Two Nation Theory

[TaimiKhan]

what are you doubting? koi acchi dua de raha to , i would recommend you take it.

Dua dil sae honi chahiyea, which is what i highly doubt kae dil sae dua hai.

 

[Raghu]

Actually, the fact that the so called 'afterthought' or 'last ditch effort' of the creation of Pakistan succeeded is what is 'way too much' for most Indians to digest.

On the issue of the two speeches, I think the articles starting the thread do indeed speak to precisely that issue, on how the demand for Pakistan, and the rhetoric surrounding it, was a calculated political move to pressure the INC to be flexible in terms of the demands of a large section of Muslims in South Asia represented through the ML.

Once the possibility of existing as a united nation after the British fell through, and Pakistan was a certainty, there was no more need for that political rhetoric.

No,its just a spin on the rhetoric .He did it once and u are trying it again.

But as we know the facade fall down immediately, Pakistan never became a secular state by any stretch of imagination.Its went back it to his original doctrine of the "the two Nation theory and need for Muslim state/state for Indian Muslims and it found solace in it ever since.An Islamic state was only a natural outcome after the creation of Pakistan amids the worst kinds of communal riots . Rest idyllic meandering,spin doctoring and pussyfooting at best.

Blaming Nehru is rubbish as he didn't propose partition . Jinnah did what any other smart leader who saw real opportunity to make history.If it wasn't him ,someone else could have taken the mantle for sure is the lure of partition of British India which was Khichidi og so many incongruous elements that its division was natural and was inevitable.


PS:Thank god we had partition in 1947 that prevented further future division of India leading up to chronic state of civil wars we see so much prevalent in liberated European colonies of Africa till date.

 

[Jade]

Dua dil sae honi chahiyea, which is what i highly doubt kae dil sae dua hai.

Why do you people always think Indians want bad to happen to Pakistan? What is the rationale for this?

Is an Indian wanting prosperity for himself connotes Indian wanting poverty for a Pakistani? I don’t understand. It really baffles me.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Why do you people always think Indians want bad to happen to Pakistan? What is the rationale for this?

Is an Indian wanting prosperity for himself connotes Indian wanting poverty for a Pakistani? I don’t understand. It really baffles me.

Who said anything about Indians as a whole ??

Show it where i mentioned Indians as a whole of India, i just said, some of them.

So kindly take the argument in that context, as we both have good and bad people on both sides, some want peace, some want bloodshed.

 

[deepak75]

Muslims who chose to migrate to Pakistan saw partition as an event of great self determination.

Hindus saw it as a reward to the Muslim league for their support in diluting the demand of Independence of India amongst Muslims who were fearful of reprisals in a Hindu dominated India.

British saw it as an opportunity to ensure that they will leave a telling memorial on the geo-politics of the sub-continent for years to come.

Any which of them could be right or equally wrong. Depends on which side of the Radcliffe line we stand.

If the 2 nation theory tries to establish that there were a mass of minority who did not identify with a united India in the events moving up to our Independence, I agree with that.

However, any proposition that the creation of Pakistan was based on any ideology but for Islamic, is blatantly false, specially when the basis of the two nation theory is religion itself.

It is also completely false that the idea of separate Independent muslim states was not envisaged or agreed to by Jinnah up till 1947. Following clause from the Muslim league resolution from March of 1940 makes that fact very clear:

"3. Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designated on the following basic principle, viz. that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India should be grouped to constitute "Independent States" in which the Constituent Units shall be autonomous and sovereign;

File Not Found

The original link above is broken. But the same content can be accessed on the following as well: http://pakistaniat.com/2007/03/22/march-23-1940-pakistan-day-resolution-lahore-qarardad-minto-park/


It can be agreed that Jinnah had not envisaged Pakistan to progress in to the current state of theological entity as it is now but that does not take away from the fact that the need for creation of Pakistan was justified on religious grounds in the Muslim League session of as early as 1930 with the original scheme put forward by Sir Mohamed Iqbal.

But that is now water under the bridge and we are where we are, Pakistan of today and India of today.

However, if analysing the argument that diversity could not have existed in a united India, we can take up the analysis of what was left of the population mix of India.

There have been blots on the way on the religious tolerance in India but all in all, with every event, religion has been taking a further back seat in the diverse, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-colored Indian psyche over the last 60something years of our Independence. So may be not totally successful but it worked and India is at least as it was when we started the journey, if not better.

On the other hand if we look at the Islamic state of Pakistan founded on the premise that only a population of a uniform religious belief can exist together, we can compare the success of the idea and the efficacy of this 2 nation theory.

Pakistan lost half of its original composition in 1971. Though there was uniformity of religious belief in the two popuations, the diversity of ethinicity and color were so strong that it was progressively unsustainable for Bangladesh and Pakistan to exist together and so we then had 3 nations.

Further, the religion being the fundamental in creation of Pakistan, it is hardly surprising that turned in to an increasing influence in the national outlook of Pakistan. It became progressively necessary that the leaders, the intellectuals and even the defence forces drew their legitimacy and influence from the theological undercurrent of the nation.

It can be anybody's guess if things would have turned out in Pakistan like they have if it's creation was a natural coalscence of individuals, communities and religions over the years of history, wherein each religion and community would have had a say in the forging of the national outlook and opinion - something of the nature of what we call secularism in India.

So, we will only be clutching at straws trying to comparing the ascendancy charts of our two nations but then a good idea can be gauged from where we have both arrived.

Afterall like they say, The proof of the pudding is in its eating.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Muslims who chose to migrate to Pakistan saw partition as an event of great self determination.

Hindus saw it as a reward to the Muslim league for their support in diluting the demand of Independence of India amongst Muslims who were fearful of reprisals in a Hindu dominated India.

British saw it as an opportunity to ensure that they will leave a telling memorial on the geo-politics of the sub-continent for years to come.

Any which of them could be right or equally wrong. Depends on which side of the Radcliffe line we stand.

If the 2 nation theory tries to establish that there were a mass of minority who did not identify with a united India in the events moving up to our Independence, I agree with that.

However, any proposition that the creation of Pakistan was based on any ideology but for Islamic, is blatantly false, specially when the basis of the two nation theory is religion itself.

It is also completely false that the idea of separate Independent muslim states was not envisaged or agreed to by Jinnah up till 1947. Following clause from the Muslim league resolution from March of 1940 makes that fact very clear:



File Not Found

The original link above is broken. But the same content can be accessed on the following as well: http://pakistaniat.com/2007/03/22/march-23-1940-pakistan-day-resolution-lahore-qarardad-minto-park/


It can be agreed that Jinnah had not envisaged Pakistan to progress in to the current state of theological entity as it is now but that does not take away from the fact that the need for creation of Pakistan was justified on religious grounds in the Muslim League session of as early as 1930 with the original scheme put forward by Sir Mohamed Iqbal.

But that is now water under the bridge and we are where we are, Pakistan of today and India of today.

However, if analysing the argument that diversity could not have existed in a united India, we can take up the analysis of what was left of the population mix of India.

There have been blots on the way on the religious tolerance in India but all in all, with every event, religion has been taking a further back seat in the diverse, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-colored Indian psyche over the last 60something years of our Independence. So may be not totally successful but it worked and India is at least as it was when we started the journey, if not better.

On the other hand if we look at the Islamic state of Pakistan founded on the premise that only a population of a uniform religious belief can exist together, we can compare the success of the idea and the efficacy of this 2 nation theory.

Pakistan lost half of its original composition in 1971. Though there was uniformity of religious belief in the two popuations, the diversity of ethinicity and color were so strong that it was progressively unsustainable for Bangladesh and Pakistan to exist together and so we then had 3 nations.

Further, the religion being the fundamental in creation of Pakistan, it is hardly surprising that turned in to an increasing influence in the national outlook of Pakistan. It became progressively necessary that the leaders, the intellectuals and even the defence forces drew their legitimacy and influence from the theological undercurrent of the nation.

It can be anybody's guess if things would have turned out in Pakistan like they have if it's creation was a natural coalscence of individuals, communities and religions over the years of history, wherein each religion and community would have had a say in the forging of the national outlook and opinion - something of the nature of what we call secularism in India.

So, we will only be clutching at straws trying to comparing the ascendancy charts of our two nations but then a good idea can be gauged from where we have both arrived.

Afterall like they say, The proof of the pudding is in its eating.

Regrettably, your conclusions are not tenable; not based on the evidence on hand.

To answer this in one post will make it impossible to read. With your permission, I propose to break up a response into smaller, more focussed portions.

Your response is awaited.

 

[deepak75]

Regrettably, your conclusions are not tenable; not based on the evidence on hand.

To answer this in one post will make it impossible to read. With your permission, I propose to break up a response into smaller, more focussed portions.

Your response is awaited.

O.K

Edit: Joe, you are scaring me with the wait bro.......

 

[niaz]

If anyone cares to read the famous 11th August 1947 address of the Quaid to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, he will note that the Quaid has categorically stated that religion is a personal matter and not the business of the state.

I am of the view that the Quaid had realized that once Pakistan came into being ‘Two Nation theory’ became irrelevant. At that time Pakistan had substantial Hindu population in the Eastern wing. Therefore, Quaid thru his speech wanted to ensure that all Pakistanis enjoyed equal rights.

It was with the Objectives Resolution of 1949 that the tilt towards Islamization began. This is noted below:

The Objectives Resolution proclaimed the following principles:
1. Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
2. The State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people.
3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
5. Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed.
8. The judiciary shall be independent.[1]

Two nation theory died as soon as East Pakistan became Bangla Desh. It was clear that Islam as a common denominator was not enough to keep Eastern and Western wings of Pakistan united.
FYI until 1956, Pakistan was called just Pakistan. It was after the first constitution in 1956 when Pakistan became a republic that she came to be known as Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Initially the march towards bigotry was very slow. There were anti Qadiani riots in 1953. ZAB declared Qadianis ‘non Muslims’ in 1976. It was only after the dark days of the bigot Zia that Islamization, rather I would call it ‘Wahabiization’ of Pakistan began in earnest. JI had a field day under Zia as well all the bigots such as Gen. Hamid Gul.
Now it was the turn of the Shia’s.

In 1985 with the patronage of ISI, SSP was formed and Commissioner of Sargodha was killed just because he was a Shia. Situation deteriorated very quickly and Riaz Basrah, the man who killed the Sargodha Commissioner just he had finished his tennis match, became a hero of Islam!

Shaukat Raza, a personal friend and MD of Pakistan State Oil was shot dead as he came out of the PSO building to get into his car. His killers claimed that they were doing the work of Allah. Funy thing is that poor Shaukat was a very mild Shia, I can vouch for it.

No one has 20/20 hindsight, had the Quaid (himself a Shia) been alive today, he would bitterly regret the bigotry prevalent in Pakistan today in the name of Islam. IMO even the objectives resolution would have never been passed in the Quaid's lifetime.

All this proves that Two Nation theory was a good tool only up to the creation of Pakistan. After that it became totally irrelevant.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Muslims who chose to migrate to Pakistan saw partition as an event of great self determination.

Hindus saw it as a reward to the Muslim league for their support in diluting the demand of Independence of India amongst Muslims who were fearful of reprisals in a Hindu dominated India.

British saw it as an opportunity to ensure that they will leave a telling memorial on the geo-politics of the sub-continent for years to come.

Any which of them could be right or equally wrong. Depends on which side of the Radcliffe line we stand.

<snip>

It is necessary to explain why these matters are of life and death importance, and should not be treated with the cavalier disdain that they have met from some.

People, both Indian and Pakistani, often wonder aloud why we should be dealing with these ancient matters. Pakistan exists; it is a fact. Only a Sanghi Parivar member, with dreams of Akhand Bharat, or a rigid theologian of the Deobandi School would object to its existence (it is not very well known that Deoband and almost all religious figures of a sort vehemently opposed Pakistan's creation).

These matters are in fact vital to an understanding of the situation of both the countries today. Such an understanding is also important in planning the course ahead.

For Pakistan, rather, for Pakistanis, it is a vital matter. There is today open battle for the moral high ground in that country between the liberals and the religious right, or perhaps the religious extremists. Which of them is to prevail, or even if they do not prevail, how much of their particular point of view is to be incorporated into the constitution and the laws is dependent on the outcome of this battle.

The situation on the Indian side is divided along two sections, and each of these into two more.

First, with regard to internal matters within India, it is now no longer possible to sweep matters relating to identity under the carpet. The situation in the country should be apparent to the meanest intelligence. As Sahir Sahab described the constituency,Jinke naaz hai Hind par, these are critical issues.

However, the fascists cannot be grouped under the heading of intelligent beings, so they may be excused for believing that they may continue to labour to restore a state of affairs that never existed except in their opium fantasies.

For those who understand that we live or die as Pakistan itself lives or dies, that it is in fact our relations with our neighbours which define us as a civilised nation, the matter is even more critical. If Pakistan becomes the Pakistan that Jinnah thought it would, we are home and dry. A Hindu-majority secular democracy will face a Muslim-majority secular democracy. This was the 'ballast' for the nation Jinnah had worked for, and ultimately died for.

If his programme is interpreted as the Islamists wish it to be interpreted, and that distortion comes to be the State organisation of Pakistan, we are in trouble. The wishes of the unnamed Brigadier of the famous essay, A Modest Proposal by the Brigadier, may well come true. Estimates are that over 120 million Pakistanis will die, and in the region of 500 million Indians, and that another few millions will die every year on both sides due to continued fallout. Presumably this outcome should energise us all to work for a peaceful and friendly relationship between ourselves.

This is the justification for what we are discussing, for the discussion itself.

 

[toxic_pus]

All this proves that Two Nation theory was a good tool only up to the creation of Pakistan. After that it became totally irrelevant.

Sectarianism begets sectarianism. No point in blaming the leaders who were but merely following.

 

[toxic_pus]

Joe, Peter Landesman did name the brigadier. He was Brigadier Amanullah

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, Peter Landesman did name the brigadier. He was Brigadier Amanullah

You are right.

Put it down to an elderly man's failing memory.

 

[deepak75]

Sir, thanks for your insightful post. U have another fan now.

If anyone cares to read the famous 11th August 1947 address of the Quaid to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, he will note that the Quaid has categorically stated that religion is a personal matter and not the business of the state.

I am of the view that the Quaid had realized that once Pakistan came into being ‘Two Nation theory’ became irrelevant. At that time Pakistan had substantial Hindu population in the Eastern wing. Therefore, Quaid thru his speech wanted to ensure that all Pakistanis enjoyed equal rights.

You rightfully asserted about the future that Mr. Jinnah sought for Pakistan. With you, I lament the predicament that Mr. Jinnah had to join Allah in his heavenly abode so soon after the creation of Pakistan.

However, when discussing the genesis of Pakistan, as it was based on a religious union, we cannot say that the 2 nation theory became irrelevant after the creation of Pakistan. It was the ideal behind the creation of Pakistan as a nation.

It was with the Objectives Resolution of 1949 that the tilt towards Islamization began. This is noted below:

The Objectives Resolution proclaimed the following principles:
1. Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
2. The State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people.
3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
5. Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed.
8. The judiciary shall be independent.[1]

Two nation theory died as soon as East Pakistan became Bangla Desh. It was clear that Islam as a common denominator was not enough to keep Eastern and Western wings of Pakistan united.
FYI until 1956, Pakistan was called just Pakistan. It was after the first constitution in 1956 when Pakistan became a republic that she came to be known as Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Initially the march towards bigotry was very slow. There were anti Qadiani riots in 1953. ZAB declared Qadianis ‘non Muslims’ in 1976. It was only after the dark days of the bigot Zia that Islamization, rather I would call it ‘Wahabiization’ of Pakistan began in earnest. JI had a field day under Zia as well all the bigots such as Gen. Hamid Gul.
Now it was the turn of the Shia’s.

In 1985 with the patronage of ISI, SSP was formed and Commissioner of Sargodha was killed just because he was a Shia. Situation deteriorated very quickly and Riaz Basrah, the man who killed the Sargodha Commissioner just he had finished his tennis match, became a hero of Islam!

Shaukat Raza, a personal friend and MD of Pakistan State Oil was shot dead as he came out of the PSO building to get into his car. His killers claimed that they were doing the work of Allah. Funy thing is the poor Shaukat was a very mild Shia, I can vouch for it.

No one has 20/20 hindsight, had the Quaid (himself a Shia) been alive today, he would bitterly regret the bigotry prevalent in Pakistan today in the name of Islam. IMO even the objectives resolution would have never been passed in the Quaid's lifetime.

All this proves that Two Nation theory was a good tool only up to the creation of Pakistan. After that it became totally irrelevant.

I am sorry for your loss Sir. Even though time has elapsed, but unfortunately, good friends can never be replaced. I pray that Mr. Raza's soul found peace with Allah and his family found the strength to overcome their loss and the kindness in them to forgive the evil.

Personally, I see no merit in harming anyone who does not share my belief or religion. He has a right to his opinion and beliefs as long as my lawful rights are not infringed, and even if at tims they are, I would consider a lot of leeway as that is what a human should do.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The argument is not if communities, however you define them, are homogeneous. The argument, particularly in case of TNT, is if Hindus and Muslims are so heterogeneous that they can't cohabit if the former is in majority. Or, in a more generic sense, if the disparate communities can coexist without the majority impinging the minority's' rights.

My point is that the decision of compatibility is for the people of a community to make - whether they be Indians and the British, Muslims and Hindus, Indians and Pakistanis, Pakistanis and Arabs etc. etc. ....

Every community, or a people, can define their identity and their destiny - you have many nations in Europe, of people with the same faith and of the same race, yet many have defined their selves as distinct nations. This is a choice for a community or people to make, and not for outsiders.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

The two nations theory from what I seem to infer was a political struggle between the movement of Jinnah's Muslim League and Nehru's Congress. The Muslim League advocated a federation of states within India with limited national involvement. In fact they proposed a federation very similar to that of the USA. Congress on the other hand wanted a Union with a central government control. Eventually the stand off resulted in the partition of India. The partition despite the misfortunes caused by it worked out to Congress's advantage when it came to vote bank politics. Thereafter it worked out to current day India's advantage when Pakistan started getting hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists. Despite Jinnah's parting curse to India that she will become a Hindu dominated nation (his refusal to address India by its choosen name during negotiations and instead labelling it "Hindustan" which offended Nehru) and despite his ultimate goal of creating a secular democracy which will be respected as such by the world (Mr Jinnah being a British qualified solicitor, I would find it strange if he advocated an Islamic theocratic state at that time in history), quite the contrary occured as history has shown. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan will become a fundamentalist Islamic nation which will continously be a boiling pot for extremist to stir their curry in and daily since obtaining its statehood, the majority of its people will continously blame their nation's woes on India and the rest of the world without really introspecting and cleaning out their cupboards. Sadly for Mr Jinnah, present day Pakistan would have been his worst nightmare and not the dream which he envisaged when he took the bold step of proceeding with the mapping out of its creation