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

[Joe Shearer]

Presumably should read,".....the tolerance of a minority does not imply acceptance of a minority's full potential."

I am glad, btw, that you posted; richly illuminated my point by serving as an exception.

 

[Joe Shearer]

may be..to us, the indians are ill-informed...and no one is gonna get other one convinced to accept his ideas...plain and simple...so no need to argue

On the contrary.

The Seniors' Club was set up to be a restricted forum keeping out the riff-raff. It hasn't been restrictive. When someone like @Oscar posts, the difference is blindingly obvious. Except to those blinded already.

 

[SQ8]

On the contrary.

The Seniors' Club was set up to be a restricted forum keeping out the riff-raff. It hasn't been restrictive. When someone like @Oscar posts, the difference is blindingly obvious. Except to those blinded already.

It was supposed to be restricted, but I am not sure why it does not turn out to be. @WebMaster

 

[ssethii]

It successfully achieved it's objectives in 1947 and Muslims do believe nothing is eternal in this life.

 

[Bang Galore]

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

I'm not sure what in your view constitutes a nation? In a muslim nation, are the Shias & Sunnis separate nations? Where do you stop? We all have multiple identities and they will all crop up now & then. Communal ideals cannot die just because the state is secular, it is not as if Muslims will agree to become less muslim or Hindus, less Hindu immediately. What we do is try & find a balance, that is done by keeping the constitution as secular & possible & hoping that eventually the people will fail those ideals less & less. Please remember that the Indian situation is skewed by the very fact of partition itself & while that memory for the large part suppressed, it still remains too close to the event & Pakistan remains a constant reminder. Looking for perfection is pointless, however our systems allow us to atleast aspire to it.

 

[priti]

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.

you are forcing religion into the debate whereas it is proven that religion cannot bind into a nation.
the muslims were allowed to thrive not by the majority hindus, but because the majority hindus wanted secular government, thereby giving up dominating power, unlike in Pakistan where the majority sunni muslims have quashed the aspirations of hindus, then ahmadis and Christians and now even shias.

only the paksitanis are saying that congress rule is hindu rule because its become the natural habit to view every political situation through the lens of religion.

 

[SQ8]

only the paksitanis are saying that congress rule is hindu rule because its become the natural habit to view every political situation through the lens of religion.

Actually I think the problem is that the bolded is all your focus is. It is inherent fear and hate of Pakistanis that is driving your force. Otherwise, religion is still key in Indian politics. the BJP and associated parties are ample proof of it. However , if you wish to stick with a non-objective assessment due to bigotry..then there is no further discussion with you. 

I'm not sure what in your view constitutes a nation? In a muslim nation, are the Shias & Sunnis separate nations? Where do you stop? We all have multiple identities and they will all crop up now & then. Communal ideals cannot die just because the state is secular, it is not as if Muslims will agree to become less muslim or Hindus, less Hindu immediately. What we do is try & find a balance, that is done by keeping the constitution as secular & possible & hoping that eventually the people will fail those ideals less & less. Please remember that the Indian situation is skewed by the very fact of partition itself & while that memory for the large part suppressed, it still remains too close to the event & Pakistan remains a constant reminder. Looking for perfection is pointless, however our systems allow us to atleast aspire to it.

If you bothered to read the text of speech I quoted.. you would know the definition. The rest is just sheepish defence you are doing for what is not even under question.

 

[Bang Galore]

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

That suggests that every single person must be a nation or he faces either being ruled by some kind of majority or by dictatorial decree.

 

[Bang Galore]

If you bothered to read the text of speech I quoted.. you would know the definition. The rest is just sheepish defence you are doing for what is not even under question.

There are all sorts of defences that come into play. Sheepish or otherwise still indicates a wish to defend an ideal. Far better than being an boring cynic.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Pakistan and Bangladesh demanded separate land for different reasons. Creation of Bangladesh has nothing to do with failure of two nation theory. If there was religious differences between east and west Pakistan or if Religion was the reason behind creation of Bangladesh then two nation theory would be a failure but that was not the case.

 

[SQ8]

There are all sorts of defences that come into play. Sheepish or otherwise still indicates a wish to defend an ideal. Far better than being an boring cynic.

Defending an ideal can objectivity.. Without it.. you are capable of being misled easily.

 

[SQ8]

That suggests that every single person must be a nation or he faces either being ruled by some kind of majority or by dictatorial decree.

Not likely.. ill take the liberty to post what starts to define a nation.

A great aggregation of men, sane of mind and warm of heart, creates a moral consciousness which is called a nation." Such a formation is quite possible, though it involves the long and arduous process of practically remaking men and furnishing them with a fresh emotional equipment. It might have been a fact in India if the teaching of Kabir and the Divine Faith of Akbar had seized the imagination of the masses of this country. Experience, however, shows that the various caste units and religious units in India have shown no inclination to sink their respective individualities in a larger whole. Each group is intensely jealous of its collective existence. The formation of the kind of moral consciousness which constitutes the essence of a nation in Renan’s sense demands a price which the peoples of India are not prepared to pay.

Now the partition was one heavy price the peoples of India(Pakistan+Bharat) paid. The solution of the congress was thus.. a unified central Indian state gives the majority to a Hindu population who essentially control ALL decisions regardless concerning the country.. This is an interesting article that seems to affirm this.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/why-indian-muslim-politics-is-about-to-change-forever-280746.html

One may question the need for a religious-identity based party for Muslims in secular India, but the obvious truth is that our secularism is a superficial, where all the mainstream parties have given Muslims little more than token representation. Muslims have not prospered in any state run by a “secular” party, whether it is UP, Bihar or even Communist West Bengal. This suggests that even secular parties are at the core “communal”

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/w...ge-forever-280746.html?utm_source=ref_article

and this one as well.
http://ramachandraguha.in/archives/the-triple-tragedy-of-the-indian-muslims.html

The third tragedy of the Indian Muslim is that India’s other professedly national party has never really treated them as full-fledged citizens of the land. For the members and fellow travellers of the BJP, the Parsi is to be tolerated, the Christian distrusted, and the Muslim detested. One form this detestation takes is verbal—the circulation of innuendos, gossip and abuse based on lies and half-truths (as in the case of the Karnataka BJP man and the Muslims of the coast). Another form is physical—thus, the hand of the RSS and the VHP lies behind some of the worst communal riots in independent India, for example Bhagalpur in 1989, Bombay in 1992, and Gujarat in 2002, when, in all cases, an overwhelming majority of the victims were Muslims.

Prima facie, the justice system appears to be biased against the Muslims. The number of Muslim judges and senior police officers is miniscule. Again, while acts of violence by Muslims are quickly followed by the arrest and trial of the perpetrators (real or alleged), Hindus who provoke communal riots are treated with far greater indulgence by the law. This discrimination is violative of the rights of equal citizenship, and altogether unworthy of a country calling itself a democracy.
It is fashionable in some quarters to blame the Indian Muslims for their predicament. In my view, while the absence of a credible liberal leadership has contributed, a far greater role in their marginalization has been played by the malevolent policies of our major political parties. The Congress seeks to exploit the Muslims, politically. The BJP chooses to demonize, them, ideologically (but also with a political purpose in mind). The Congress wishes to take care of the (sometimes spurious) religious and cultural needs of the Muslims, rather than advance their real, tangible, economic and material interests. The BJP denies that they have any needs or interests at all.

And this is exactly where the issue of two nation theory popped up and exactly what Dr Iqbal predicted. The issue is NOT whether a secular India can exist as a unified entity.. nay.. it is exactly the best solution. But of whether the aspiration of all its blocs has been fulfilled. And as much as the integration is touted and muslims and hindus hugged. The essential issue will come down again to the identity closest that you identify with.. you will eventually pass over a Muslim over a Hindi for patronage. The worlds greatest democracy(USA) ended up voting in a very visible demographic based on skin colour Why? because they felt that he would represent them best. The same way, A Hindu will always seem to be the best representative to a Hindu communities interests in culture, economics and lifestyle. However, his allegiance and that of his fellow Indian Muslim will remain aligned to his country in the matter of defence and a larger power. The problem is that you along with other Indians are defensive over the two nation theory as it somehow in your eyes undermines India as a single entity. When the reality is quite the opposite; the two nation theory takes the most cohesive binding and divisive forces in Indian society and isolates them to allow their needs and aspirations to be met while ensuring that loyalties and contribution from all these communities go towards the fulfilment of all Indians.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Pakistan and Bangladesh demanded separate land for different reasons. Creation of Bangladesh has nothing to do with failure of two nation theory. If there was religious differences between east and west Pakistan or if Religion was the reason behind creation of Bangladesh then two nation theory would be a failure but that was not the case.

Indians have been trying to convince Bangladeshis that religion was the a key factor in the separation but after 40 years no one believes it. Due to this failure the Indians and the Awami League have started a new campaign to undermine religion in Bangladesh and to finally disprove the Two Nation theory. With this agenda in mind the Indians are leading Bangladesh into a civil war like situation but with the majority of the population strongly in favour of Islam it can only result in defeat for the Indians but many people will again have to die to prove this point.

 

[priti]

Actually I think the problem is that the bolded is all your focus is. It is inherent fear and hate of Pakistanis that is driving your force. Otherwise, religion is still key in Indian politics. the BJP and associated parties are ample proof of it. However , if you wish to stick with a non-objective assessment due to bigotry..then there is no further discussion with you. 


If you bothered to read the text of speech I quoted.. you would know the definition. The rest is just sheepish defence you are doing for what is not even under question.

Religion is not key in indian politics. Again I mentioned 'only Pakistanis are saying this' because, pak sees everything from a religous perspective. in indian vote bank politics caste is the major factor (not that I am proud of it). religion is secondary.
yes religon is used but its not the be all and end all as in pak.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

TWO NATION THEORY IN PRACTICE -

Hindu West Bengal and Muslim Bangladesh still very much divided by politics, culture and religion –

Mamata stays away

bdnews24.com - 07 November 2013

Mamata Banerjee has indicated yet again she is not going to be part of the India-Bangladesh bonhomie under the present regimes in Delhi and Dhaka.
On Wednesday, as Indian home minister Sushil Shinde and Bangladesh home minister MK Alamgir inaugurated the BSF-BGB joint retreat at Petrapole-Benapole border , Mamata Banerjee stayed away.
Instead, she sent her food minister Jyotipriya Mallick to represent the state government at the event that was marked by grace and nostalgia.
"For a while, it appeared the boundaries of the two Bengals did not exist. That is the feeling I got from the ceremony," said scribe Jayanta Gupta of the Times of India.
Unlike the retreat at Wagah on India-Pakistan border, which is marked by macho and aggression with high goose-step marching by border guards, the inaugural Joint Retreat at Petrapole was marked by Rabindrasangeet and Nazrul geeti and by graceful marching of BSF and BGB troopers.
Shinde and Alamgir were seen sharing jokes in presence of BSF chief Subha Joshi and BGB chief Maj Gen Aziz Ahmed.
But Mamata's absence was interpreted as a 'political statement'.
"She can inaugurate 100 Durga Puja pandals and feed 100,000 people on Kali Puja by being personally present. But she can't attend an important state function like this which brings India and Bangladesh together," says Sukhoranjan Dasgupta, author of 'Midnight Massacre', a book on the 1975 Bangladesh coup.
"She is making a political statement and that is not in the interest of the two Bengals."
Banerjee's resistance has prevented the Indian government from going ahead with the Teesta water sharing deal and passing the land boundary agreement in the parliament.
Shinde said India and Bangladesh will come yet more closer in days to come. Alamgir agreed.
"India helped us in our worst days when we faced Pakistani genocide. It will always stand by us," he said.

http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/11/07/mamata-stays-away