Two Nation Theory

[nightcrawler]

I have read a lot about this conflicting issue of two nation theory & I will shed some light upon the religious notion;if it exists & its extent to which it exists in two nation theory.
When journalists like Pracha Sb again & again try to nullify the religiousness of Jinnah ideals & like is done in the book of Ayesha Jalal I will definitely say that their views cannot be taken for granted!!
When they say that a country not based on Islam but upon ideals such as equality, freedom, honor & above all social justice they basically are saying one & a same thing. Do remember that Islam gives that all if ruled with true Islamic interpretations rather than following Maulanas.
Remember in the ottoman empire the byzantines & even the occupied parts of Germany & Spain quantitatively nonMuslims were above Muslims but they were not treated madly. Even the mosque of Jerusalem was buit right in front of church.
Again I have seen the issue of Jinnah's marriage with a parsi is much illuminated but no one says further that she was converted secondly do think about why Jinnah ousted his daughter & I think that was religiousness.
If secularism gives what all are saying equality, freedom............ that what Islam is also giving given Islam is interpreted by sane Muslims like Jinnah & not these Islamic wannabes!!

 

[toxic_pus]

@toxic_pus

Some interesting points you have raised.
However, like I mentioned earlier, he was qualifying the theory of India is one nation. IMO this was a pointed argument to Ghandiji's insistence to Jinnah that India is a single nation consisting of various communities, while Jinnah would say that no negotiations are possible until unless this core "fact" was accepted.

Hence, he was not insisting like Jinnah or Sarvarkar that Hindus and Muslims are two seperate nations, but rather that there is no need to insist like Gandhi was doing that India consists of just one nation when a section of Muslims led by Jinnah was to insist otherwise. Like I said, it was a dispassionate analysis.

IMO what his book really did was remove the veil of superfluous arguments raised by the ML and Hindu Mahasabha. That is he showed that if ML really cared for muslims--particularly muslims in minority as they calimed--then partition is to their detriment. While on the other hand he showed the duplicity of the HIndu Mahasabha by showing that if as they claimed that they wanted to protect Hindus and were deeply suspicious even hostile of muslims, then partition was in their interests as they would be able to get rid of a vast chunk of muslim electorate as well as majority of the muslims in the army who constituted more than half of the British Indian Army.

The thing is that Ambedkar didn't know that Partition had already been decided by Wavell down to the boundary lines in 1942 itself. That both ML and Hindu Mahasabite youth workers were given a free hand by the British while Congress leaders and workers would be jailed. Still Ambedkar's final chapter on "Must there be Pakistan" is what I believe truly captures his passion in the book and to me was the most forceful of all the chapters and IMO the thinking that he displayed at various levels on this issue.

As I said, I do not at all disagree with your assessment. However it is important to note the nuances - the flip side of claiming that India is not a nation is that the claimant has to identify such other nations that constitute the state of India.

Whether or not such nations can subsist within a single state is another debate, separate from the issue of identification of these disparate 'nations'.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

You misunderstand. Nobody, neither Nadeem Paracha nor Ayesha Jalal, tried to prove Jinnah irreligious. It was Nadeem Paracha's point, not Ayesha Jalal's, that Jinnah sought not an Islamic State, but a state for Muslims. There is a difference, but that difference need not lead to misunderstandings and clashes where there is absolutely no grounds to do so.

In a state intended to express the character and flavour of a Muslim 'nation', as postulated in the Two Nation Theory, notwithstanding its later showing as weak and inadequate as a theory with which to manage minority issues, it is obvious that all laws, all administration will be consistent with Islamic precept. That is the first point; it was not visualised anywhere, Jinnah wrote in numerous places and said in numerous speeches, writings and speeches that are misused by bigots to distort his overall message, that anything would be done that was not acceptable to the Quran, and to supplementary precepts.

Having said and written all that, Jinnah also very clearly alluded to the resultant state being neutral as to the different ways and manners in which its citizens followed Islam.

It is wise to remember that Jinnah was himself a 'twelver' Shia, and his close advisor, Sir Mohammed Zaffarullah Khan, was an Ahmadi. While he was not observant, it is not that he was not sensitive; you have pointed out correctly that Ruttee Jinnah converted before marriage. However, experts, not I, have suggested that his objections to his daughter's marriage may have been for other reasons, not religious; like any anxious father, he simply didn't think the young man in question good enough. I don't want to go into the question of why not; the two men concerned are no longer with us, but the lady is, and the descendants are.

Let us leave this subject at our understanding that the new state was for Muslims, that it would legislate nothing contradictory to Islam, and that Jinnah in person was sensitive to religion but not observant in daily life.

Your reasons are transparent and are blameless; let it stop there. Let us not drag his personal life into discussion, please.

I have read a lot about this conflicting issue of two nation theory & I will shed some light upon the religious notion;if it exists & its extent to which it exists in two nation theory.
When journalists like Pracha Sb again & again try to nullify the religiousness of Jinnah ideals & like is done in the book of Ayesha Jalal I will definitely say that their views cannot be taken for granted!!
When they say that a country not based on Islam but upon ideals such as equality, freedom, honor & above all social justice they basically are saying one & a same thing. Do remember that Islam gives that all if ruled with true Islamic interpretations rather than following Maulanas.
Remember in the ottoman empire the byzantines & even the occupied parts of Germany & Spain quantitatively nonMuslims were above Muslims but they were not treated madly. Even the mosque of Jerusalem was buit right in front of church.
Again I have seen the issue of Jinnah's marriage with a parsi is much illuminated but no one says further that she was converted secondly do think about why Jinnah ousted his daughter & I think that was religiousness.
If secularism gives what all are saying equality, freedom............ that what Islam is also giving given Islam is interpreted by sane Muslims like Jinnah & not these Islamic wannabes!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

@EjazR

Dear Ejaz,

I found the normal quoting and blocking method of response very lengthy, and tried to annotate your last post using end-notes in Word.

It worked a treat in Word, but that's where the good news stopped. As might have been expected, when copying and pasting into the PDF editor, the numbers disappeared, and only bald text was left, which can't be connected to the passage that it tried to explain. This means going back to the older method, with all its disadvantages.

Kindly bear with me while I slave in the light of candle and lantern to make the response available once again.

Very sincerely,

 

[nightcrawler]

Dear Sir,
Let us leave this subject at our understanding that the new state was for Muslims, that it would legislate nothing contradictory to Islam, and that Jinnah in person was sensitive to religion but not observant in daily life.

Your reasons are transparent and are blameless; let it stop there. Let us not drag his personal life into discussion, please.

Thnx for your understanding I was bit carried away by previous replies on Jinnah. However, I wasn't talking about personal life of Jinnah in particular but the way of governing people that's why I take the liberty of adding tolerant Muslim era of Ottomans.
The real thing remains that everybody is happy when Pakistan create some kind of indigenous weapon system but now is the time to create an indigenous governing system ( a separate thread may be useful ) instead of imitating & adobting western democratic ideals.
China is an example here no to full capitalism no to full communism but something in between. Pakistan isn't to be theocratic nor to noreligious zone but something of ingenuine character.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thnx for your understanding I was bit carried away by previous replies on Jinnah. However, I wasn't talking about personal life of Jinnah in particular but the way of governing people that's why I take the liberty of adding tolerant Muslim era of Ottomans.
The real thing remains that everybody is happy when Pakistan create some kind of indigenous weapon system but now is the time to create an indigenous governing system ( a separate thread may be useful ) instead of imitating & adobting western democratic ideals.
China is an example here no to full capitalism no to full communism but something in between. Pakistan isn't to be theocratic nor to noreligious zone but something of ingenuine character.

Dear Sir,

I am glad that we are in agreement.

It was amusing to read your comment about an indigenous governing system. Recently, a few days ago, I asked a friend of mine, "The Two Nation Theory obviously is only the beginning; what follows?" He suddenly went silent, has not been corresponding and is not on any of his regular lists or blogs. I think something is coming out soon.

Sincerely,

'Joe'

PS: The closest to what Jinnah sought was perhaps post-Ottoman Turkey, the Turkey of Ataturk, and not its predecessor.

'Joe'

 

[sur]

 

[Asian.Century]