Two Nation Theory originated by Hindus.

[billi]

Guys...come on...every1 on this forum is intelligent enough...to
tell that muslims of subcontinent (and later Pakistan) had same culture , same holidays , same language script ( urdu is in arabic script just like persian) and same faith (which plays vital part in a muslim's life) as the muslims in Persia, Arab world and Afghanistan had.
This means that muslims are part of one nation....and they can't stay with hindus...cuz they wanted a seperate state ...with Islamic laws...would it be acceptable to hindus....that they live with muslims in majority and under Islamic law...OBVIOUSLY NO.
SO PLEASE WE SHOULD NOT EVEN DISCUSS THIS TOPIC...CUZ
EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS THESE 2 TYPES OF PEOPLE ARE FROM SEPERATE NATIONS.with differences ranging from culture, language script, faith , traditions, holidays and literaly everything.....Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) himself told muslims that they are one nation....so plz close this thread.

everything u say is fine. then why do so many people from pakistan go abroad to nonislamic nations? why are there 150 millions muslims in india who chose not to go to pak. ? why did bangladesh break away from pakistan atrocities?

 

[hillman32]

MANY NATIONS THEORY BY HINDUS

In Hinduism the major problem which is faced by Hindus are the caste system in which Brahmans are at the top position and below them are Kshatriyas who were the fighters or warriors then below them are Vaishyas who were the craftsmen and lower officials
and below them were Shudras or scheduled caste but why there is need to make such caste systems? Why lower class are unable to get their rights? Are they human or not? this is the major questions are in the hearts of Lower class. Lower caste are unable to celebrate functions or live in peace they are not allowed to read their religious books why? Who gave us the right to stop people from celebrating religious functions or reading religious books? are we God? No we are not we are the biggest cruel people. Why lower caste are suffering great deal? Are they guilty? for what they have done nothing is this a big deal that they have born in a lower caste
why are they suffering?They is the question in every heart. Now this is the time for fight for the rights
and there are many organizations which are supporting the lower caste. I think there will be a day when everybody will be equal.
All of us are waiting for that day.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Guys...come on...every1 on this forum is intelligent enough...to
tell that muslims of subcontinent (and later Pakistan) had same culture , same holidays , same language script ( urdu is in arabic script just like persian) and same faith (which plays vital part in a muslim's life) as the muslims in Persia, Arab world and Afghanistan had.
This means that muslims are part of one nation....and they can't stay with hindus...cuz they wanted a seperate state ...with Islamic laws...would it be acceptable to hindus....that they live with muslims in majority and under Islamic law...OBVIOUSLY NO.
SO PLEASE WE SHOULD NOT EVEN DISCUSS THIS TOPIC...CUZ
EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS THESE 2 TYPES OF PEOPLE ARE FROM SEPERATE NATIONS.with differences ranging from culture, language script, faith , traditions, holidays and literaly everything.....Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) himself told muslims that they are one nation....so plz close this thread.

Dear Sir,

I agree that this thread should be closed, since the Two Nation Theory itself is not understood well, and since its creation by Hindus is such obvious flaming.

However, with reference to the Two Nation Theory, which turned out to be a flawed model, it is very necessary to remember that the Nations meant communities; Muslims were a Nation, so were the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Christians; and the lower castes and the tribes were nations too. So are the Punjabis, the Sindhis, the Pashtun and the Baloch.

Nation does not mean state, in this context. The two are different, here; there are other uses of nation which mean state. In the case of the Two Nation Theory, 'nation' is community.

A state may be formed of several nations; Belgium and Canada are brilliant examples, if we do not like to look at Great Britain and its four, perhaps five constituent nations, not counting those that have since the Act of Union migrated there.

A 'nation' may cover several states; Bengalis, Punjabis and Pashtun are examples.

Sincerely,

 

[nForce]

MANY NATIONS THEORY BY HINDUS

In Hinduism the major problem which is faced by Hindus are the caste system in which Brahmans are at the top position and below them are Kshatriyas who were the fighters or warriors then below them are Vaishyas who were the craftsmen and lower officials
and below them were Shudras or scheduled caste but why there is need to make such caste systems? Why lower class are unable to get their rights? Are they human or not? this is the major questions are in the hearts of Lower class. Lower caste are unable to celebrate functions or live in peace they are not allowed to read their religious books why? Who gave us the right to stop people from celebrating religious functions or reading religious books? are we God? No we are not we are the biggest cruel people. Why lower caste are suffering great deal? Are they guilty? for what they have done nothing is this a big deal that they have born in a lower caste
why are they suffering?They is the question in every heart. Now this is the time for fight for the rights
and there are many organizations which are supporting the lower caste. I think there will be a day when everybody will be equal.
All of us are waiting for that day.

I will explain,but I expect you to keep an open mind while going through my post.

The caste system is present in Hinduism,yes I admit.The Brahmins are the learned people,who take care of education administration etc.Kshatriya are the warriors,Vaishya are the traders and Shudra are the people who provide with services to the people....

But let me tell u,when this theory was create thousands of years ago,the names, Brahmins,Kshatriya etc. were actually designations given to a particular person.It was not like a child born to a Brahmin will be a Brahmin,he can choose to be a warrior as well,and vice versa.This held true for any section of the society.The way in present times we have certain designations like a Statesman,a Soldier,a Businessman,and a Postman,in the very same manner we had these designations,just with different names like Brahmin,Kshatriya,Vaishya and Shudra.Its the same thing,just with a different name.

Hinduism,as described in the Vedas,is actually not a religion in a true sense,it is more like a way of life.

Now this system of categorization of people as described in the Vedas has been abused to a great extent,but the Hinduism itself,has got nothing to do with that.As a matter of fact Hinduism does not allow the way of caste system as perceived by you...


I will provide u with a link to support my claim....please go through it...

Link

 

[hillman32]

I will explain,but I expect you to keep an open mind while going through my post.

The caste system is present in Hinduism,yes I admit.The Brahmins are the learned people,who take care of education administration etc.Kshatriya are the warriors,Vaishya are the traders and Shudra are the people who provide with services to the people....

But let me tell u,when this theory was create thousands of years ago,the names, Brahmins,Kshatriya etc. were actually designations given to a particular person.It was not like a child born to a Brahmin will be a Brahmin,he can choose to be a warrior as well,and vice versa.This held true for any section of the society.The way in present times we have certain designations like a Statesman,a Soldier,a Businessman,and a Postman,in the very same manner we had these designations,just with different names like Brahmin,Kshatriya,Vaishya and Shudra.Its the same thing,just with a different name.

Hinduism,as described in the Vedas,is actually not a religion in a true sense,it is more like a way of life.

Now this system of categorization of people as described in the Vedas has been abused to a great extent,but the Hinduism itself,has got nothing to do with that.As a matter of fact Hinduism does not allow the way of caste system as perceived by you...


I will provide u with a link to support my claim....please go through it...

Link

You mean a Shudras or Chandalas child born out of Shudras father and mother can easily become a Brahman ?

 

[hillman32]

You have NO answer !!!!!

 

[Sinnerman108]

everything u say is fine. then why do so many people from pakistan go abroad to nonislamic nations? why are there 150 millions muslims in india who chose not to go to pak. ? why did bangladesh break away from pakistan atrocities?

That is not so hard to explain,
two nation theory means that the MUSLIMS and HINDU are separate nations and cannot live together, for one will be over shadowed by the other due to sheer proportions of numbers.

Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan, but it didn't join Hindu India,
so how is the two nation theory disproved ?

Even though it separated from Pakistan it didn't consider going back to Bharat nation.

THAT is think is the best proof of the validity of the two nation theory.

Now, to answer you question why there are so many "muslims" in India.

I always think that the term "so many" is used loosely, will you please quantify what is the percentage of muslims in India ?

You will have your answer, and just in case you don't get it then.

here is what I suggest you do:

Estimate the population of Muslims in India @ 1947.
Plot the quartile that actually did migrate to Pakistan.
The numbers will tell you the story.

Remember every one who says he is a muslim, may not be a muslim.

check the demographics before you reply.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You mean a Shudras or Chandalas child born out of Shudras father and mother can easily become a Brahman ?

Not at all. The social system has become rigid and arteriosclerotic, and is not serving a function any longer.

Having said that, I have to say, with the greatest regret, that my Pakistani friends and my Indian friends alike seem not to have a clue as to what the implications of the Two Nation Theory were and what they are today.

1. There was no feeling of separateness in the political sphere before the 1857 Indian Mutiny; largely because there was no political sphere;
2. After 1857, the British began to keep Muslims at arms' length;
3. This slack was taken up by the Hindus, who took to the newly-introduced British systems of administration, professional social roles and Anglicised (Macaulayite) education with enthusiasm;
4. In Bengal, in particular, this accelerated a process that had begun in the early nineteenth century;
5. As Bengali Hindus gained more and more, they began to take British liberalism (with a small 'l') seriously;
6. They started acting as if they were human beings, on par with the British. They sat for the same civil services examinations, in Britain, and insisted on being recruited;
7. When disallowed, they filed court cases and got in;
8. When finally allowed in, they were sacked on racist grounds;
9. They promptly took to politics;
10. At this time, the late 19th century, there was no divide between Hindu and Muslim;
11. British society, outside the liberal section (small as it is in India and in Pakistan today), consisted of the reactionaries, in the box-wallah sections, among the women and in the civil services, political services and the military; and of the efficiency fiends, a small group around Curzon;
12. One set was enraged at the uppity Hindu;
13. Another set saw Bengal as unwieldy, with five sections Hindi-speaking in the west, and the whole of the Assam frontier, still growing, neglected due to pressure of work, in the east;
14. British colonialists had already made a break-through in Burma, and now the Indian Empire bordered China;
15. It bordered China on the Tibet frontier already, due to the conquests of Zorawar Singh in 1841 in Ladakh and Gilgit;
16. It bordered China on the Tibet frontier in Kumaon and Garhwal, due to Ochterlony's successes against the Gurkhas, and acquisition of these hill districts;
17. Younghusband's expedition to Lhasa was only 30 years in the future when the Indian National Congress was formed;
18. A big Bengal was a nuisance, and it was decided to partition it;
19. The Hindus were in uproar, and the Muslims discovered that their interests did not coincide;

From this point onwards, the rest is history as they say.

Regarding authorship of the Two Nation Theory, Savarkar was only talking about it in the 30s. The first actual mention of the TNT was by Allama Iqbal in his presidential address to the Muslim League on December 29, 1933; Savarkar mentions it in indirect terms, and it is doubtful that he expressed it in so many words before Iqbal. Jinnah only talks about it in 1940. Sir Syed Ahmed made remarks in that direction during his years of leadership of the Indian Muslims, and some of these remarks can be interpreted as laying the foundation of the TNT.

A discussion on what happened later, the transmogrification of the TNT into the Pakistan Movement, the failure of the TNT after Pakistan, the implications of Bangladesh, and the experience of India with this Theory, after independence, after having argued passionately against it during the entire build-up to independence, would take a very, very long post. That will not be advisable, as I sense I may have outstayed my welcome.

I shall now make a studiedly nonchalant exit, whistling as I go, totally indifferent to the potential for danger but watching carefully out of the corners of my eyes.

Sincerely,

 

[toxic_pus]

1. There was no feeling of separateness in the political sphere before the 1857 Indian Mutiny; largely because there was no political sphere;
2. After 1857, the British began to keep Muslims at arms' length;
3. This slack was taken up by the Hindus, who took to the newly-introduced British systems of administration, professional social roles and Anglicised (Macaulayite) education with enthusiasm;
4. In Bengal, in particular, this accelerated a process that had begun in the early nineteenth century;
5. As Bengali Hindus gained more and more, they began to take British liberalism (with a small 'l') seriously;
6. They started acting as if they were human beings, on par with the British. They sat for the same civil services examinations, in Britain, and insisted on being recruited;
7. When disallowed, they filed court cases and got in;
8. When finally allowed in, they were sacked on racist grounds;
9. They promptly took to politics;
10. At this time, the late 19th century, there was no divide between Hindu and Muslim;
11. British society, outside the liberal section (small as it is in India and in Pakistan today), consisted of the reactionaries, in the box-wallah sections, among the women and in the civil services, political services and the military; and of the efficiency fiends, a small group around Curzon;
12. One set was enraged at the uppity Hindu;
13. Another set saw Bengal as unwieldy, with five sections Hindi-speaking in the west, and the whole of the Assam frontier, still growing, neglected due to pressure of work, in the east;
14. British colonialists had already made a break-through in Burma, and now the Indian Empire bordered China;
15. It bordered China on the Tibet frontier already, due to the conquests of Zorawar Singh in 1841 in Ladakh and Gilgit;
16. It bordered China on the Tibet frontier in Kumaon and Garhwal, due to Ochterlony's successes against the Gurkhas, and acquisition of these hill districts;
17. Younghusband's expedition to Lhasa was only 30 years in the future when the Indian National Congress was formed;
18. A big Bengal was a nuisance, and it was decided to partition it;
19. The Hindus were in uproar, and the Muslims discovered that their interests did not coincide;

From this point onwards, the rest is history as they say.

Regarding authorship of the Two Nation Theory, Savarkar was only talking about it in the 30s. The first actual mention of the TNT was by Allama Iqbal in his presidential address to the Muslim League on December 29, 1933; Savarkar mentions it in indirect terms, and it is doubtful that he expressed it in so many words before Iqbal. Jinnah only talks about it in 1940. Sir Syed Ahmed made remarks in that direction during his years of leadership of the Indian Muslims, and some of these remarks can be interpreted as laying the foundation of the TNT.

What you have done is, compress about 2 dozen books in just 19 points.

 

[MadDog]

@ billi
My friend...u should see the difference here in what i am saying and what you are saying...you are saying that a nation should be judged cuz of its ethincity....like baloch, pathan...etc....this thing has been strongly discarded by Prophet Muhammad (SAW)....once u understand this u will understand the concept of two nation theory....as far as the question about bangladesh and indian muslims staying in india...bro....the thing that happened in bangladesh....was cuz of wrong policies of west Pak's govt...not the muslims around the world....nd those who chose to stay had their own reasons depending on their induvidual curcumstances....the concept was that a islamic state has been lost in 1924 ......so there is a need for country which will be ideological...this can be known from the fact that a Ukranian Jew who converted to Islam....came to know about Pakistan movement...his name was Muhammmad Asad (after conversion..and he has written several books like on the road to Mecca..etc). He came to Pakistan and became Pakistan's envoy to UN...although he wasnt from this part of the land...he wasn't from the ethinicty of Pakistani people...then why did he came here...it was cuz of faith and the ideology which braught him here....but again by 1950's the corrupt policies of govt discouraged him...and he shifted to New York....why this happened was cuz Pakistan wasn't supposed to have the western concept of nation state...this is the basic part of two nation theory and Pakistan movement.....so i am here emphazising on faith while u r emphazising on ethinic background which has been rejected in Islam as it was precisely this reason which broke the Ottoman Empire...

@ Joe Shearer
Bro the answer to ur question is what u are saying is the western concept of nation state but what the two nation theory ids about is ummah ( Muslim nation as refered to in Islam and by Prophet Muhammad (SAW)....as Pakistan movement and two nation theory was ideological it wasnt based on the western concept of nation state....but on the concept of Ummah.
As far as ur assessment of this model is concerned...bro...how can u judge a model when it has never been created....bro according to two nation theory Pakistan was never supposed to be a nation state as interms of western political science....what u are judging is a Pakistan which is according to western concept of nation state.....u are not judging the Pakistan according to two nation theory....this means u are supporting what many Pakistanis think that this democracy can't be applicable in Pakistan which has a low literacy rate and power is in the hands of a few...so a change is required and that change should be according to the actual concept of Pakistan whose basis was two nation theory

 

[Joe Shearer]

@ billi
My friend...u should see the difference here in what i am saying and what you are saying...you are saying that a nation should be judged cuz of its ethincity....like baloch, pathan...etc....this thing has been strongly discarded by Prophet Muhammad (SAW)....once u understand this u will understand the concept of two nation theory....as far as the question about bangladesh and indian muslims staying in india...bro....the thing that happened in bangladesh....was cuz of wrong policies of west Pak's govt...not the muslims around the world....nd those who chose to stay had their own reasons depending on their induvidual curcumstances....the concept was that a islamic state has been lost in 1924 ......so there is a need for country which will be ideological...this can be known from the fact that a Ukranian Jew who converted to Islam....came to know about Pakistan movement...his name was Muhammmad Asad (after conversion..and he has written several books like on the road to Mecca..etc). He came to Pakistan and became Pakistan's envoy to UN...although he wasnt from this part of the land...he wasn't from the ethinicty of Pakistani people...then why did he came here...it was cuz of faith and the ideology which braught him here....but again by 1950's the corrupt policies of govt discouraged him...and he shifted to New York....why this happened was cuz Pakistan wasn't supposed to have the western concept of nation state...this is the basic part of two nation theory and Pakistan movement.....so i am here emphazising on faith while u r emphazising on ethinic background which has been rejected in Islam as it was precisely this reason which broke the Ottoman Empire...

@ Joe Shearer
Bro the answer to ur question is what u are saying is the western concept of nation state but what the two nation theory ids about is ummah ( Muslim nation as refered to in Islam and by Prophet Muhammad (SAW)....as Pakistan movement and two nation theory was ideological it wasnt based on the western concept of nation state....but on the concept of Ummah.
As far as ur assessment of this model is concerned...bro...how can u judge a model when it has never been created....bro according to two nation theory Pakistan was never supposed to be a nation state as interms of western political science....what u are judging is a Pakistan which is according to western concept of nation state.....u are not judging the Pakistan according to two nation theory....this means u are supporting what many Pakistanis think that this democracy can't be applicable in Pakistan which has a low literacy rate and power is in the hands of a few...so a change is required and that change should be according to the actual concept of Pakistan whose basis was two nation theory

@MadDog

Dear Sir,

If you were to write a single coherent sentence at a time, rather than in SMS format, it might be easier to follow your thinking. This style is irritating as well as being dysfunctional.

Regarding your views on the Two Nation Theory, I see no meeting ground in your views and those of Qaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and hence will not be able to discuss the matter further with you. The reason is that you have an imagined idea of the concept and are opposing it to the concept based on which the founding father of your state fought his long battle.

Pakistan was based on the western nation-state, and there was no question of it not possessing the characteristics of a nation-state. Jinnah found no contradiction between those and being able to legislate in terms not inconsistent with the Quran.

Jinnah also expressly cautioned against the concept of adopting, for instance, Sharia law, on the grounds that there were a large number of sects and divisions among Muslims in Pakistan, and it would not be possible to determine which school of law to follow. You are of course aware that Jinnah himself was a twelver Shia, after his family was expelled by the Aga Khan from that community for marrying without the Aga Khan's permission (Jinnah's aunt, I believe, father's sister, was the person concerned).

Since you are apparently not aware of these subtleties, please be reminded that by and large, Pakistani practice seems to be (I am extrapolating from India, and could be wrong) to follow Hanafi fiqh as interpreted by the Barelvi school; Hanafi of the Deobandi school; Jaafari for the Shias; Ahl-e-Hadith; and nowadays, of late, Hambali fiqh as interpreted by Salafi and Wahhabi interpretation. Which school would be followed by your conceptualised state?

Sincerely,

'Joe Shearer'

@Billi

Dear Sir,

The answer given to you is significantly erroneous. Would you like those mistakes corrected, and would you like to get an alternative views? Please feel free to say 'no'; I offer this in the interests of setting the record straight, and am not particular about it one way or the other on a defence forum.

Sincerely,

 

[nForce]

You mean a Shudras or Chandalas child born out of Shudras father and mother can easily become a Brahman ?

You have NO answer !!!!!

Yes he can..Hinduism does not say anything against it...please dont take my temporary absence in the forum as a NO answer...U see I happen to be a busy man,even in weekends....
I would like to ask u to take another look at the link that I gave in this regard in my previous post....

 

[footmarks]

Concept of a nation based entirely on religious ground is impractical, to say the least. Nations can not sustain itself on religious grounds. Would Pakistan like to merge with Saudi arabia or UAE on religious grounds, considering Prophet descended on that part of the land so it would be righteous for every muslim around the world to be a citizen of " United Arabia" Muslim nation?
No, because idea of a nation lies in the feeling of "love for your motherland", place where you are born, brought up and have your persona attached to. That is why idea of nation based on ethnicity or regions is more popular as well as in use.

Religion was supposed to be a personal choice of faith, it should remain personal. Religion creates more divide than any other classification of groups. Had India and pakistan been divided just by land and not by religion, there would not have been so much animosity between these two nations.

Having said that, for all nations, its the choice of national ideology that makes a nation.In India, a bihari can live with a tamil, a gujrati can live with a punjabi, and a muslim can live with a Hindu, because republic of India doesnt recognise any religion or ethnicity as national ideology. An Indian should be an Indian first, then Hindu or Muslim, Punjabi or Gujrati. While in Islamic Republic of Pakistan, You are a muslim first (ideology of being an Islamic state) and then Pakistani.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes he can..Hinduism does not say anything against it...please dont take my temporary absence in the forum as a NO answer...U see I happen to be a busy man,even in weekends....
I would like to ask u to take another look at the link that I gave in this regard in my previous post....

Dear Sir,

I am surprised at your reply. Would you care to explain?

Sincerely,

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You mean a Shudras or Chandalas child born out of Shudras father and mother can easily become a Brahman ?

Yes, that is how the system was originally postulated. It was based on skills/knowledge/trades. Not on genetics. Logically, the son of a potter learnt to be a potter and the son of a teacher learnt to be a teacher. Since there were no schools that they could apply to learn a different trade, these trades tended to remain within families. But the ignorant/unfit son of a warrior was'nt even fit to be a goat-herd.
The perversion of the system came later; is'nt it "Man's" great quality to pose as being mightier/ abler than he actually is?