Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Modi and the Two-Nation Theory
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
Published: June 7, 2014
Share this article 
Print this page Email
The writer is the Chairperson of the Department of History, Forman Christian College, and tweets at @BangashYK
When Indian Prime Minister Nanendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept to power a few week ago, Pakistani airwaves were full of our so-called ‘experts’ emphatically stating that Modi’s win was a validation of the Two-Nation Theory — the erstwhile raison d’état for the creation of Pakistan. As I mentioned last time, the success of the BJP is no more a validation of the theory than the win of the Congress a negation of it. In fact, the BJP’s win has little to do with the Two-Nation Theory. It is true that the hype of Hindu nationalism has much to do with its, at times, overtly anti-Muslim stance, but in reality Hindu nationalism, BJP and otherwise, is much deeper and more complicated than simple anti-Muslim-ism. The conditions during the rise of Hindu nationalism in the early 20th century and its subsequent resurgence lately have little to do with Muslims and more to do with issues of belonging and identity, and more recently, economic and general well being. People usually forget that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the mother Hindu nationalist organisation, is not simply an ideological organisation but also a welfare body. Creating the ‘idea of India’ was hence as important for Savarkar (Hindutva’s ideologue) as it was for Nehru, modern India’s father — Muslims were just one part of it. Furthermore, lest we forget, South Asian Muslim consciousness also developed along similar lines (and continues to do so).
As a Pakistani, however, I am much more concerned about the manner in which the debate unfolded in Pakistan. Last year, I spoke at a conference where I opined that one of the foremost existential crises of Pakistan is that it still imagines itself as ‘Not India’, and therefore, is unable to chart out its own identity and feel comfortable about it.
The plethora of references to the Partition and the Two-Nation Theory in the aftermath of the Indian elections are proof enough for this syndrome. At a level, isn’t it ridiculous that a country which has been in existence for nearly 67 years is pointing out after a party won an election in a neighbouring country that ‘see, I have a reason to exist!’ After 67 years it is rather sad for anyone to even mention this, I think. Pakistan’s existence now should not, and cannot, be tied to India’s existence or whatever happens in India.
At a recent conference I hosted at Forman Christian College on Pakistan’s ‘Creation and Consolidation’, Professor Sharif alMujahid made a very important point about the Two-Nation Theory. He argued that after the creation of Pakistan, Jinnah began talking about a Two-Nation Theory based on the new nations of India and Pakistan, not Muslims and Hindus. After all millions of Hindus and Christians were a part of Pakistan, and similarly millions of Muslims had become citizens of India. If Jinnah had stuck to the older notion, then minorities in both countries would have been disenfranchised immediately leading to obvious problems. Treating both countries on an equal footing as new and independent nations was, and is, the only way forward.
The notion of treating citizens of India and Pakistan, regardless of religion as full citizens of their respective countries was also the central tenet of the Nehru-Liaquat pact of 1950. Speaking on the issue Liaquat Ali Khan noted: “…that enjoyment of these [fundamental] rights is guaranteed to all minorities and…that members of the minority communities have equal opportunity with members of the majority community to participate in public life, hold political and other offices…the allegiance and loyalty of the minorities is to the state of which they are citizens and it is to the government of their own state that they should look for the redress of their grievances. The reiteration of his concept has been found to be necessary because much political and communal mischief in both countries is the result of a failure to recognise this basic principle.’ This, indeed, was the new ‘Two-Nation’ theory which we must adhere to.
Modi and the Two-Nation Theory – The Express Tribune
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
Published: June 7, 2014
Share this article Print this page Email
The writer is the Chairperson of the Department of History, Forman Christian College, and tweets at @BangashYK
When Indian Prime Minister Nanendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept to power a few week ago, Pakistani airwaves were full of our so-called ‘experts’ emphatically stating that Modi’s win was a validation of the Two-Nation Theory — the erstwhile raison d’état for the creation of Pakistan. As I mentioned last time, the success of the BJP is no more a validation of the theory than the win of the Congress a negation of it. In fact, the BJP’s win has little to do with the Two-Nation Theory. It is true that the hype of Hindu nationalism has much to do with its, at times, overtly anti-Muslim stance, but in reality Hindu nationalism, BJP and otherwise, is much deeper and more complicated than simple anti-Muslim-ism. The conditions during the rise of Hindu nationalism in the early 20th century and its subsequent resurgence lately have little to do with Muslims and more to do with issues of belonging and identity, and more recently, economic and general well being. People usually forget that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the mother Hindu nationalist organisation, is not simply an ideological organisation but also a welfare body. Creating the ‘idea of India’ was hence as important for Savarkar (Hindutva’s ideologue) as it was for Nehru, modern India’s father — Muslims were just one part of it. Furthermore, lest we forget, South Asian Muslim consciousness also developed along similar lines (and continues to do so).
As a Pakistani, however, I am much more concerned about the manner in which the debate unfolded in Pakistan. Last year, I spoke at a conference where I opined that one of the foremost existential crises of Pakistan is that it still imagines itself as ‘Not India’, and therefore, is unable to chart out its own identity and feel comfortable about it.
The plethora of references to the Partition and the Two-Nation Theory in the aftermath of the Indian elections are proof enough for this syndrome. At a level, isn’t it ridiculous that a country which has been in existence for nearly 67 years is pointing out after a party won an election in a neighbouring country that ‘see, I have a reason to exist!’ After 67 years it is rather sad for anyone to even mention this, I think. Pakistan’s existence now should not, and cannot, be tied to India’s existence or whatever happens in India.
At a recent conference I hosted at Forman Christian College on Pakistan’s ‘Creation and Consolidation’, Professor Sharif alMujahid made a very important point about the Two-Nation Theory. He argued that after the creation of Pakistan, Jinnah began talking about a Two-Nation Theory based on the new nations of India and Pakistan, not Muslims and Hindus. After all millions of Hindus and Christians were a part of Pakistan, and similarly millions of Muslims had become citizens of India. If Jinnah had stuck to the older notion, then minorities in both countries would have been disenfranchised immediately leading to obvious problems. Treating both countries on an equal footing as new and independent nations was, and is, the only way forward.
The notion of treating citizens of India and Pakistan, regardless of religion as full citizens of their respective countries was also the central tenet of the Nehru-Liaquat pact of 1950. Speaking on the issue Liaquat Ali Khan noted: “…that enjoyment of these [fundamental] rights is guaranteed to all minorities and…that members of the minority communities have equal opportunity with members of the majority community to participate in public life, hold political and other offices…the allegiance and loyalty of the minorities is to the state of which they are citizens and it is to the government of their own state that they should look for the redress of their grievances. The reiteration of his concept has been found to be necessary because much political and communal mischief in both countries is the result of a failure to recognise this basic principle.’ This, indeed, was the new ‘Two-Nation’ theory which we must adhere to.
Modi and the Two-Nation Theory – The Express Tribune
