Two Nation Theory

[billi]

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.

I think and I demand a separate nation for vegetarians. anyone join me?

 

[ajpirzada]

Text of Jinnah's Will

An Iranian stamp commemorating the centenary of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, printed in 1976.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Hindus played a vital role in undermining the Muslims of India couple of decades ago 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 with 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.

Which Hindu state are you talking about, is it Nepal , It surely can not be India.

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.

Could you pls elaborate, on these acts of suppression committed by "Hindus" in cohort with British

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 glorious state. However, the religious fanatics took over Pakistan and we ended up in a cave But we will go out soon. InshAllah

Pls elaborate on the above highlighted.

 

[Bang Galore]

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

This is my reply on the same subject in a different thread. You may find it useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Developereo
However, the fact remains that the treatment of Muslims in India is bad and, by some accounts, getting worse. Even leaving aside the Sachar report, there are other reports that claim Muslims have hardly benefitted from India's recent gains. Their status is barely above dalits. There was also another Western report (I don't have the source any more) about eastern India where Hindu Muslim relations are actually getting worse. Even officials were pessimistic about the future of community relations.

Treatment of Muslims? What's that all about? Its true that Muslims don't seem to do very well on development charts but there are many reasons for that including historical ones. Partition of India robbed Indian Muslims of a large proportion of its middle class who emigrated to Pakistan. A higher percentage of Indian Muslims in North India in 1947 belonged to a lower economic strata than the average Hindu population. When development indicators are checked across the board it's more likely that a skewed reading results when Muslims of a lower economic strata are compared to Hindus across all strata. This also results in the common misconception about Muslims in India.

Muslims are unable to directly benefit from India's growth due to poor education levels which has hurt them both in the governmental sector resulting in decreased presence in the Civil services, Police and army as also in the now thriving private sector. This is unfortunately the result of the Indian state shying away from reforms within Muslim communities because of an attempt to appear non-interfering as also a feeling of Ghettoisation within the Muslim community post partition. Some Muslims communities have made rapid economic advances including those of Gujarat leading some to speculate whether economic rivalry was at least part of the reason for rioting. Muslims in South India score better on development indices than those in North India.

Sachar report, i believe is an indicator that the the government is aware of this problem and is trying to take the initial steps required to address it.

 

[third eye]

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

Care to explain the part in red above ???

What is ' inferior - superior '? Whom are you referring to ??

After so many years why does Pak need the world to accept its dignity ? The larger issue I think is that Pak should respect itself and not allow itself to get hijacked by ' non state actors'.

 

[humblehobbes]

its an insult. that Joe Shearer's responses are not even taken for consideration for replies. I know how long it takes to pen such a long detailed well thought out reply. The least one can do is thank him. Its the one word quirks that attracts replies. Either you are not sincere about your argument or you are just too lazy.. Shame.

 

[toxic_pus]

By voting for the ML or allied parties, and in other cases through referendum or provincial legislatures voting in favor of Pakistan.

That not all Muslims chose to support the idea of Pakistan is why I have attempted to use the phrase 'Muslims who supported Pakistan'. This community was comprised largely of the residents of the provinces with large Muslim populations. So for many of the millions of Muslim residents of the Bengal, Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan, the idea of Pakistan as an independent nation made sense and was justified. For millions of other Muslims in British India it did not, or not enough to justify relocating. To them the best of luck.

My reply to Joe would hopefully clarify my position.

Barbaric violence against civilians for one - I have no problem with the MMA (defunct coalition of religious parties) or even the Taliban running a peaceful grassroots or political campaign in favor of their religious or political views, but beheading civilians for not adhering to your code and views on religion, unacceptable.

In other words you differentiate between the two on the basis of their methodology to impose, but not on the act of imposing.

So what if TNT uses religion instead of some other identity marker to determine 'distinction' from another community?

Bangladesh then, Baluchistan now, Sindh sometime in future.

Why is that worse than using race or language? At a basic level, whether using race, religion or language, the idea is the same - a community picking one/some aspects of its identity matrix as making it distinct from others.

I wouldn’t call it ‘worse’. I would rather call it imperfect. Because race (or rather ethnicity) or language reflects an identity at a more micro level, which religious identity will invariably not be able to represent.

I keep repeating and you keep avoiding the Bengali vis-a-vis Punjabi puzzle. Nevermind.

 

[toxic_pus]

Because giving them a 'nation of their own' is a loss for Pakistan obviously, and violates the contract that the peoples of Pakistan entered into. Independence for one/some/all territories that constitute a nation may not be in the best interest of a nation, and may not be in the best interest of the smaller nations. It is up to the stakeholders on all sides to come to an agreement on how best to preserve the nation as a single entity and what sort of national structure serves the interests of all concerned better than breaking up into smaller nations.

In other words, ‘outsider’s’ opinion matters so long as they are ‘stakeholders’. What it really means is that even ‘(i)f one fears for the rights of a community, and the option for a separate nation state for that community is feasible’, one still can’t ‘use whatever is available to protect those rights’. This ‘right’ that you talked of earlier, is therefore limited by the stakeholders’ perception of infringement of their own rights, of encroachment of their own interest, and of what is right (as in good) or wrong. Nice backtracking there.

I’ll let your condescendence that Baluchistanis don’t know what is in their ‘best interest’ pass. It is not for me to defend, although, I must say, 1971 reverberated in my ears for a second or two.

 

[toxic_pus]

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

When you say the Muslim elite, whom are you referring to?...

<snippity snip>

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.

Please refer to the comment I was responding to. A claim was made that a community gets to decide if they are incompatible with another. To which I had inquired, if the incompatibility of Islam with Hinduism was a decision taken by the Muslim community as a whole or was it a decision taken by a handful few Muslim elites (that was a reference to the ML leadership) to pursue their political agenda and thrust upon the community. To make the point that this decision was not a community based one, I had alluded to the massive support of Muslim peasantry that Gandhi commanded around the same time that Jinnah was floating his boat, circa 1940.

Even in 1942, during the Quit India movement, Gandhi had enjoyed substantial support from the Muslims even though ML largely stayed away from that movement and in fact attempted to scuttle it (that is another story in itself). It was not until 1944, following the failure of Gandhi-Jinnah talks that the ML finally started enjoying the overwhelming support of the Muslims and as far as I recall, more than 80% of Muslims voted in favour of ML in the Constituent Assembly election in 1946.

Partition happened. Pakistan exists. That is good enought proof that enough number of Muslims did rally around ML for the creation of Pakistan. The point is not if ML had ever enjoyed Muslim support. Obviously they did. The point is when?

Another point that I was making, is that, the fact that they desired to live separately from the Hindus is explicit in their support of ML, circa 1946, but how would one want to interpret this – was it because they felt that Islam is incompatible with Hinduism or was it because they perceived that an overwhelming majority of Hindu would be imposing on them?

My argument is that two are not the same. My argument, as an extension to the former, is that Jinnah used this TNT to incite the paranoia of overbearing Hindus, amongst the Muslim community to achieve what he wanted to achieve. Whether the paranoia was justified is one debate. Whether a sectarian theory like TNT was needed to drive home that paranoia, justified or otherwise, is another debate and it is my contention that there is no need to conflate these two.

On a side note, I was actually wondering when would Ambedkar make his appearance.

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.

What you are essentially saying is that the ML was concerned more with what they perceived as ‘present’ danger and practically disregarded the possible ‘future’ danger. Isn’t this the biggest criticism against TNT, that it was short sighted, short legged and essentially misleading? I, however, don’t think that it is the hindsight that makes TNT unconvincing. It was unconvincing then as it is unconvincing now.

Regarding 1st and 2nd points, TNT explicitly refused to recognize any ‘race, country, language, civilization, culture, religion, traditions, heroes, and economic interests’ as long as people practiced Islam. TNT was not selective of one particular identity, which is what is being argued here, but actually rejected the idea that anything else can also be the basis for identity. At least this is how I interpret Jinnah’s comment of:

The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations 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 Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap.​

Regarding 3rd point, the realization that something else can very well be a basis for identity, and in fact should be the basis for identity, didn’t dawn on Pakistani leadership, as is implied by the euphemism ‘people concerned’. It was the politically conscious Bengalis, who were at the receiving end of the policies that originated directly from this tunnel vision of TNT, who woke up to that fact. Pakistani leadership, or the ‘people concerned’, did everything to suppress that.

Regarding your 4th point, I do understand, ‘nation’ is not the same thing as ‘nation state’ (neither India nor Pakistan is a nation state in same sense that Bangladesh or Armenia, for example, is), neither do I think I have made any allusion as such. However, in the context of TNT, the argument in favour of a partition ran something in the line of, ‘why shouldn’t the Musalmans have their own country?’ an obvious allusion to nation state.

Was it my 'misreading of the facts' or was it your misreading of context? We will perhaps never know.

 

[toxic_pus]

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&#37; 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...??!!

If two persons desire an independent Baluchistan (or any XYZ province of any ABC country), and these two persons constitute a 'community', then Agno&#8217;s premise must stand the test. Fortunately, he has now backtracked and will no longer require that test.

But seriously soldier boy, no facepalm?

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I am really obliged to Bang Galore for this timely reminder. Without contradicting him, in a spirit of academic enquiry, may I present the following facts:

1. Other minorities in India include the Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists among religions; the forest tribals, Santhals and Oraons, among the section protected in the Constitution as Scheduled Tribes; the tribes of the North-East, including the residents of Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, and the Bodo, Koch and a few others in Assam; the Scheduled Castes; the Dravidians, specifically the Tamilians.
2. The Sikhs, after a turbulent political history, where one segment, the Jat Sikhs, stood for a greater independence for themselves, veered off into violence due to mis-handling by Zail Singh, and cost India several blood-baths before being brought under control.
3. The Christians and Buddhists are too weak to mobilise themselves, although the Parivar has made its intentions clear.
4. I think the Santhals and Oraons have made their point clearly, beyond any further doubt. This is not the forum for us to go deep into these matters; it is a defence forum, not a laundry.
5. 37 separate movements and insurgencies have been identified, of various degrees of commitment and seriousness, in the tribal areas of the North-east.
6. As for the Scheduled Castes, surely, by now, comment is superfluous? Mayawati has shown that she understands power, and the exercise of power, and the authority that the support of such a huge mass gives her. This was one major source of strength for Gandhi, retained from the independence coalition by the Congress,and lost by them by sheer neglect and cynical exploitation.
7. The Tamils deserve special mention. At one stage, they seemed far more affected by centrifugal forces than any other nation within India. Their strong sense of identity equipped them, above all other Dravidian groups, to seek a greater place under the Sun for themselves.That they have stayed on peacefully is due to the compromise that has evolved, whereby the Dravidian parties rule supreme, only alternating power among themselves. I have no explanation for this alternation; only a Cho can tell us, and Cho has sold out.

The point is that the Muslims were the best organised, and fortuitously led by a man in a million. To take on Gandhi in his prime, to take on Nehru and Patel at the height of their powers was possible by no ordinary person. None of the others enjoyed that degree of organisation and leadership.

To take just one example: Ambedkar was at least the intellectual equal of any other leader. In certain respects, better than all. Yet he had to compromise and to seek protection through reservations, which, I personally believe, he used his constitution-making authority to embed in the constitution. This was his gift to his constituency; he could do no more than hope and pray that he had bought time enough for that constituency to mature and grow and gain organisational muscle and seek their rights. And so it has turned out.

I would like your comments on the Southern Muslims and their passivity, considering that the Khilafat Movement was centred among the Moplahs, that it was marked for its violence and its communal hatred, and that the community today contributes much of the muscle, perhaps half of it, for the minuscule insurgency among Indian Muslims. Also your comments on the peaceful and mercantile-oriented Beary Muslims and the Konkan Muslims, who were practising Muslims decades before Sind fell to the Arabs, and who with their counterparts in Kerala were among the earliest mosque-builders on the sub-continent. Why, in your opinion, were they not interested in the TNT? It cannot be entirely due to their conversion by example and conviction; the Bengal Muslims were also converted thus, but were far more radical and aggressive. So what made southern Muslims (an odious category! as if there is something about latitude that distinguishes them or the southern Hindus from any other) so quiescent?

I await your thoughts with interest.

 

[Raghu]

@Joe Shearer,

U write quite long article ,but unfortunately they are filled with numerous factual inaccuracies...which u use as pivotal points to carry ur msg.

I'm putting together only few...

. 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

No, reservation was proposed by Ambedkar was for yrs only with promise of extension.But it was certainly not made for indefinite period as u trying to put it. Its a different thing that political parties find it convenient to extend it perpetually in the vote bank politics and even brought in OBC reservation package.

The separatist Sikhs,forest tracts, north-eastern hillsmen, few Tamils under the Justice Party never had any mass support or historical baggage on which the another TNT can be brought forward.

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.

Cabinet mission was unacceptable to congress as its proposals were untenable and it even had options for some territories going independent on their own .Clearly smart leaders of congress like Nehru and Patel could foresee the break down whole country had they accepted the conditions of the Cabinet mission.Cant blame them for that??

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

As far as i know Hindu minority of Bangladesh were known to be educationally advanced than the Muslim majority.They were the intellectuals,doctors ,professors etc who became the target of the 1971 genocide on the suspicion that they stoke anti Pakistan and pro freedom sentiments among Muslim Bengali.

Lakhs of them died and many more lakhs left for India.I don't know about the current status Hindu minority of or the lingering ill effects that 1971 war on them.But to them as example of minority mindset behavior would be inaccurate.Each community whether minority or majority has it internal how the evolve.Jews and Indians in USA or Parsis of India even Sikhs , though minorities in numerical terms ,but lead very successful and affluent lives in their respective countries of living .

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.

So the theory of psychological burden of being minorities u are pushing in so many lengthy words fails on many instances.Though same educated elite Muslims who lead the movement for the creation of Pakistan who might felt being suppressed by Hindu majority were routinely migrating to Christan secular Europe especially England .

TNT is based as clearly put by Mr Jinnah on religious distinctness as well as distrust between Hindus and Muslims who carried not only a history of conflicts , but also for being part of two separate rigid ways of lives with very few common grounds and more importantly Muslims being of substantial numbers in places like north west and east of British India gave enough reason to ML's campign for Pakistan that they can a viable state on the own with no fear of Hindus of Indian diluting they Islamic way of life.

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?

I'm sure most Indian Muslim would absolutely disagree with this view point .The contribution of Indian Muslims culture, of literature, poetry and music easily surpasses what Pakistan Muslims have achieved in last sixty years.The sign of this truth is in visible fact that India has become new home to Pakistan artists ,sport players themselves who get far bigger opportunities to showcase their creativity compared to Pakistan.

Its Indian Hindu who converted to Islam and called himself AR Rehman, went to receive Oscar awards on musical prowess without facing any discrimination to hone his musical skills for being a Muslim.Another Muslim from Kerela got an Oscar for sound recording along with him.

Artist like ostad Bismillah khan had received Bharat Ratna.I can go on mentioning names of more classical artist or Muslim who immensely contributed in arts, literature, poetry in the regional languages the list would be very large.So pls don't undermine the achievements of Indian Muslims in any sphere of Indian life which would blatantly wrong and a false charge on them.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My attention to this comment was attracted by another poster questioning certain assumptions here. Those do attract attention, and I wish to make certain observations, in much the same vein. But without rancour, and with no personal animus, I wish to emphasise again.

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.

Which period of history are you referring to?

It is difficult to relate these observations either to the period before Independence, when it was the British who ruled, or after. I assure you as a neutral person with regard to religion, there has been no overt Hindu domination, or undermining the rights of Indian Muslims.

It was also disconcerting to hear that equal rights were granted to Muslims over a period of time. What does this refer to? Constitutionally, Indians of all religions have had exactly equal rights, except the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who seemed to the framers of the Constitution to need some ten years or so to catch up with the others. In the event, this proved insufficient, and they have had these privileges extended.

If anything, Muslim protection is likely to extend beyond equality; several progressive states have recognised that minorities require nurturing and special care, and quotas for Muslims are being contemplated.

I am really not sure what historical conditions are being highlighted by those comments above, and would like your help to understand this.

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.

Absolutely. What happened, to Muslims in Gujarat, to Sikhs in Delhi and the North, to Christians in Orissa, to Hindus in Kashmir, to immigrant Bangladeshi Muslims in Nellie, and to Scheduled Castes all over UP and Bihar in hundreds and thousands of little incidents which go unreported are a slap in the face to every patriotic Indian citizen.

There is no question about what you say: this must not happen in future. Whichever religion is involved.

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.

I am sorry, but I cannot disagree more with your sentiments. We can, and we will live in peace. There is only one factor that can bring war, and there is no point in discussing that as a fixed and inevitable outcome. It is not, and we have to work to ensure that it does not become such an outcome. You and I and every Pakistani, and every Indian.

War is stupid. Period.

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.

I am surprised both to read your view that either Mughal kings were guilty, uniformly, of horrendous acts, and of suppression or that it had such deep repercussions for Muslims; this was not state policy uniformly, only the policy of specific emperors.

Yes, the acts of these emperors, Jehangir to some minor extent, Shah Jehan with greater ferocity, and climaxing in Aurangzeb's narrow-mindedness, are deplorable, but what have they to do with us? Are you planning to walk into my home and convert me and my wife and daughter at tea-time at the point of your sword? Or do you wish to break down my wife's ancestral temple which has survived so many thousands of years (my ancestral heritage is at the bottom of a river; East Bengalis rarely have physical remains to display at bragging time).

Secondly, it was completely unhistorical to speak of oppression of the Muslims by the British Empire and the Hindus. Whatever are you referring to? Nothing like this, remotely like this, ever occurred. Even the Two Nation Theory was about future possibilities, not present oppression, by the majority; that there was a general distrust of the Muslim by the British after the Mutiny, there is no doubt, but to include Hindus in this policy as accessories after the act is plain wrong.

Please understand: Muslim leaders felt that they should not exist as a cowed minority where they had ruled. They never felt that they were then being pushed around. Far from it. Read Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's comments about Bengali babus, and you will get a fairer idea.

Finally, if India were to become a Hindu state, I would not be a proud Indian citizen. Like thousands others, I would have emigrated. We are proud to be living in a country where your religion should not matter. That it matters and that it has to be fought is a good fight. We have not won, but it certainly is not a Hindu state by any stretch of the imagination.

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

I can only say that I am astonished. There is no earthly record of this. I do not know even of the most died-in-the-wool Muslim League enthusiast who alleged this, or thought this; they all knew, we all know that this is completely without basis.

If there is a basis, do produce the facts and evidence. I believe that in doing so, you are in for a pleasant surprise.

 

[deepak75]

@Deepak75

Please do not be under the impression that any part of my commentary on your post is intended to convey personal disrespect. Not at all; nothing could be further from my intentions.

As far as the facts and the analysis are concerned, you will readily agree that only evidence, explained with honesty and integrity, counts, not our fables and myths. That is my only concern; to set right what I see as mistakes or misunderstandings, as best as I can. If at any point what I write seems abrasive, my apologies. Nothing personal is intended. But the Internet, and India itself, are both free, and your comment is as valuable as mine, and conversely. While I do not question your right to say what you will, I retain my right to refute what I see as error.

While on the subject, could you please eschew personal insults and pejorative comments on the nature of my writing?

Sir, I regret that my rebuttals seemed indecorous to you however, please be assured that my disagreements are limited to only your elucidation of thoughts in response to my opinion on this subject earlier.

Normally in a discussion, it is only natural that we do not consider our personal opinion on the matter res-ipsa-loquitur and be prepared to present evidence of credibility beyond reasonable dispute while refuting any argument. It is only a monolgue in which one may not expect that. But then, that will not be much of a discussion.....eh?

Now that I have finally, a total picture of your thoughts and the facts that you originally sought to present while claiming my simplistic post as cavalier, disdainful and factually incorrect, let me gather my thoughts and respond to you while in the interim we also read what Raghu and Bang Galore and toxic_pus have to say on this matter.

This is great education.....

 

[Jackdaws]

Pakistanis are so-obsessed with the two-nation theory that it comes across as bizarre. Ask an average Indian, "What is the 2 nation theory?" and you will get a blank stare. This 2 nation theory stems from Pakistan's identity crisis. Religiously they identify with the Arabs, linguistically and to an extent culturally with the Persians and culturally with the Indians. It is a theory - Jinnah got his Pakistan - what is the whole point of revisiting it all the time? I get the feeling that Pakistan almost wants India to declare itself a "Hindu" state so as to justify its own existence. Yes - I agree that Muslims are discriminated against in India - more than any other community - if any Indian denies this - he / she is lying. But genuine efforts have been made at the national level to right these wrongs. You can't blame the state of India for century old prejudices that prevail and these prejudices are present in all societies - African Americans in USA, Turks in Europe, Tibetans/Uighurs in China, Muslims in India, Hindus/Ahamadis/Jews in Pakistan. So should each minority keep demanding a separate state? Religion is an important factor in a general population's character. But so is language, food, culture. I bet if Pakistan had been created with all of Punjab and all of Bengal then the feuds would be a lot less intense. What's done is done - the 2 nation theory is a dead horse - no point beating it.