Did Two Nation Theory Die in 1971 After Creation of Bangladesh?

[MilSpec]

It is strange how different people can extract different meaning out of the same text.

Here is Article 25.

Quote

25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health

and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are

equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right

freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation

of any existing law or prevent the State from making

any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial,

political or other secular activity which may be

associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the

throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a

public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans

shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the

Sikh religion.

Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the

reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a

reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or

Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious

institutions shall be construed accordingly

Unquote.

From the explanation I understand that what applies to Hindus will also apply to Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists. You interpret as “Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists are Hindus”. You choice.

Also at @Nassr

The logic of affirmative actions to identify minority was based on social bias against the dalits, christians, muslims etc. Sikhs and jains were not subjected to social marginalization in the history of India, and were considered as offshoots of hindu spectrum, thus tribes and sects (Among sikhs, jains christains and hindus too) were identified as Schedule casts, Schedule tribes, Vimukth Jati(1,2,3), Nomadic tribes (1,2,3) and OBC.

Thus social reforms can reach every individual irrespective of relegions based on the aforementioned reservation catagories, making this the most comprehensive affirmative action in the world with further scope for amendments to include additional sects. For example catholic converts from tribal areas were included in ST categories to provide the needed reservation and upliftment in the society. Same goes for muslims, in the ongoing process, where different commisions are setup by the government to establish the reforms needed to uplift the sections and appropriate actions are taken in by the democratic process.

Now coming back to premise of the two nation theory where most pakistanis believe that muslims in India are subjected to social injustice and devoid of political representation, then on the flip side if India does achive complete social equality for muslims in India along with the aforementioned political representation, Does that render the two nation theory null and void????

Also can someone interject that when the envisaged utopia of muslim political homeland, crushed the constitutional political rights of bengali muslims, were the two nation theory advocates sleeping???

 

[MilSpec]

I have a simple question for the advocates of TNT. If a minority group in Pakistan today wants to apply TNT and demands for a separate nation on the basis that they can't live with the majority, would you allow them to form one? Where does one draw the line?

I did ask the same question a couple of pages back... No Answer!!! If political representation of certain group is paramount as being touted here, then why not liberate peacefully East Bengal or even Balochistan on their grievances of unfair political representation???????????????

Imo pakistan has it's own identity and does not need to identify itself with a theory that is based on India.... without any theories, Pakistan is a sovereign country and thats how it shall remain

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Nassr

Your interpretation of Article 25 is peculiar to yourself, and a most eminent member has had his moment of disbelief about such an interpretation.

The Supreme Court decisions and judgements are not written in stone. It was considering the question as a totality, within the context of the Indian Constitution, and I do not agree, as do not many others. Judges are human beings, with the same tools for analysis and observation as every one of the rest of us. Indian judges on the Supreme Court have been increasingly definitive, and have always had a constructive rather than a conservative approach to the Constitution, in which sense I include the seminal view of the Court regarding the core values of the Constitution, which are never to be altered even through technically permissible amendment procedures. This view is not part of that.

If you were to stop forming your opinions by consulting your prejudices and then seeking confirmatory evidence by using a search engine, and if you were to study the subject. you would soon find that the key to this discussion on the nature of the other Indic religions (not an adjective I personally favour or value, but a useful one just here) lies in the history of the Brahmo Samaj, their seeking of a position outside the Hindu religion, and their causing the creation of a piece of legislation which more or less created a significant salient feature around which they could have developed a personal law of their own. They did not, and they have receded into Hinduism in imperceptible stages; today they exist, but in name only.

In creating a marriage act for themselves, they created their antithetical position - a marriage act for the Hindus. And the others. It was this formation of a formal act delineating the legality of a marriage for the Hindus that created all this furore, not Article 25, which was a noble policy with a direction and a context of its own.

Do you have the intellectual stamina to go through this?

@niaz

Thank you, Sir.

@sandy_3126

I disagree with the position taken by you and @jaunty. I believe that the TNT is specific to Muslims and Hindus. Any internal differences between two groups from either side, between two groups of Hindus, say, or two groups of Muslims, in India, or in Pakistan, or in Bangladesh, does not materially affect my opposition to the theory. I agree with both of you that there is a prima facie case for scepticism, but I believe that on closer examination, for the reason mentioned, that this is peculiar to Muslims addressing a Hindu majority, those examples of Bangladesh do not hold good for our argument. Just a personal view.

@Oscar

I hope you get well soon.

 

[MilSpec]

@Nassr

@sandy_3126

I disagree with the position taken by you and @jaunty. I believe that the TNT is specific to Muslims and Hindus. Any internal differences between two groups from either side, between two groups of Hindus, say, or two groups of Muslims, in India, or in Pakistan, or in Bangladesh, does not materially affect my opposition to the theory. I agree with both of you that there is a prima facie case for scepticism, but I believe that on closer examination, for the reason mentioned, that this is peculiar to Muslims addressing a Hindu majority, those examples of Bangladesh do not hold good for our argument. Just a personal view.

.

My understanding (correct me if wrong) of TnT was to provide political representation to muslims who lived in British India, and the exact antithesis of the ideology behind TNT was the republic of India whose secular fabric promised constitutional and political equality to all it's citizens...

Fast forward 25 years, the unified pakistan did NOT provide the constitutional and political equality to the half of it's population who had put all their faith TnT and it's preachers.... If not a total failure, must constitute as a major lapse...

Next is the Jinnah's apprehension that muslim minority's political rights will be trampled in India? Did that happen.... And as far as protection of minorities go, in the jinnah's 14 points (which is the prelude to TnT), a separate electorate was demanded to protect muslim minorities, if the rationale behind it was so water tight why wasn't similar 1/3rd of cabinet seats offered to the minorities in pakistan, didn't Mr Jinnah expect existence of minorities in pakistan, how can a man who drafted the concept of separate state for protection of minorities so easily overlook the rights of minorities in his own masterpiece. Something doesn't add up.

I am not here to argue whether Two nation theory is alive or dead, that I will leave to individuals perceptions, but secular India and Muslim utopia Pakistan , both were promises made by INC and AIML respectively, India delivered on the constitutional and political front and still struggles on the social level, whereas Pakistan did dissapoint half of the nation on the constitutional and political front, the rest of jinnah's vision is another topic altogether.

 

[scorpionx]

What I do not understand is why these communities could not be accepted as followers of a separate religion as all other countries of the world does, except India. These communities themselves say that they are not Hindus. Why not grant them this privilege instead of highlighting the not so insurmountable problems that are associated in doing so. It indeed is surprising. 
.

On the Contrary,the article 25 quite conspicuously accepts Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains as followers of a separate religions.There are certain instructions,such as all sections,groups and subgroups of Hindu society must be subjected to social welfare,assistance of different kinds from Hindu religious bodies and institutions,which are similarly applicable to the religions like Sikhism,Buddhism and Jainism. The article says to follow the instructions not Hindu religion.Is it so difficult to understand? It is not misinterpretation when you show article 25 as a proof that these religions (which in fact separated themselves from their parental body to form a different religion and are gleefully accepted as different for centuries) are not acknowledged as a separate religions.

It is neither misinterpretation nor incomprehension but deliberate intellectual dishonesty from some Sikh religious bodies you mentioned who formed their own figments of belief that this article of Indian Constitution went against their preponderance.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

two nation of Israel and Palestine?

 

[notsuperstitious]

I have a simple question for the advocates of TNT. If a minority group in Pakistan today wants to apply TNT and demands for a separate nation on the basis that they can't live with the majority, would you allow them to form one? Where does one draw the line?

As one pocket islamist from bangladesh called kobiraaz recently answered that question in the BD context, where they actually have non muslim dominated areas, those minorities will be killed off. He said that in his typical humane pious islamic tone. And no, there is no incoherence, none whatsoever.

 

[Nassr]

@Joe Shearer,

I am surprised at so many explanations about why Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are not accepted as separate religions under certain clauses of Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India interprets the Indian Constitution and that is the law in India. The Supreme Court in its verdict has stated clearly that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are a sub-sect of Hinduism according to the Indian Constitution.

One may not agree with Indian Supreme Court’s constitutional deciphering through oft-repeated and verbose justifications. It however, does not change the ground reality unless the constitution is amended.

What is even more surprising is the expression of emotion laden justifications presented by Indian posters, apparently enhanced through Viagra aided intellectual stamina. Why is this factor being so vociferously justified in the manner it is.

Is it due to a probable dilution in the nature of Dharmic or Indic edicts formulated through contemporary Hindu philosophies or is it to avoid a threatening vulnerability of the broad-based perception of Vedism/Hinduism as a form of cultural practice or religion.

Why I say this is due to the evidential historical linkages which highlight the violative nature of Hindu preservation of its culture through hierarchal coercive domination against induction of differing regional or foreign religious means in local environs. The nature of angst through which Buddhism was almost eliminated from an India which was once practiced as the most populous religion, is a case in point.

 

[GURU DUTT]

@Joe Shearer,

I am surprised at so many explanations about why Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are not accepted as separate religions under certain clauses of Indian Constitution.

same way why christians dont aknowledge protestant/catholick and orthodox streams as differnt relegeon

the same way why gemeral muslims dont consider shias and sunnies as different muslims/relegeons

 

[shazlion]

They say that TNT did not die with creation of BD but was made stronger . So I guess it would be made even more strong when Baluchistan gains Independence . Long live Two nation theory .

TNT will Never Die because it is reality on Ground also if Remaining India Dies as there are more then 2 Dozen movements of Independence in India then Baluchistan Movement will Die with India Death also, InshAllah and Ameen to this one, BLA is finance by India so India Death will be good OMEN for Pakistan
Long Live Pakistan and Death to all Haters of Pakistan

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

I have a simple question for the advocates of TNT. If a minority group in Pakistan today wants to apply TNT and demands for a separate nation on the basis that they can't live with the majority, would you allow them to form one? Where does one draw the line?

In Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League presidential address delivered in Lahore, on March 22, 1940, he explained:



Muhammad Ali Jinnah delivering a political speech.

“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, literature. 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.

This is two nation theory and its still valid and true today as there is nothing common between Muslims and Hindus as their ideology and identity is different. Two Nation theory means Muslims are a separate nation from Hindus in every aspect of their lives. Has this fact changed? NO Pakistani Hindus also have more similarities with Indian Hindus than Pakistani Muslim. I am talking about religious/cultural festival , marriage ceremonies, food habit, funeral rituals and different other ways of lives. Pakistan shoib can marry to Indian
Muslim sania but Indian sania cannot marry to Indian Hindu if she is devout muslim . East Pakistan got independence from west Pakistan because of our incompetent leadership and you hypocrite people help them in gaining independence so you should be the last one to ask this question of drawing the line. India and Pakistan got the independence from British at the same time. you are asking this question as if India was one country ruled by Hindus and we Pakistani Muslim said give us our land because we cannot live with you

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Muslims ARE practicing their faith freely in Hindu areas, building new mosques and saving old ones. They ARE eating beef freely. They don't live under any fear. There are no untouchables in India, not even among Hindus. Come to India & see for yourself. In India, Hindus also go to mosques and Muslim holy places like Ajmer Sharif. Who are Hindus trying to please according to you when they are already in majority?

I have read enough about this shining and incredible India where there is no religious/caste prejudiced and discrimination , no poverty, no riots, no hinduvata extremist or Hindu nationalists who consider Muslims outsider and think India belong to Hindus(follower of those religion originated in India i.e Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism ), no quota systems for dalits and low castes because they get equal rights. We have also seen how Indian Muslims saved old Babri mosques and many others from Hindu extremists. 500 mosques and shrine were destroyed in Gujraat.


Allahabad: Peoples Union for Human Rights (PUHR), a human rights organization, which toured the riot affected areas of Gujarat and closely examined the anti-Muslim riots there has published its report wherein it has been stated that in the whole of Gujarat it was a one-sided violence against Muslims wherein 500 mosques, ‘dargahs’ and ‘imam-baras’ were demolished and in their places religious places of the majority community were established. It is further stated in the report that during the riots the state ministers, MLAs and VHP leaders were sitting in the police control room and inciting and directing the rioters against Muslims and that the state government is fully responsible for anti-Muslim riots of Gujarat. The PUHR team which toured Gujarat consisted of 3 members led by its senior member and former President of JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) students union, Pranor Krishn.

It was further stated in the report that Muslims living in refugee camps are so much afraid that even after one month they do not want to go back to their houses for fear of being killed or burnt alive. As regards Gujarat administration, it is stated in the report the activists associated with Bajrang Dal and other Sangh organizations have been recruited upto the level of constables and inspectors in large numbers by the state government. These people were taking orders and guidance from their organizations during the riots.

The report further says that conditions have so much deteriorated that the affected persons are afraid of lodging FIRs against the culprits because all of them are associated with Sangh Parivar and ‘trishuls’ and swords were distributed in large numbers to the rioters by the Parivar. Vehicles of Muslims were selectively burnt by the rioters so that they may not be able to shift to other places.

It has been said about VHP in the report that they are trying to incite their members to terrorise the people in those areas also where Muslims are safe so far. While holding the state government fully responsible for the riots, it is stated that anti-Muslim movement started by the government is still going on at secret level. Finally, it has been demanded in the report that central government should set up a high level committee to thoroughly probe the whole events so that the deep conspiracy behind anti-Muslim riots could be exposed.

And here is the example of secular Indian mindset who welcome Indian Muslim and other Indian ethnicities to live in their housing society

[video]

[/video]

[video]

[/video]

Are Muslims getting a fair deal in India? good debate

[video]

[/video]

Only secular India will give you imprisonment of one year ( can be extended upto seven years and a fine of Rs 25,000 to Rs 50000 or both) for slaughtering cow . Its more imprtant to protect the rights of cow than protecting the rights of Muslims, dalits and low castes

 

[doppelganger]

It will take you a lifetime before you can express yourself like Joe Shearer despite his occasional pejorative incontinence.

@assr

What is the focal point of your butt pain? Did I mention you specifically? Or does the fact that you jump to the conclusion that my post was directed at you stem from a sense of latent inadequacy?

 

[doppelganger]

Only secular India will give you imprisonment of one year ( can be extended upto seven years and a fine of Rs 25,000 to Rs 50000 or both) for slaughtering cow . Its more imprtant to protect the rights of cow than protecting the rights of Muslims, dalits and low castes

They are always free to eat buffalo if they crave beef (which I personally feel is disgusting). Protecting animals from slaughter is not new to India. Where sensitivities are involved, one needs to be pragmatic. This is actually a step taken to protect Muslims. Because the alternative, if cow slaughter were allowed openly, would have been widespread violence and even killing. So this is a common sense Muslim-friendly law and order step to be commended. Not derided.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

They are always free to eat buffalo if they crave beef (which I personally feel is disgusting). Protecting animals from slaughter is not new to India. Where sensitivities are involved, one needs to be pragmatic. This is actually a step taken to protect Muslims. Because the alternative, if cow slaughter were allowed openly, would have been widespread violence and even killing. So this is a common sense Muslim-friendly law and order step to be commended. Not derided.

First of all taste of meat of buffalo is not same as meat of cow. I find the meat of pig disgusting but secular state should not make it forbidden for others who like to eat it. Muslim/Christians should have right to slaughter cow just like buffalo or any other animal because they dont consider cow holy. Hindu/christians should have freedom to eat pigs. People should live and eat according to their taste not someone else.