Two Nation Theory

[Forrest Griffin]

its obvious you can't trust the indians, the minute you start trusting them they will stab you in the back. A case in point, see what has happened to Bangladesh. India helped them gain independence, the Bengalis were gullible to think they were their friends, and today india is literally stepping all over them.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

you can only be considered of indian origin if before 47 you were born in territory of present day india.

Otherwise its absurd to classify the 80 million punjabis, 27 million pashtuns, 26 million sindhis, 14 million sariakis, 7 million balochis as those of indian origin because the british raj ruled pakistan's present day territory for 89 years. muhajirs in pakistan only consist of 14 million of the total population.

Of the different ethniticies in pakistan today, imagine what chaos there would be if there was no partition and the above ethnicities were mixed with the dravidians. in addition to religious differences one must also consider the ethnic differences.

 

[Bang Galore]

Actually the Two nation theory is flawed. We peopels are still confused about what two nation theory is. If some people says Two nation theory divided the whole indian subcontinent, I certainly don't agree with that as I always love to give a long lecture on pre-partition India that was never united in past many thousand years. India had kind of different countries residing in one same India under the rulership of Raja's and Maharajah's. Nothing was united in India even before the partition of Pak-India.

This is an argument that many Pakistanis state and which makes no sense. If there was no entity called India, why did the creation of Pakistan as a supposed homeland for the Muslims of India take place? Pakistan's citizenship was limited to people of a geographical area, not open to all Muslims across the world. That automatically means an acceptance of the entity of India by those who founded Pakistan. Whether people were united within this entity is not relevant to the two nation theory. The freedom struggle united people across the board regardless of their previous disunity.

Everyone has their own defination for the two nation theory. If someone says that Pakistan was created for Islam, let them say it. If someone says that Pakistan was created for secularism, let them say it. Just be glad that we are not indians.

I too am glad you are not.


One other comment. This may be an unpopular line to take here but the basic premise underlining the two nation theory is not one I agree with. I refuse to accept that Hindus & Muslims cannot live together within one country. The distinctions between them are self imposed. The fact that many Pakistanis live outside Pakistan in the west alongside members of other /no religions proves that. In any case, on that particular score, I'm glad that the leaders of my country rejected a religious underpinning to the nature of the state & wrote a secular constitution. While it does not necessarily make all Indians secular, the fact that religion has no constitutional sanction has made India a better place. ( the fact that nearly half the ministers of the Indian government chose not to take the oath referring to God and instead swore on their conscience is a good indicator of the acceptance of neutrality of the state in matters of religion.)

 

[Bang Galore]

Pakistan was made for the oppressed minorities of India.

Inaccurate. Minorities? as in plural? Oppressed by whom ? If you had argued that they feared oppression, it would make some sense. Your statement as it stands is historically & factually incorrect.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Inaccurate. Minorities? as in plural? Oppressed by whom ? If you had argued that they feared oppression, it would make some sense. Your statement as it stands is historically & factually incorrect.

see indian held kashmir. what is your explanation for this?

 

[billi]

see indian held kashmir. what is your explanation for this?

sedition has to be overcome by any means. THats what Kashmir is.
ALso look at the oppression in p_o_k

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

sedition has to be overcome by any means. THats what Kashmir is.
ALso look at the oppression in p_o_k

Any supporting articles to oppression in p_o_k

 

[billi]

Pakistan was made for the oppressed minorities of India. Muslims being the largest minority there was always an Islamic point of view to the movement to it, but Jinnah's words on the governance.

Moreover the Two nation theory is just one page in the book of Tehreek-e-Pakistan (The movement for Pakistan) and viewing anything out of context will result in a distorted perception about what Pakistan is (was supposed to be).

this is BS. as of 1947 there was no opression of muslims by hindus . only the other way was tru until the British ended the Mughal dynasty. Basically Jinnha and other rich muslims feared that democratic india will enfore land reforms and invented this theory of muslims will be oppressed. HIndus have never oppressed anyone so far. Pakistan has done to other minorities what it clamied will happen to its muslims.

 

[sparklingway]

One other comment. This may be an unpopular line to take here but the basic premise underlining the two nation theory is not one I agree with. I refuse to accept that Hindus & Muslims cannot live together within one country. The distinctions between them are self imposed. The fact that many Pakistanis live outside Pakistan in the west alongside members of other /no religions proves that. In any case, on that particular score, I'm glad that the leaders of my country rejected a religious underpinning to the nature of the state & wrote a secular constitution. While it does not necessarily make all Indians secular, the fact that religion has no constitutional sanction has made India a better place. ( the fact that nearly half the ministers of the Indian government chose not to take the oath referring to God and instead swore on their conscience is a good indicator of the acceptance of neutrality of the state in matters of religion.)

The INC made it impossible not to demand a separate homeland. Alternate histories are unnecessary but had the INC not been as stringent in its rejection of League proposals, the partition might have never happened, at least in the fast paced way it did. The INC's unflinching stance was one of the biggest factors and indeed the final nail in the coffin.

The fact of the matter is that the partition is a historical truth. It would be better if both sides accept it in entirety and move on. Hegemonic ambitions of gaining land have troubled us a lot already.

To Indian Members :- Questioning the validity of the Two Nation Theory is what has been indoctrinated to many of you. The tales of Jinnah being responsible for "batwara" have to be left behind. Your arguments will inflame this thread. You might want to read this :- http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/20...-and-secularism-response-to-an-indian-poster/

Please don't inflame.

To Pakistani Members:- Questioning the treatment of minorities in modern day India is off-topic and in no way related to the two nation theory.

 

[Bang Galore]

see indian held kashmir. what is your explanation for this?

We are discussing the period before 1947.

 

[Awesome]

YLH is perhaps the most dedicated guy amongst the youth.

@Xeric:- History cannot be viewed through one lens. If you read Ayesha Jalal's work, she concludes that even until Jan. 1947, Jinnah was not really asking for Independence, rather a far greater share in a confederation and the call for Pakistan was a political tool. For people like us to disagree with her, it is wrong for her work is based on decades of study. Other historians have disagreed with her. Even those who agree with the liberalist point of view including Mubarak Ali.

Some of the letters in the Jinnah Papers do lay credence to these claims. The fact of the matter is that anybody who tries to interpret today the two nation theory outside the state sponsored version is somehow labeled anti-Pakistan and questioning the very nature of our existence. It is the historian's duty to analyze it but people start calling them "go back to India" and stuff, which is dis heartening.

This happens to be a very concise article by YLH. You can go through his work at PTH and Chowk to get a better gist of his work. He has a very good grasp on history.

Chowk writers: Yasser Hamdani intro and articles

We had YLH on the forums briefly, I think we can't call him youth any more . I met him online some 10 years back and he really helped shape up my views on Jinnahs Pakistan.

Jinnah's Pakistan was supposed to be an autonomous region in the Northwest and North East of India but in a more or less unified country. The British and Gandhi had agreed to. Nehru at the last moments backed off since he saw him not becoming the PM of all of India. Therein lies the seeds of total mistrust Pakistanis have of Indians.

Jinnah then for the first time went into rebel mode and with all the Muslims of India - rest is history. From then on, making a Pakistani country was left as the only option.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

We are discussing the period before 1947.

its no different. if there wasn't a partition the inhabitants of present day Pakistan would be treated the same way the kashmiris are being treated by the hindu majority india. there is no way to talk around this. Jinnah was absolutely right in what he foresaw.

 

[Awesome]

this is BS. as of 1947 there was no opression of muslims by hindus . only the other way was tru until the British ended the Mughal dynasty. Basically Jinnha and other rich muslims feared that democratic india will enfore land reforms and invented this theory of muslims will be oppressed. HIndus have never oppressed anyone so far. Pakistan has done to other minorities what it clamied will happen to its muslims.

Actually there was a forceful Hinduization of everything, including the freedom movement. Even the kids were forced to sing Vande Mataram. Everyone in India voted with religion in mind and Hindus got elected to every post due to majority.

It was/is a tyranny of the majority.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

We had YLH on the forums briefly, I think we can't call him youth any more . I met him online some 10 years back and he really helped shape up my views on Jinnahs Pakistan.

Jinnah's Pakistan was supposed to be an autonomous region in the Northwest and North East of India but in a more or less unified country. The British and Gandhi had agreed to. Nehru at the last moments backed off since he saw him not becoming the PM of all of India. Therein lies the seeds of total mistrust Pakistanis have of Indians.

Jinnah then for the first time went into rebel mode and with all the Muslims of India - rest is history. From then on, making a Pakistani country was left as the only option.

Jaswant Singh book on Jinnah seconds you.

 

[Awesome]

Inaccurate. Minorities? as in plural? Oppressed by whom ? If you had argued that they feared oppression, it would make some sense. Your statement as it stands is historically & factually incorrect.

Read Jinnahs comments in his inaugural address, he clearly stated, Pakistan was for all minorities.