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

[Anubis]

Allama Iqbal views was only for North-West excluding Bengal, not for the all Muslims of British India. He even clarified later on that he wanted North-West to stay within India.



Socio-economic and political factors was very different in different Muslim majority regions. In Punjab or Sindh it was mainly driven by feudalistic factor like Punjab Unionist Party and Sindh Ittehad Party as they were highly skeptical of anti-feudalistic socialist policies of Congress. The case in NWFP was totally pro-Congress. In Bengal it was mainly driven by poverty.

East Bengal's grievances were mainly fueled by destruction of its economy and life by the Brits with the help of some Hindu Zaminders.They destroyed the Muslin industry.What fueled it more was the famine of 1770 where farmers(Mostly Muslims but also had a significant Hindu population) were forced to farm Indigo instead of rice.And all of this happened under supervision of a handful of Zaminders who were predominantly Hindu.This 'Hindu Zamindar' oppressing the Muslim poors became an issue.Also with the introduction of the Faraizi movement most Bengali muslims became hostile towards the British.And the British used the Hindu Zaminders to control the mob.Also Bengali Muslims saw how Congress(most of whose founders were Bengali Hindus) was not very vocal about EB's issues.This is what drove EB people for partition in 1914 and although there was some confusion in 47 we were not willing to live with Congress ruled India.And Muslim League being formed in Dhaka became our own party.Lahore resolution gave us what we wanted an independent and free East Bengal.

 

[INDIC]

East Bengal's grievances were mainly fueled by destruction of its economy and life by the Brits with the help of some Hindu Zaminders.They destroyed the Muslin industry.What fueled it more was the famine of 1770 where farmers(Mostly Muslims but also had a significant Hindu population) were forced to farm Indigo instead of rice.And all of this happened under supervision of a handful of Zaminders who were predominantly Hindu.This 'Hindu Zamindar' oppressing the Muslim poors became an issue.Also with the introduction of the Faraizi movement most Bengali muslims became hostile towards the British.And the British used the Hindu Zaminders to control the mob.Also Bengali Muslims saw how Congress(most of whose founders were Bengali Hindus) was not very vocal about EB's issues.This is what drove EB people for partition in 1914 and although there was some confusion in 47 we were not willing to live with Congress ruled India.And Muslim League being formed in Dhaka became our own party.Lahore resolution gave us what we wanted an independent and free East Bengal.

You may know the Muslim member of Bengal assembly voted against partition of Bengal in 1947, they wanted whole of it into Pakistan. Bengali fed up of Feudalism gave support to Muslim League which itself was a pro-Zamindar party while Congress banned Feudalism in 1953 in India. In Punjab and Sindh most of the land was under the control of Muslim Zamindar while Hindus only constituted the educated class controlling business in Karachi and Lahore. In Punjab the canal colonies boom brought prosperity for Punjabi Muslims.

 

[Anubis]

You may know the Muslim member of Bengal assembly voted against partition of Bengal in 1947, they wanted whole of it into Pakistan. Bengali fed up of Feudalism gave support to Muslim League which itself was a pro-Zamindar party while Congress banned Feudalism in 1953 in India. In Punjab and Sindh most of the land was under the control of Muslim Zamindar while Hindus only constituted the educated class controlling business in Karachi and Lahore. In Punjab the canal colonies boom brought prosperity for Punjabi Muslims.

1947 partition was based on the Lahore Resolution.According to Lahore resolution there were supposed to be two separate states.The one in Bengal would be separate from Pakistan.The whole Bengal in Pakistan you are talking about is the failed attempt to form a Unified Bengali state independent of both India and Pakistan.Sarat Chandra Bose(Netaji's brother and freedom fighter), Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Kiran Shankar Roy, Abul Hashim, Satya Ranjan Bakshi and Mohammad Ali Chaudhury proposed the idea but Congress and ML opposed the idea.The plan was not to as you said get Bengal into Pakistan.It was as follows:

.Bengali Congress and Bengal Provincial Muslim League would break away from their parent party and merge together to form a non-communal Bengali nationalist party.Suhrawardy would take care of Delhi.And Abul Hashim and Sarat Chandra Bose would take care of Kolkata to pass their plan.Then they would get entire Bengal and parts of Assam and Bihar out of India and form 'Sovereign Socialist Republic of Bengal'.Fredrick Burrows(gov. of Bengal) would put forward the idea to England.

Bangladesh/East Pakistan was not supposed to be a part of Pakistan in the first place rather a separate soverign autonomous state as per the Lahore resolution.

 

[SQ8]

It seems you have forgotten many Pan Indian emperors. And, your history starts from 16th century. Seem to have no knowledge about Maurya or Gupta or Nandas or Palas or kanishka or Harshavardhana or Turks or Marathas.(Maraths did not do revolt only, the set up an all India empire)

Present situation of Pakistan shows what has this theory done to those who sought and fought for it.And, that is why there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan.

The gist of your post is ignorant. The fact that you need smiley to prove your ignorance is even more demeaning to your stature. Lets give you a history lesson on each of those Empires...The Mauryan empire(the only one to unite a multi-religious India) did well because it allowed all religions to thrive(if you had the decency to read earlier posts you would understand that this is exactly what the two nation theory proposed) ..their decline began due to their reliance on central authority and resurgence of disparity between communities.
At the time of the Guptas..the number of Buddhists and Jains had declined considerably which allowed the Hindu Majority to suppress them..again.. not a relevant example but ignorance is bliss. The Kushan empire was predominantly based on religious ideals and not on secular rules. Hence the word is force.. and power of state. The concept worked till there were effective rulers.. and as such the Empire was not Indian in nature as it extended across Central Asia.

Your last line again reeks of ignorance.. so Ill see if you can come up with a cohesive answer without 6 class dictation.. otherwise I have other methods to ensure you do not post low quality posts..ever again. 

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.

That caste factor is only one of many factors affecting vote banks. If religion did not matter then Indian political parties would ignore it entirely in their political machinations. You are basically hiding your head under the Burqa of anti-Pakistan bias and hence will never be able to answer objectively. I am not talking of Pakistan and India, I am talking of the two nation theory and its reasons in the context of United India.. one that extended from the edge of NWFP to the borders of Burma.
And as such, the caste issue plagues Pakistani politics to an extent as well in areas such as Sindh.

 

[Nassr]

The vision of Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in the 1940s did not only constitute creation of a Muslim political entity at the expense of India’s Hindu domination. It was also embedded in thousands of years of historical and geographical realities. These aspects clearly emerge from Jinnah’s interviews given to foreign correspondents where he described the geopolitical importance of Pakistan. The two nation reality also did not emerge only because of the differences between Hindu and Muslim peoples. It was an outcome of thousands of years of historical, geographical and genetic distinction between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those occupying the Gangetic plains.
…………………………….
…………………………….

The South Asian subcontinent is principally divided into two major geographical regions; the Indus Valley and its westerly inclined tributaries, and the Ganges Valley with its easterly inclined tributaries. In his book, “The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan,” Aitzaz Ahsan identifies the geographical divide between these two regions as the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient, a watershed which is southwesterly inclined down to the Arabian Sea. This watershed also depicted the dividing line between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those of Gangetic plains and also corresponds almost exactly with the current day Pakistan-India border.

Historically, only the Mauryas, Muslims and the British amalgamated these two regions as a unified state. For most of the remaining history, when one empire did not rule both the regions as a unified state, the Indus Valley Civilizational domain was always governed as one separate political entity.

Pakistan: The True Heir Of Indus Valley Civilization - Analysis Eurasia Review

Some called it an artificial creation while others grieved on the vivisection of an ancient land. Yet, no one realized on that fateful night of 14th of August in 1947, that an ancient land has resurrected itself from the ashes of a lost civilization. That night the people of Meluhha came to life again as Pakistan. It was celebrated as an emergence of a new nation on the world map, least realizing that with minor differences in boundaries, the map which housed the people of Meluhha for over 9000 years, simply reclaimed its heritage as Pakistan. Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization.
………………………
The major historic difference between the two regions was that while the people of Indus Valley created one of the oldest unified civilizations of the world and those of Ganges Valley remained separated and segregated. The Two Nations Theory which became one of the founding principles of creation of Pakistan and partition of British India in 1947, in historical hindsight, helped create status quo ante where history merely repeated itself.

From Meluhha To Pakistan: The Embodiment Of A Civilization - OpEd Eurasia Review 
Geographically, the subcontinent is divided into two main regions; the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains and Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains. These two regions were and are distinctly separated by Gurdaspur-Kathiawar Salient, which also acts as a natural watershed. In over 9000 years of known history of subcontinent, Indus Valley and its adjoining plains and Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains have been forced as one political unit only during the times of Mauryan, Muslim and British rule. For the remaining 7000-8000 years, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains have patently remained separate political entities.

The core of Indus Valley Civilization remains in Pakistan. A small portion of the Meluhha territory was given to the Republic of India by the British at the time of partition of subcontinent in 1947. Therefore, historically and archeologically Indus Valley Civilization is a Pakistani civilization and not Indian. The genetic differences between the people of Indus Valley Civilization i.e. the Meluhhans or the Pakistanis and the people of Republic of India have been clearly highlighted in many recently conducted genetic studies as well.

The religion and the language of Meluhha have not been deciphered as yet. However, the advent of Vedic culture was identified much later in history, after the fading out of Indus Valley Civilization. There are many scholars including Romila Thapar and Khan A. Sufyan who believe that the people of Indus Valley Civilization could have been monotheists. This has been reflected in the works of many scholars who believed that Rig Veda was essentially monotheistic in its propagation. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj was on such proponent. One of his notable disciples was Shyamji Krishna Varma, who founded India House in London. Others who were influenced by and followed him included Madam Cama, Pandit Guru Dutt Vidyarthi, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Lala Hardayal, Madan Lal Dhingra, Ram Prasad Bismil, Bhagat Singh, Mahadev Govind Ranade Swami Shraddhanand, Mahatma Hansraj and Lala Lajpat Rai, among many others.

The people of Indus Valley Civilization were initially monotheists and later followed Vedic and Hindu cultures, were Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and are now majority Muslims. In 1947, history corrected itself and the Meluhha went back to being a separate entity, which they renamed as Pakistan. I therefore humbly request you that some hundred years of Indian Hindu domination of subcontinent may not be allowed to overshadow thousands of years of known separate identities of these two different regions.

There could have been a limited migration of Meluhha towards the east but more pronounced migration of these people has been identified towards the west. A Meluhha Kingdom was identified in 600 BC in Palestine on the borders of Egypt. Apparently, they also ruled the Kingdom of Mitanni in Northern Iraq. And because the existence of these people has been archeologically and historically identified in earlier time frame, it is more probable that they also migrated towards Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan as well. And the facts clearly illustrate that these people originally were not from the areas occupied by the Republic of India, but from the areas from where they evolved in the initial instance i.e. the Meluhha territory which in 1947 they themselves named Pakistan.

The Two Nation Theory therefore did not just emerge in 1900s, it existed since thousands of years. Archeology and history presents ample proofs to justify this fact.

 

[INDIC]

1947 partition was based on the Lahore Resolution.According to Lahore resolution there were supposed to be two separate states.The one in Bengal would be separate from Pakistan.The whole Bengal in Pakistan you are talking about is the failed attempt to form a Unified Bengali state independent of both India and Pakistan.Sarat Chandra Bose(Netaji's brother and freedom fighter), Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Kiran Shankar Roy, Abul Hashim, Satya Ranjan Bakshi and Mohammad Ali Chaudhury proposed the idea but Congress and ML opposed the idea.The plan was not to as you said get Bengal into Pakistan.It was as follows:

.Bengali Congress and Bengal Provincial Muslim League would break away from their parent party and merge together to form a non-communal Bengali nationalist party.Suhrawardy would take care of Delhi.And Abul Hashim and Sarat Chandra Bose would take care of Kolkata to pass their plan.Then they would get entire Bengal and parts of Assam and Bihar out of India and form 'Sovereign Socialist Republic of Bengal'.Fredrick Burrows(gov. of Bengal) would put forward the idea to England.

Bangladesh/East Pakistan was not supposed to be a part of Pakistan in the first place rather a separate soverign autonomous state as per the Lahore resolution.

Such measures failed, you must be knowing the reason. My point was when creation of Pakistan was decided, the Muslim members mainly Muslim League wanted whole of Bengal in Pakistan instead of East Bengal only.

 

[SQ8]

After reading @Oscar 's enviably brilliant post about Md.Iqbal's view on Islam and his idea of the Union of India,I must admit that the entire course of debate over the foundation of Two nation Theory has not only turned into a different direction but opened up a new sphere of discussion. Md.Iqbal's view on the solution/approach to the communal problems of undivided India,it's conformity with the Cabinet Mission plan and the role of Muslim reactionary and Hindu obscurantists in the surroundings of Mr.Jinnah and Mr.Nehru respectively is a matter of intense study and logical analysis. Before the undue privileges to post in this section rightfully exclusive for the intellectually superiors goes beyond my hand, I must conclude by saying about the tragic consequences of the history of United India nothing hurts me anymore than when an academically brilliant poet from whose gifted golden pen the unforgettable lyrics like "Sare Jahan se accha Hindustan hamara" had came out was forced to change his mind,perspective and became a staunch supporter of dividing this land.

Best Regards.

This debate rages on even in Pakistan. Some argue using the basis of Nehru's statement in 1936 by incorrectly quoting it that he(Dr Iqbal) was a supporter of a Divided India since then which led to Nehru's statement.

Nehru wrote:
The Muslim nation in India, a nation within a nation, and not even compact, but vague, spread out, indeterminate.Politically, the idea is absurd. Economically, it is fantastic; it is hardly worth considering . . . This idea of a Muslim nation is the figment of a few imaginations only, and but for the publicity given it by the press, few people would have heard of it. And even, if many people believed in it, it would still vanish at the touch of reality.

The highlighted part is what is quoted as proof by those that state the desire for Iqbal to have a separate state. While this idea may have been his alternative since the 1930 address, it was certainly not his primary idea(just as it was not Jinnah's). This definitely had no link to a demand of a separate country but rather the recognition that Muslims are a separate entity in India and hence need recognition as such. At the time the Muslims were dispersed across the Northwest and below.. which explains Nehru's usage of indeterminate. While no one can argue against the cost of creating such a concentration in the west of India(as was evident in Partition).. the statement Nehru made seems to work more towards the political ambitions of the Congress Party's agenda rather then recognizing the problem. The demand for the separate country only arose after the actions of the congress government in 37(Ironic that the very foundations of secular India were laid by a party that forced partition by its abandonment of these ideals for political gains in that election and government) . Before that, the Muslim league was struggling for seats and as such had the congress truly demonstrated secular ideals and accommodated all parties in that government.. the idea of Pakistan would not have had such popular support from the Muslim masses. It was only after this demonstration of communal governance that Dr Iqbal changed his mind and placed the idea of an independent nation within M.A Jinnah's mind.
The two greatest ambassadors of Indian Unity don't just change overnight without reason.

 

[SQ8]

The vision of Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in the 1940s did not only constitute creation of a Muslim political entity at the expense of India’s Hindu domination. It was also embedded in thousands of years of historical and geographical realities. These aspects clearly emerge from Jinnah’s interviews given to foreign correspondents where he described the geopolitical importance of Pakistan. The two nation reality also did not emerge only because of the differences between Hindu and Muslim peoples. It was an outcome of thousands of years of historical, geographical and genetic distinction between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those occupying the Gangetic plains.
…………………………….
…………………………….

The South Asian subcontinent is principally divided into two major geographical regions; the Indus Valley and its westerly inclined tributaries, and the Ganges Valley with its easterly inclined tributaries. In his book, “The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan,” Aitzaz Ahsan identifies the geographical divide between these two regions as the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient, a watershed which is southwesterly inclined down to the Arabian Sea. This watershed also depicted the dividing line between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those of Gangetic plains and also corresponds almost exactly with the current day Pakistan-India border.

Historically, only the Mauryas, Muslims and the British amalgamated these two regions as a unified state. For most of the remaining history, when one empire did not rule both the regions as a unified state, the Indus Valley Civilizational domain was always governed as one separate political entity.

Pakistan: The True Heir Of Indus Valley Civilization - Analysis Eurasia Review

Some called it an artificial creation while others grieved on the vivisection of an ancient land. Yet, no one realized on that fateful night of 14th of August in 1947, that an ancient land has resurrected itself from the ashes of a lost civilization. That night the people of Meluhha came to life again as Pakistan. It was celebrated as an emergence of a new nation on the world map, least realizing that with minor differences in boundaries, the map which housed the people of Meluhha for over 9000 years, simply reclaimed its heritage as Pakistan. Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization.
………………………
The major historic difference between the two regions was that while the people of Indus Valley created one of the oldest unified civilizations of the world and those of Ganges Valley remained separated and segregated. The Two Nations Theory which became one of the founding principles of creation of Pakistan and partition of British India in 1947, in historical hindsight, helped create status quo ante where history merely repeated itself.

From Meluhha To Pakistan: The Embodiment Of A Civilization - OpEd Eurasia Review 
Geographically, the subcontinent is divided into two main regions; the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains and Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains. These two regions were and are distinctly separated by Gurdaspur-Kathiawar Salient, which also acts as a natural watershed. In over 9000 years of known history of subcontinent, Indus Valley and its adjoining plains and Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains have been forced as one political unit only during the times of Mauryan, Muslim and British rule. For the remaining 7000-8000 years, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains have patently remained separate political entities.

The core of Indus Valley Civilization remains in Pakistan. A small portion of the Meluhha territory was given to the Republic of India by the British at the time of partition of subcontinent in 1947. Therefore, historically and archeologically Indus Valley Civilization is a Pakistani civilization and not Indian. The genetic differences between the people of Indus Valley Civilization i.e. the Meluhhans or the Pakistanis and the people of Republic of India have been clearly highlighted in many recently conducted genetic studies as well.

The religion and the language of Meluhha have not been deciphered as yet. However, the advent of Vedic culture was identified much later in history, after the fading out of Indus Valley Civilization. There are many scholars including Romila Thapar and Khan A. Sufyan who believe that the people of Indus Valley Civilization could have been monotheists. This has been reflected in the works of many scholars who believed that Rig Veda was essentially monotheistic in its propagation. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj was on such proponent. One of his notable disciples was Shyamji Krishna Varma, who founded India House in London. Others who were influenced by and followed him included Madam Cama, Pandit Guru Dutt Vidyarthi, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Lala Hardayal, Madan Lal Dhingra, Ram Prasad Bismil, Bhagat Singh, Mahadev Govind Ranade Swami Shraddhanand, Mahatma Hansraj and Lala Lajpat Rai, among many others.

The people of Indus Valley Civilization were initially monotheists and later followed Vedic and Hindu cultures, were Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and are now majority Muslims. In 1947, history corrected itself and the Meluhha went back to being a separate entity, which they renamed as Pakistan. I therefore humbly request you that some hundred years of Indian Hindu domination of subcontinent may not be allowed to overshadow thousands of years of known separate identities of these two different regions.

There could have been a limited migration of Meluhha towards the east but more pronounced migration of these people has been identified towards the west. A Meluhha Kingdom was identified in 600 BC in Palestine on the borders of Egypt. Apparently, they also ruled the Kingdom of Mitanni in Northern Iraq. And because the existence of these people has been archeologically and historically identified in earlier time frame, it is more probable that they also migrated towards Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan as well. And the facts clearly illustrate that these people originally were not from the areas occupied by the Republic of India, but from the areas from where they evolved in the initial instance i.e. the Meluhha territory which in 1947 they themselves named Pakistan.

The Two Nation Theory therefore did not just emerge in 1900s, it existed since thousands of years. Archeology and history presents ample proofs to justify this fact.

The author builds up a nice history of an ancient civillization and then suddenly links it somehow on the basis of supposed Monotheism links to a cultural break and then calls it Pakistan..when essentially the demand for Pakistan never originated in these lands he implies as Meluhha. Moreover, this then essentially builds no foundation for the two nation theory.. nor does it have relation to it. The land that is Pakistan has the most concentrated genetic mixpot of the region. By that logic every race in India should have its own state and it is no longer two nation theory based on a common way of life but a racial theory which then does even justify the connection of the frontier provinces to Pakistan nor Kashmir so this Meluhha land has no reason to exist whatsover in the form as Pakistan.
Moreover, there is no firm proof of where the Meluhha were and reports of their sightings vary from Egypt to further east of the Indus. A lot of the people suspected to be Meluhha also occupy areas in Maharashta and have little interest in anything called Pakistan. So please, look into the foundation of principles(I really want to know who the heck came up with this theory of linking Pakistan to the Meluhha but this clearly has its roots in the identity crises that Paksitan faces..which is exactly what Iqbal warned against).

@Joe Shearer
Monseir, not seeing your input here.. love to hear a more cohesive analysis of the proposals rather than a lot of the rather lacklustre efforts put here(by both opponents and proponents it seems)

@Dillinger Come hither.. get those brain cells out of Naswar.
@haviZsultan Seems to be an area of your interest.
@Secur 

1) There was no communalism in India before 1857.The sense of pan Indianism was also very fragile.So, there was no two or three or multination theory. Any empire lasted on it's own administrative skill. Religion was a not matter at all. There was only survival of the fittest. Two nation theory was a result of power politics and nothing more than that. Religion is a faith, not a nation or race or culture.

2) The bold parts are very funny.

1) that proves that the 2) for you might be funny as you really are ignorant of history other than what you read in the 5th grade. Let keep your pointless ramblings out of here then.

 

[Dillinger]

Where is this copy pasted from? and moreover, this then essentially builds no foundation for the two nation theory.. nor does it have relation to it. The land that is Pakistan has the most concentrated genetic mixpot of the region. By that logic every race in India should have its own state and it is no longer two nation theory based on a common way of life but a racial theory which then does even justify the connection of the frontier provinces to Pakistan nor Kashmir so this Meluhha land has no reason to exist whatsover in the form as Pakistan.
Moreover, there is no firm proof of where the Meluhha were and reports of their sightings vary from Egypt to further east of the Indus. A lot of the people suspected to be Meluhha also occupy areas in Maharashta and have little interest in anything called Pakistan. So please, look into the foundation of principles(I really want to know who the heck came up with this theory of linking Pakistan to the Meluhha but this clearly has its roots in the identity crises that Paksitan faces..which is exactly what Iqbal warned against).

@Joe Shearer
Monseir, not seeing your input here.. love to hear a more cohesive analysis of the proposals rather than a lot of the rather lacklustre efforts put here(by both opponents and proponents it seems)

@Dillinger Come hither.. get those brain cells out of Naswar.
@haviZsultan Seems to be an area of your interest.
@Secur 


1) that proves that the 2) for you might be funny as you really are ignorant of history other than what you read in the 5th grade. Let keep your pointless ramblings out of here then.

Its not much of a topic is it? Someone claims to represent the Indus Valley civilization while another claims of carrying the torch of Aryavarta, neither truly bothered about even educating themselves about what these civilizations stood for and were categorized by. Sure, the history of the region which is encompassed by Pakistan is very rich but do the people bother to know of this history? In India, rare is the man who reads of the Kings and kingdoms of the South, of the history of our tribals in the North East. Even history is conveniently molded and packaged to fit our national tropes and notions of nationhood.

At the end of the day, Pakistan is a state and a nation despite what happened in 1971. At the end of the day India is intact and flourishing despite the many "nations" that came together to build it. History though stands butchered in the quest for seeking some banal justification for the nation's very existence. Either we establish some ancient and wondrous link which explains our idea of nationhood and the veracity of the criteria through which we define said nationhood or we must relegate ourselves to being the creation of a handful of leaders and the Brits- such a binary mode of viewing things is inane.

Your ancestors probably roamed the same roads I walk through now, mine trod upon the soil of Chitral and the Hindukush..that history cannot be changed (in real terms, albeit on paper it is always susceptible to alteration) nor can that history in turn change today's reality.

 

[Dillinger]

I have given the links if you would care to read through before shooting from the hip. The Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization which if you care to look at the map almost exactly houses the current map of Pakistan. This Maluhha landmass was the only land in subcontinent which has been archeologically and historically proved to be governed as a unitary entity. If you do not have the knowledge about IVC, do not make sweeping statements. It was the area occupied by India which was divided and governed in a segregated manner. The wars described in Rig Veda and the epic Mahabharata amply describe these aspects.

If you limit yourself to a limited part of only the contemporary history, you would come out with comments that you have posted here, which in my opinion are uninformed and without the all-encompassing historical context and understanding. You are doing what many Indians do, selectively look at parts of history without understanding the linkages and the context.

There is no identity crisis here, but a crisis of understanding history selectively and you need to broaden your horizon before you comment on my posts.

You need to study the admix of people of Pakistan and those living in Republic of India before commenting sweepingly about genetic studies. And whoever told you that Meluhha are living in Maharashtra – Crap - and if I am pushed about what they think.

Please understand the historical context before you pen down unrelated shenanigans in response.

Was that a response to my post or @Oscar's

Seems like it addresses the issues raised by Oscar.

 

[priti]

The gist of your post is ignorant. The fact that you need smiley to prove your ignorance is even more demeaning to your stature. Lets give you a history lesson on each of those Empires...The Mauryan empire(the only one to unite a multi-religious India) did well because it allowed all religions to thrive(if you had the decency to read earlier posts you would understand that this is exactly what the two nation theory proposed) ..their decline began due to their reliance on central authority and resurgence of disparity between communities.
At the time of the Guptas..the number of Buddhists and Jains had declined considerably which allowed the Hindu Majority to suppress them..again.. not a relevant example but ignorance is bliss. The Kushan empire was predominantly based on religious ideals and not on secular rules. Hence the word is force.. and power of state. The concept worked till there were effective rulers.. and as such the Empire was not Indian in nature as it extended across Central Asia.

Your last line again reeks of ignorance.. so Ill see if you can come up with a cohesive answer without 6 class dictation.. otherwise I have other methods to ensure you do not post low quality posts..ever again. 


That caste factor is only one of many factors affecting vote banks. If religion did not matter then Indian political parties would ignore it entirely in their political machinations. You are basically hiding your head under the Burqa of anti-Pakistan bias and hence will never be able to answer objectively. I am not talking of Pakistan and India, I am talking of the two nation theory and its reasons in the context of United India.. one that extended from the edge of NWFP to the borders of Burma.
And as such, the caste issue plagues Pakistani politics to an extent as well in areas such as Sindh.

religion has crept into politics only in the 90s but that has nothing to do with TNT. I am not ignoring it I am aware it exists but the bigger factor is the caste based vote bank. but that's not the debate here.
The TNT was flawed BUT I would add that inadvertently and in a negative way Pakistan has proved that the TNT may after all be a necessity in hindsight, not due to the reasons espoused by the Muslim League but more so because of the militant nature of Islam and the incapability of Muslims to live in peace whether with their own type or with others.

 

[Nassr]

The author builds up a nice history of an ancient civillization and then suddenly links it somehow on the basis of supposed Monotheism links to a cultural break and then calls it Pakistan..when essentially the demand for Pakistan never originated in these lands he implies as Meluhha. Moreover, this then essentially builds no foundation for the two nation theory.. nor does it have relation to it. The land that is Pakistan has the most concentrated genetic mixpot of the region. By that logic every race in India should have its own state and it is no longer two nation theory based on a common way of life but a racial theory which then does even justify the connection of the frontier provinces to Pakistan nor Kashmir so this Meluhha land has no reason to exist whatsover in the form as Pakistan.
Moreover, there is no firm proof of where the Meluhha were and reports of their sightings vary from Egypt to further east of the Indus. A lot of the people suspected to be Meluhha also occupy areas in Maharashta and have little interest in anything called Pakistan. So please, look into the foundation of principles(I really want to know who the heck came up with this theory of linking Pakistan to the Meluhha but this clearly has its roots in the identity crises that Paksitan faces..which is exactly what Iqbal warned against).
[/quote

Was that a response to my post or @Oscar's

Seems like it addresses the issues raised by Oscar.

Sorry - this new format confuses me. Yes it was in response to Oscar's post. I apologize for incorrect reply.  

The author builds up a nice history of an ancient civillization and then suddenly links it somehow on the basis of supposed Monotheism links to a cultural break and then calls it Pakistan..when essentially the demand for Pakistan never originated in these lands he implies as Meluhha. Moreover, this then essentially builds no foundation for the two nation theory.. nor does it have relation to it. The land that is Pakistan has the most concentrated genetic mixpot of the region. By that logic every race in India should have its own state and it is no longer two nation theory based on a common way of life but a racial theory which then does even justify the connection of the frontier provinces to Pakistan nor Kashmir so this Meluhha land has no reason to exist whatsover in the form as Pakistan.
Moreover, there is no firm proof of where the Meluhha were and reports of their sightings vary from Egypt to further east of the Indus. A lot of the people suspected to be Meluhha also occupy areas in Maharashta and have little interest in anything called Pakistan. So please, look into the foundation of principles(I really want to know who the heck came up with this theory of linking Pakistan to the Meluhha but this clearly has its roots in the identity crises that Paksitan faces..which is exactly what Iqbal warned against).

@Joe Shearer
Monseir, not seeing your input here.. love to hear a more cohesive analysis of the proposals rather than a lot of the rather lacklustre efforts put here(by both opponents and proponents it seems)

@Dillinger Come hither.. get those brain cells out of Naswar.
@haviZsultan Seems to be an area of your interest.
@Secur 


1) that proves that the 2) for you might be funny as you really are ignorant of history other than what you read in the 5th grade. Let keep your pointless ramblings out of here then.

I have given the links if you would care to read through before shooting from the hip. The Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization which if you care to look at the map almost exactly houses the current map of Pakistan. This Maluhha landmass was the only land in subcontinent which has been archeologically and historically proved to be governed as a unitary entity. If you do not have the knowledge about IVC, do not make sweeping statements. It was the area occupied by India which was divided and governed in a segregated manner. The wars described in Rig Veda and the epic Mahabharata amply describe these aspects.

If you limit yourself to a limited part of only the contemporary history, you would come out with comments that you have posted here, which in my opinion are uninformed and without the all-encompassing historical context and understanding. You are doing what many Indians do, selectively look at parts of history without understanding the linkages and the context.

There is no identity crisis here, but a crisis of understanding history selectively and you need to broaden your horizon before you comment on my posts.

You need to study the admix of people of Pakistan and those living in Republic of India before commenting sweepingly about genetic studies. And whoever told you that Meluhha are living in Maharashtra – Crap - and if I am pushed about what they think.

Please understand the historical context before you pen down unrelated shenanigans.

 

[SQ8]

Sorry - this new format confuses me. Yes it was in response to Oscar's post. I apologize for incorrect reply.  


I have given the links if you would care to read through before shooting from the hip. The Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization which if you care to look at the map almost exactly houses the current map of Pakistan. This Maluhha landmass was the only land in subcontinent which has been archeologically and historically proved to be governed as a unitary entity. If you do not have the knowledge about IVC, do not make sweeping statements. It was the area occupied by India which was divided and governed in a segregated manner. The wars described in Rig Veda and the epic Mahabharata amply describe these aspects.

If you limit yourself to a limited part of only the contemporary history, you would come out with comments that you have posted here, which in my opinion are uninformed and without the all-encompassing historical context and understanding. You are doing what many Indians do, selectively look at parts of history without understanding the linkages and the context.

There is no identity crisis here, but a crisis of understanding history selectively and you need to broaden your horizon before you comment on my posts.

You need to study the admix of people of Pakistan and those living in Republic of India before commenting sweepingly about genetic studies. And whoever told you that Meluhha are living in Maharashtra – Crap - and if I am pushed about what they think.

Please understand the historical context before you pen down unrelated shenanigans.

I am not where the unrelated part really lies. I read the links when I posted and the author still does not provide a cohesive link as to how the creation of Pakistan along monotheistic lines has anything to do with somehow the aspiration of the Meluhha. The area described for the Meluhha encompasses all these areas .

Yet somehow in your defence you chose to ignore them in trying to apply selective logic based on the defence "I know more about the IVC". The movement of two nation theory has ZERO links with the boundaries of the IVC and as such many of the leadership of these areas had to be convinced to join into Pakistani nation. There was little evidence of the Meluhha linkage in any of the process and as such it seems a selective ignorance of history to skip the entire process of the Pakistan movement to just link Meluhha to make some sort of backstory to the "Pakistan existed since the the IVC" theory.

 

[scorpionx]

It is sad that ideas of Genetic differences are sprouting up in defence of TNT.So for the better understanding of this theory I would like to borrow one article from Yasser Latif Hamdani, Gandhi and religion published in PTH where he has quite eloquently described the implications of two nation theory and the wide misunderstanding about it. Some part of the article does not hold relevance with the current thread,so I will post just a part of it which might be interesting in the present context.

Hindu-Muslim Dichotomy? Or Consociationalism?
H V Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a “Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.

1. The assumption that the much misunderstood Two Nation Theory suggested that Muslims and Hindus could not live together is patently false and historically naïve. Two nation theory was a consociationalist theory which argued that Muslims were a nation and not a community. The Lahore Resolution itself referred to and spoke about minorities and did not suggest that Hindus and Muslims could not live together. It spoke of two federations – one consisting of Muslim majority provinces and the other of Hindu majority provinces. Neither federations were envisaged by the Two Nation Theory as being exclusively Hindu or Muslim. It was at a very conscious level an attempt to bridge the differences between Muslim majority provinces (which had wanted a loose federation) and Hindu majority provinces (which wanted a more centralized federation). A critical reading of the Lahore Resolution also shows that the door was not closed on an all India union. Therefore the assumption that Lahore Resolution or the Two Nation Theory envisaged a completely separate and antagonistic Muslim state in the subcontinent is false, frivolous and denied in toto.

2. Just as the idea of Pakistan did not necessarily envisage a partition of India, the Two Nation Theory did not envisage – necessarily – a partition of Punjab or Bengal. Both those partitions were imposed on Punjab and Bengal by the Congress Party. For all its long winded arguments against the Two Nation Theory, Congress Party practiced a more insidious and cynical version of the said theory to divide constituent units. It was not done fairly even then. After all if partition was to be reduced to a partition of districts, then surely many districts in India, with Muslim majority, not contiguous to Muslim majority provinces should have also fallen in with the Muslim majority provinces.

3. The Two Nation Theory did not state that Muslims were Muslims and nothing else. The Two Nation Theory forwarded the multiple identities thesis. The locus of Muslim identity was the middle tier, of regional, all India identities and atop all of that an Indian identity. This is why Jinnah said famously – in the aftermath of the Lahore Resolution- that Muslims were proud to be Indians and their demands were made on the principle of India for Indians. Therefore the idea that a Punjabi or a Bengali was a Punjabi or a Bengali before he was a Hindu or a Muslim was not in contradiction to the Two Nation Theory. Jinnah was and remained as proudly an Indian as he had been in the first thirty years of his political career.

4. By letting the Muslim majority provinces go their own way separately, Congress sought to make Muslim numbers more manageable. Instead of agreeing to the three tier federation that was devised to keep India united, the Congress party bosses, including Nehru and Gandhi, decided that a smaller more manageable Muslim population was in India’s best interest. Hence they let go of the Muslim majority provinces who were willing to come in the federation provided that they had a certain degree of provincial autonomy with residuary powers resting with the provinces (as opposed to the centre where Gandhi and Nehru wanted them). Was it so horrible an idea? The residuary of legislation in United States of America and Australia lie with the constituent units i.e. states, provinces, territories etc. In Canada Pierre Trudeau had worked out a compromise with Rene Levesque because Trudeau wanted Quebec to stay on.

That said let us not wage a war against history. The latter day supporters of a United India (which ironically was a British creation) should come to terms with the fact that Pakistan exists, just as Pakistan’s enthusiastic supporters need to accept that partition of Punjab and Bengal was an inevitable consequence of the division of India, regardless of the logic against it. Pakistan is an accident of history just like India is an accident of history. This idea that India was some sort of divine unity revealed by God which should not have been broken may appeal to some but is counterproductive both for Pakistan’s future and for the future of a peaceful Indo-Pakistan conciliation on matters that continue to divide us.

 

[asad71]

1. Lok Sabha,16 Dec1971. Indira Gandhi rises and declares, "Mr Speaker,today the Two Nation Theory is dead". Thus she reveals the primary goal of fueling the disturbances leading to the 1971 War.

2. Palam Airport,10 Jan 1972. :"I am a Muslim and I am a Bengalee",declares Sheikh Mujib on his way home from captivity in Pakistan.

3. Let's go backward. Says Shere Bangla,PM of Bengal in his speech moving the 1940 Lahore Resolution,"I am first a Muslim and then a Bengalee".

4. Says Suhrowardy, PM of Bengal in moving the 1946 Delhi Resolution, " Let me now honestly declare,every Muslim of Bengal is ready and prepared to lay down his life for Pakistan. Now I call upon you, Mr Jinnah,test us."

5. Indira-Ji,you were wrong. The Two Nation Theory, meaning Muslims are a nation by themselves, is intact and thriving. Assam, P/bangla,Kerala - Lakswadip,Andaman-Nicobar and Junagadh are soon going to strengthen the rank of separatist Muslims.