorities in India & the other minorities don't seem to suffer from the same problem. Actually, that's also true for Muslims in south India to a large extent since they were relatively less affected by partition.

 

[ajpirzada]

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.

wrong. many pakistanis dont mind it at all. all those who wanted to form a separate state voted ML and hence got wat they wanted. the then state of hyderabad never joined india but was taken over bec of geographical limitations. in other regions where muslims were in minority, it would be better to look at the % of muslim voters voting for ML.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@banglore
Indian muslims are the largest minority of india right?yet the poorest and most uneducated why?

 

[IndianArmy]

@banglore
Indian muslims are the largest minority of india right?yet the poorest and most uneducated why?

Largest Minority???? Our best Music composer is a Muslim, Our best Scientist is a Muslim, Our Vice president is a Muslim.....

And Who said they are un educated and Poorest? You can hardly find a Poor muslim, they are the most hard working here...

 

[blueoval79]

@banglore
Indian muslims are the largest minority of india right?yet the poorest and most uneducated why?

Because their leadership is pathetic....and the leaders are more concerned about keeping their positions safe and keeping their ***** warm...instead of using the government provided funds for betterment of their community...thats why.

Read:

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...I-Hind-unveils-vision-2016-for-Indian-Muslims

http://us.rediff.com/news/report/2009/jun/10/indian-muslims-failed-to-show-their-existence.htm

 

[EjazR]

Well, I read an interesting article on the TNT on ToI. I don't agree with everything particularly the being atheist part, but it does have some prominent historical facts.

Atheist fundamentalists - People - Life & Style - The Times of India

It is ironical that the two biggest architects of the two-nation theory, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, were staunch atheists.

It is one of the deep ironies of South Asian history that the two figures crucial to the ideology of religious nationalism in the subcontinent - Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - were themselves non-believers, and militantly so. Savarkar arguably first peddled the two-nation theory some years before the idea of Pakistan was mooted and then put into action by Jinnah and the Muslim League. In his seminal text 'Hindutva', published in 1923, Savarkar gave a territorial and racial spin to the word Hindu.

"Dharma of a Hindu being so completely identified with the land of the Hindus, this land to him is not only a Pitribhu but a Punyabhu, not only a fatherland but a holyland," he famously wrote. The essentials of Hindutva, in Savarakar's mind, had nothing to do with religion per se but were predicated on a common nation (rashtra), a common race (jati) and a common civilisation (sanskriti).

This was of a piece with Savarkar's personal life, in which he was fiercely atheist. He had publicly said there was nothing sacred about cows and advised Hindus to give up vegetarianism. Savarkar's biographer, Dhananjay Keer, points out that when his wife died, despite entreaties by his followers he refused to allow any Hindu rituals. Political psychologist Ashis Nandy, who has shed light on Savarkar's paradoxical relationship with religion, writes, "Savarkar's atheism was not the philosophical atheism associated with Buddhism and Vedanta, but the anti-clerical, hard atheism of fin-de-siecle scientism, increasingly popular among sections of the European middle class and, through cultural osmosis, in parts of modern India."

Jinnah's tryst with religion had similarities to Savarkar's. In 1940, Jinnah told 100, 000 cheering Muslim League followers in Lahore: "The Musalmans are not a minority (but) a nation. The problem in India is not of an intercommunal but manifestly of an international character, and it must be treated as such." Savarkar was not in disagreement, and a few years later had this to say: "I have no quarrel with Mr Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations."

However, in an earlier avatar, Jinnah - the chainsmoking, nattily-dressed, London-educated barrister - had impeccable liberal credentials. Gopal Krishna Gokhale had once hailed Jinnah as the "best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity". Historian Ayesha Jalal writes that in the wake of the Khilafat movement in 1920, Jinnah "derided the false and dangerous religious frenzy which had confused Indian politics, and the zealots, both Hindu and Muslim, who were harming the national cause". But that did not stop him from using religion to advocate Muslim separatism. As Nandy points out, "Jinnah kept the ulema at a distance throughout his life, but was perfectly willing to use them to advance the cause of a separate homeland for South Asian Muslims. Exactly as Savarkar, despite all his anti-Muslim rhetoric and passion for united India, not only established coalitions in Sindh and Bengal with the Muslim League, fighting for Pakistan, but was proud of these alliances."

The contradiction between Jinnah's personal beliefs and his political use of religion became apparent in his later years. Thus, in 1946, Jinnah had no qualms about asking Muslims to launch 'Direct Action' which led to widespread rioting and bloodshed in the name of religion. But a year later, in his famous speech in the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 where he spoke of a secular and inclusive Pakistan, Jinnah tried to put the religious genie back in the bottle. However, the damage had already been done.

Savarkar had no such second thoughts. Though he was receptive to the idea that Muslims should have their own nation, his hostility towards them remained undimmed. Even at the age of 82, he wrote during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, "Pakistan's barbaric acts such as kidnapping and raping Indian women would not be stopped unless Pakistan was given tit for tat." Apposite words, perhaps, from someone who used religion only for instrumental purposes.

 

[ajpirzada]

found this on wiki....


While giving an interview to American press representatives in July 1942, when asked by one of the journalists whether the Muslims were a nation or not, Jinnah replied:

We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all cannons of international law we are a nation.

A controversy has raged in Pakistan about whether Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state or an Islamic state. His views as expressed in his policy speech on August 11, 1947 said:

There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. 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. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. 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. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. 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. Jinnah, August 11, 1947 – presiding over the constituent assembly.

While this may seem to be an indication that Jinnah wanted a secular state, he also referred to Islam and Islamic principles:

The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims --Hindus, Christians, and Parsis --but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan. Broadcast talk to the people of the United States of America on Pakistan recorded February, 1948.
It has been argued by many people that in this speech Jinnah wanted to point out that Pakistan would be a secular state as mostly people think that an Islamic state is a theocratic state. This perception, however, is wrong and is misinterpreted; the reason is that a true Islamic state is not a theocratic state, as stated by Jinnah in his speech.

On the opening ceremony of the state bank of Pakistan Jinnah pointed out that the financial setup of the state should be based on Islamic economic system.

We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind. Speech at the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi July 1, 1948

Jinnah became the first Governor-General of Pakistan and president of its constituent assembly. Inaugurating the assembly on August 11, 1947, Jinnah spoke of an inclusive and pluralist democracy promising equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion, caste or creed. This address is a cause of much debate in Pakistan as, on its basis, many claim that Jinnah wanted a secular state while supporters of Islamic Pakistan assert that this speech is being taken out of context when compared to other speeches by him.

On October 11, 1947, in an address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi, he said:

We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.

On February 21, 1948, in an address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir, Karachi, he said:

You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.


It appears that Jinnah felt the state of Pakistan should stand upon Islamic tradition in culture, civilization and national identity rather than on the principles of Islam as a theocratic state.

 

[EjazR]

@PakistaniNationalist

I suggest you go through the Sachar Report. The Indian muslim population is mainly in UP,Bihar and West Bengal. These also happen to one of the poorest state. The literacy levels of all people here are quite low. But because the muslim population is higher, it pulls the average down.

As mentioned above, in the south, muslim literacy rates are quite high. Even overall Muslim literacy rate is slight more than SC/ST at 59% versus 57% as per the 2001 census.

And of course, IMO the partition weakened the position of the Muslims not strengthen it and hence the another explanation for the discrepancy. Hopefully the worst is behind and I expect some encouraging figures in the 2011 census as education has become a big priority among Muslims now.

 

[indushek]

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.

Firstly i was replying to your Vande Mataram comment, since thats not what you replied i will leave it aside.

As for your comments regarding Sharukh and Salman and Amir why are they not symbols of secularism u tell me. Each of these persons keeping aside their religion are loved by millions across this country irrespective of their religion as actors. In industry circles they are respected for their calibre and also warm heart. Can you show a Muslim Country where a minority guy made it so big or even the so called developed countries aka Christian countries???? What about Mr. Abdul Kalam who remained unmarried and served this country so well and there are millions more who do so daily as doctors engineers and what not. The reason people state only these handful is because they are so visible.

Regarding Gujarat there have been many such incidents prior to it. Please note i am not at all saying i support this heinous crime. People from both sides have suffered and when majority and minority clashes occur one suffers irrespective of religion again.

For your info the greatest proponent of Ahimsa the Father of this nation witnessed even worst kind of attacks which he couldn't stop though alive, people blinded with hatred and false reasons go on rampage tarnishing the image of a community or a country.

The greatest Genocide in our part of the world happened 60 years back tell me how many were prosecuted? A person is always clever but People are goats who can be easily herded by hate mongerers who are present in plenty on both sides. But still this nation has the sanity to go on.

 

[ajpirzada]

i think Jinnah was very much averse to the idea of an islamic state ruled by one person till his death.. though wrong, but a widely held view of an islamic state is that of a monarchy. similar must be the impression back then.

y i say this is because where ever you see Jinnah talking about an Islamic state, he further elaborates it by mentioning democratic principles, equality, justice etc.

the whole problem arises when ppl look at 'democratic principle', 'social justice' and equality' as concepts alien to islam which is not true. once you accept them to be in line with islamic principles, the whole riddle gets solved.


so yes Jinnah did not want an 'islamic state' similar to that of widely held belief but wanted an islamic state which was based on true principles of islam which according to him were democracy, social justice, equality etc.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Hindus played a vital role in undermining the rights of Indian Muslims due to shortsightedness of leaders, religious influence etc. However, as the time evolved, Hindus realized that they had to face the reality and had to give equal rights to Muslims as there was no way out. But still there are few incidents here and there which undermine the Indian society in general. I am impressed that our neighbour, India, has shown a significant improvement in economy, education, health care etc And I hope that India does not face any tragic incident like Babri Masjid, in future. Pakistanis and Indians cannot live without a war for longer time but what we can do is to live in peace for some decades. The conflicting ideologies, religious and political ones are so deep that it left a severe impact on people from both countries. Pakistanis do not want Pakistan to become a banana republic as India grows both economically and militarily. Now coming back to the topic: Pakistan is a reality and the world must respect our dignity. The creation of a Hindu state was inevitable because of the horrendous acts/suppression by some Mughal kings. There are few options in the box i.e. oppression leads to revolt, inferiors become superior and superiors become inferior. Therefore, the suppression of Muslims by British Empire and Hindus forced Muslims to look for alternative ways. After sixty two long years since the creation of Pakistan, one should not go back and talk about two nation theory. Pakistan is a reality now. Pakistan should fight with other countries economically not militarily. Once your economy is strong, the world is banana republic for you.

The only sole reason in my opinion behind the creation of a separate country, Pakistan, was an oppression faced by Muslims and other minorities from Hindus and Invaders (Britain) Muslims were the majority among other minorities so they had a say in issues regarding a creation of new state. The main goal of Mr. Jinnah was to create a country with great culture, traditions, equality or in other words a glorious state. However, the religious fanatics took over Pakistan and we ended up in a cave But we will find our way out.
InshAllah