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

[priti]

That would have been far better, bloodless and productive solution

indeed, a secular set of states would have been good. but a united large state is better than small divide states. that's the idea of india

 

[Zabaniyah]

It evolved into a tri-nation theory.

End of story.

 

[SQ8]

indian subcontinent are same people because there has been lot of internmingling for 5000 years

So has there been in Europe.. and their current solution seems to working barely.
In the 5000 years.. the only time they were unified was under a majority rule of a communal section or higher power. Be it the Muslims.. the British or the current Hindu led leadership. Even during these times, when the ruling power lost its footing the nation fragmented easily.. be it the Marhatas revolt or Sikh Kingdom..The nations aspire for identity.


The current policy statements and allegiance of parties such as the BJP is ample proof that communal ideals are not dead and that there are multiple nations within India. Those making arguments of Hindu Muslim friendship are clearly ignorant of this reality.. and this statement is reflective of that

Perhaps, in the higher interests of mutual cooperation, we cannot afford to part with the monopolies which circumstances have placed in our hands, and [thus we] conceal our egoism under the cloak of nationalism, outwardly simulating a large-hearted patriotism, but inwardly as narrow-minded as a caste or tribe.

The question is never of friendship at an individual level. That exists even in Pakistan to an extent.. but the recognition of the community as a whole. Even the America with its much more tolerant and integrated society breaks down under pressure into distinct religious and racial groups.
What India has achieved in integration is exactly what the initial ideals of people like Iqbal and Jinnah were..but the current spate of problems that still exist are testament to the incompleteness of the method or solution used to unify India.

 

[Sugarcane]

About Patel,he was the biggest hardcore Gandhian among the AICC eminence. Calling him anti-muslim would not do enough justice to his character.
Secondly,remarks like "Indians are happy to get rid of muslims" again is an outright denial of facts and still do not represent the majority.

Not a Pakistani source --> http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=15158

 

[priti]

So has there been in Europe.. and their current solution seems to working barely.
In the 5000 years.. the only time they were unified was under a majority rule of a communal section or higher power. Be it the Muslims.. the British or the current Hindu led leadership. Even during these times, when the ruling power lost its footing the nation fragmented easily.. be it the Marhatas revolt or Sikh Kingdom..The nations aspire for identity.


The current policy statements and allegiance of parties such as the BJP is ample proof that communal ideals are not dead and that there are multiple nations within India. Those making arguments of Hindu Muslim friendship are clearly ignorant of this reality.. and this statement is reflective of that

Perhaps, in the higher interests of mutual cooperation, we cannot afford to part with the monopolies which circumstances have placed in our hands, and [thus we] conceal our egoism under the cloak of nationalism, outwardly simulating a large-hearted patriotism, but inwardly as narrow-minded as a caste or tribe.

The question is never of friendship at an individual level. That exists even in Pakistan to an extent.. but the recognition of the community as a whole. Even the America with its much more tolerant and integrated society breaks down under pressure into distinct religious and racial groups.
What India has achieved in integration is exactly what the initial ideals of people like Iqbal and Jinnah were..but the current spate of problems that still exist are testament to the incompleteness of the method or solution used to unify India.

India is still very young, and there are problems which are gradually being ironed out. first the south wanted to break away from india. Now they are firmly a part of india. the Maoists only want to unseat govt not break india. only loony elements want a separate state. So India has done a great job by being unified and the critical reason for staying united is tolerating and letting minorities flourish.
yes there are communal elements both among hindus and muslims, however the tolerance of the majotiy community has ensured that the idea of India has survived.

 

[SQ8]

indeed, a secular set of states would have been good. but a united large state is better than small divide states. that's the idea of india

But is it united in the true sense? Is there tolerance by the political leadership of each community( be it communal or national) for this . Would parties such as RSS tolerate Muslims in Maharasthra achieving their full potential if it ends up eating into the potential of Hindu majority?

And then by Contrast.. how has a state like Kerala fared much better in integration? Is it because the communal communities have found a sense of balance between each other?

 

[Sugarcane]

indeed, a secular set of states would have been good. but a united large state is better than small divide states. that's the idea of india

And this large state should run as per wishes of majority community "Hindus" were the idea of congress leadership which forced even secular like MAJ to depart take stand to protect the interests of his community.

 

[priti]

But is it united in the true sense? Is there tolerance by the political leadership of each community( be it communal or national) for this . Would parties such as RSS tolerate Muslims in Maharasthra achieving their full potential if it ends up eating into the potential of Hindu majority?

And then by Contrast.. how has a state like Kerala fared much better in integration? Is it because the communal communities have found a sense of balance between each other?

which country is united in the true sense? china is not , nor is pak or SL or even America. even UK is talking of splitting Scotland and England and Quebec wants to secede from Canada.

RSS has tolerated muslims to grow from 30 million in '47 to 160 million today. Muslims in MH/Guj and the south where they are in significant minority are doing very well today. We as Indians have lot more potential to realise irrespective of religion.
the only muslims who are not doing that well is in UP and Bihar. BUT, these 2 states are the known blackholes in india. 

And this large state should run as per wishes of majority community "Hindus" were the idea of congress leadership which forced even secular like MAJ to depart take stand to protect the interests of his community.

tell me if congress which has ruled for 60 years has ruled as hindus or as seculars.

 

[Sugarcane]

tell me if congress which has ruled for 60 years has ruled as hindus or as seculars.

Well i can point out many things but let's keep argument till 47 otherwise it will become India-vs-Pakistan sh!t

 

[pk_baloch]

NO its not died because muslim got another MUSLIM country not hindu country ......

 

[RangerPK]

Two nation theory does not really concern Pakistan, as much as it does Bangladesh, because unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh's population is already divided into Hindu Bangladeshis and Muslim Bangladeshis.
Even before 1947, the majority Muslim eastern half of Bangladesh wanted to be separate from the majority Hindu western half of Bangladesh with in the frame work of colonial British India.

As for Pakistan. We are made of 4 major ethnic groups. We were majority Muslims in our provinces. Our region stands on the skeleton of Indus water system, we barely spent 100 years under forced rule of a British colony called British India and we were the last region in subcontinent to be annexed in to a British colony AKA British India. Two nation theory is just another fact, which showed us how artificial british India was, and not solely the only one. We do not always need two nation theory for our validation...

 

[KingMamba]

It also showed that some muslims cannot even live among one another , effectively making it a three nation theory .

LOL Muslims and muslims fighting with one another has nothing to do with the two nation theory because the two nation theory involves Muslim-hindu not Muslim and Muslim.

 

[MilSpec]

Prelude: Two nation theory refers to - creation of a separate state from India to provide political representation to Muslims.....

1) Hence Pakistan was created..... > two nation theory realized

Did Pakistan provide equal political representation to Muslims of unified Pakistan - NO
So did two nation theory work??

Hypothetically if Pakistan is partitioned into another two pieces due to inequality in resource and political representation dos tnt still hold true???

The short answer is the term "Two nation Theory" is embossed in the concept of creation of Pakistan, thus even any retrospection into objectives fo two nation theory is abhorred and by the same virtue the two nation theory will remain solid irrespective the map of Pakistan.

2) Does existence of muslims in India refute Two nation theory

going back to prelude, the affirmative action of the GoI, and equal constitutional rights for every sect and caste on paper has given more rights to minorities that to hindu majority. Social norms are still catching up to the constitutional reforms, and with globalization and economic indicators playing the key role to shape the society, the social justice reforms are fast tracked. People with pragmatic view of India's social development will definitely think that India's secular fabric will soon dissolve two nation theory as a concept.

 

[American Pakistani]

Indian Muslims are Indian historically but I heard Pakistanis many times bashing Muhajirs "India wapis chale jao, jahan se tum aaye the." If you don't consider Muhajirs as one of your own, how can even claim validity of two nation theory.

lol where did you get this from? As usual your army/media propaganda? My ancestors were from india & i feel blessed to be Pakistani by birth. The slight think of being born as indian give me a scary shiver. 
BTW most Pakistanis are happy with the outcome of 1971. Firstly our Bangladeshi friends get their own Muslim land, secondly Pakistan has to care less about a territory which was cut off from mainland, thirdly Pakistan got it's original land which it's leaders had dream of & which historically was in almost the same geographical shape as of Modern Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

which country is united in the true sense? china is not , nor is pak or SL or even America. even UK is talking of splitting Scotland and England and Quebec wants to secede from Canada.

RSS has tolerated muslims to grow from 30 million in '47 to 160 million today. Muslims in MH/Guj and the south where they are in significant minority are doing very well today. We as Indians have lot more potential to realise irrespective of religion.
the only muslims who are not doing that well is in UP and Bihar. BUT, these 2 states are the known blackholes in india. 

tell me if congress which has ruled for 60 years has ruled as hindus or as seculars.

That is piecemeal defence to the question. If you had the patience to read through the address it shows that the tolerance of a majority does not imply their acceptance of the majority's full potential. RSS had nothing to do with Muslims growth. Muslims grew because they reproduced. Their growth measured in economic terms vis-a-vis their representation is the true gauge.

Your example of scotland is precisely the problem presented. The reason the scots want out is realize their full potential as they want it and not have their aspirations quashed by being quashed by the English Majority.

The Congress rule has been marked as a Hindu majority rule that seeks to placate minorities by offering secular governance.