Two Nation Theory

[Awesome]

Jaswant Singh book on Jinnah seconds you.

I know, read his book, its more or less an agreement with Ayesha Jalal (with lots of Indian touches). He probably hasn't put in the same amount of research into the matter as her.

 

[Hyde]

Does it really matter anymore what Jinnah's Pakistan is supposed to be?

Look at our country's situation, first thing we have to do is eliminate the terrorists, corruption, mafia and improve our economy, security conditions and defence.

Whatever Sytem of governance we have in the current regime doesn't really matter to me. Once we can resolve all these problems our literate Pakistani fellows can come up with the vision of brighter Pakistan

 

[Bang Galore]

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 :- Pakistan, Two Nation Theory and Secularism: Response to an Indian Poster Pak Tea House

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.

You misunderstand. I'm in no way questioning the necessity of partition , only its moral reasoning . Your comment that it might unnecessarily inflame opinion is accepted & so i move on.

As far as the INC's position goes. I'm afraid i have to disagree with you. Maybe its the perspective each of us has being where/what we are, but had the INC not taken the position it did, we would probably have not only not been able to stop a partition at a later date but we would probably have fragmented even more.

I believe that partition (whatever its reasoning) helped India to become a secular state and allowed India to make massive changes in the Hindu civil laws thereby modernising what were some very outdated & archaic laws. This would not have happened if there was religious tension in the highest echelons of the government. There is no question, in my mind at least that partition is a done deal & i certainly have moved on.

 

[toxic_pus]

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

The thought that the idea of creation of Pakistan was merely a last ditch effort, almost an afterthought, is way too much for most Pakisitanis to digest.

Anyway, I find Two Nation Theory pretty obnoxious primarily because of an unuttered notion that Islam, when in minority, is incompatible with Hinduism, being in majority, and can only be compatible in political sense, i.e. secular when the situation reverses, i.e. it (Islam) is in majority.

Jinnah's said in Lahore, March 1940:

'They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.'​

Yet, the same gentleman said on 11 August, 1947:

'Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State'​

I find these two speeches utterly confusing and at times, such as the two paras quoted above, even conflicting.

 

[Bang Galore]

Jaswant Singh book on Jinnah seconds you.

It does but as you know, how you read history depends on the side of the fence you are sitting in. Jaswant singh does agree with the offer made by Jinnah which was rejected by the INC (correctly in my opinion) of a loose federation with options for secession at a later date. There is some historical background for Jaswant Singh's stand on the matter. Born into a minor royal family, Jaswant's Singh's ancestors roamed, hunted & warred on both sides of the present IB. His sense of history, culture & freedom is therefore different from many others. For further details, I would recommend reading his book "A Call to Honour". His ancestral jagirs were acquired by the Indian government with one of his grandfathers refusing compensation by asking how could a price be put on a 1000 years of history, on the air that they breathe, on the birds that fly & so on. The same grandfather told Singh that he should go to "dilli" & tell them how much they did wrong by agreeing to partition. His outlook on the issue of partition comes from that experience and while it is not wrong, it certainly is not one shared fully by most Indians.

 

[Awesome]

The thought that the idea of creation of Pakistan was merely a last ditch effort, almost an afterthought, is way too much for most Pakisitanis to digest.

Anyway, I find Two Nation Theory pretty obnoxious primarily because of an unuttered notion that Islam, when in minority, is incompatible with Hinduism, being in majority, and can only be compatible in political sense, i.e. secular when the situation reverses, i.e. it (Islam) is in majority.

Jinnah's said in Lahore, March 1940:

'They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.'​

Yet, the same gentleman said on 11 August, 1947:

'Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State'​

I find these two speeches utterly confusing and at times, such as the two paras quoted above, even conflicting.

The problem was India. In India there was/is talk of secularism, no substance. He wanted Pakistan to be better than India. The creation of Pakistan was going to happen, either as an autonomous region or a country - it wasn't an after thought. The only thing about the 11th hour change shows us is that it was the only way, since Nehru would not have let anything else happen.

 

[Novice09]

If Muslims in India were ahead in education and success I would have been the person to say that Two Nation Theory is wrong. There are more Muslim doctors in Karachi in percentage then doctors from whole Indian Muslims .

I don't want to paste the BBC article here but any one can read the link.

India Muslims 'have lowest rank' BBC
BBC NEWS | South Asia | India Muslims 'have lowest rank'

Let me tell you that my locality consists 90%+ Muslims which is a mix bag of poors, rich and extremely rich.

from my personal experience I can tell you that reason behind poverty (in India) is uneducation and volition to be uneducated because of xyz reasons.

2nd : people cannot fulfill their basic needs still they keep giving birth to children. This just increase poverty and depress their existing resources.

there are other reasons too...

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.

First of all even Indians (at least me) don't care for Pakistani's trust because trust is a mutual understanding between two. Since, India don't trust Pakistan, we don't accept same from other end...

Yes we did stab in back, as we did in Kargil , as we sent non state actors to attack your parliament and your financial hub (remember Mumbai???)

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

How many Pakistani really follows Jinnah and his ideas???
It doesn't matter what Jinnah mentioned, IMO Pakistan was created for Muslims.

Does it really matter anymore what Jinnah's Pakistan is supposed to be?

Look at our country's situation, first thing we have to do is eliminate the terrorists, corruption, mafia and improve our economy, security conditions and defence.

Whatever Sytem of governance we have in the current regime doesn't really matter to me. Once we can resolve all these problems our literate Pakistani fellows can come up with the vision of brighter Pakistan

Zaki I really appreciate your views, it really doen't matter who your enemy is; if you have a robust and reliable governance, Nationalism and will power to illuminate your future.

India and Pakistan both are suffering some similar problems. don't you think so?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The thought that the idea of creation of Pakistan was merely a last ditch effort, almost an afterthought, is way too much for most Pakisitanis to digest.

Actually, the fact that the so called 'afterthought' or 'last ditch effort' of the creation of Pakistan succeeded is what is 'way too much' for most Indians to digest.

On the issue of the two speeches, I think the articles starting the thread do indeed speak to precisely that issue, on how the demand for Pakistan, and the rhetoric surrounding it, was a calculated political move to pressure the INC to be flexible in terms of the demands of a large section of Muslims in South Asia represented through the ML.

Once the possibility of existing as a united nation after the British fell through, and Pakistan was a certainty, there was no more need for that political rhetoric.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Actually, the fact that the so called 'afterthought' or 'last ditch effort' of the creation of Pakistan succeeded is what is 'way too much' for most Indians to digest.

Pakistan might have been created successfully, but two nation theory in its essence has failed ,for it failed to lure the entire Muslim polpulation of United India to Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.)

Why did the founders of the modern Indian nation refuse to accept that the British and South Asians could live together then? Are the 'distinctions' there, not also as much self imposed as they are between residents of North West Pakistan and Eastern/Southern India?

Are we not all descendant from the same tribe in Africa?

Why was no attempt made for the various territories in British India to be be made part of the United Kingdom, and instead of 'Independence', demand equal rights for all residents?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan might have been created successfully, but two nation theory in its essence has failed ,for it failed to lure the entire Muslim polpulation of United India to Pakistan.

I can't see how you can call it a failure when it accomplished the major goal - an independent nation called Pakistan for the Muslims of South Asia ... that wished to be part of it.

If other Muslims chose to stay where they were, that is their choice and best of luck to them - humanity is rarely perfectly homogeneous in thought.

 

[humblehobbes]

Actually, the fact that the so called 'afterthought' or 'last ditch effort' of the creation of Pakistan succeeded is what is 'way too much' for most Indians to digest.

On the issue of the two speeches, I think the articles starting the thread do indeed speak to precisely that issue, on how the demand for Pakistan, and the rhetoric surrounding it, was a calculated political move to pressure the INC to be flexible in terms of the demands of a large section of Muslims in South Asia represented through the ML.

Once the possibility of existing as a united nation after the British fell through, and Pakistan was a certainty, there was no more need for that political rhetoric.

without getting into specifics. No Indian has questioned the existence of Pakistan. It is there to exist and No Indian doubts it, even if there is animosity and a little bit of sorrow over the division of a country. But you can see that it is Pakistanis themselves(you included) who keep on insisting that "Pakistan is here to stay. Learn to live with it". And these answers come from people, even when there is no need to give such an answer( considering that an appropriate question for this particular answer was never put forth). Shows insecurity. Nothing else. We have reconciled to the existence of Pakistan long ago. Its just some of you who think that we havent reconciled.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

I can't see how you can call it a failure when it accomplished the major goal - an independent nation called Pakistan for the Muslims of South Asia ... that wished to be part of it.

If other Muslims chose to stay where they were, that is their choice and best of luck to them - humanity is rarely perfectly homogeneous in thought.

Two Nation theory states that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition, and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland.

Two nation theory failed because even though it was able to create autonomous homeland for muslims of India, its pretext that Muslims and Hindus were "two separate nations by every definition" has failed with successes of secular India where we have as many Muslims, as many there are in Pakistan.

 

[Bang Galore]

Why did the founders of the modern Indian nation refuse to accept that the British and South Asians could live together then? Are the 'distinctions' there, not also as much self imposed as they are between residents of North West Pakistan and Eastern/Southern India?

Are we not all descendant from the same tribe in Africa?

Why was no attempt made for the various territories in British India to be be made part of the United Kingdom, and instead of 'Independence', demand equal rights for all residents?

What's that favourite word of yours? Aah... I remember - Strawman !

Having said that there would have been absolutely no issue since everyone would have to abide by the one man,one vote principle. Don't think that the British wanted that

BTW, that was Gandhi's first argument when he was in South Africa. Called himself a British subject & asked for equal treatment. Didn't get him very far.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

without getting into specifics. No Indian has questioned the existence of Pakistan. It is there to exist and No Indian doubts it, even if there is animosity and a little bit of sorrow over the division of a country. But you can see that it is Pakistanis themselves(you included) who keep on insisting that "Pakistan is here to stay. Learn to live with it". And these answers come from people, even when there is no need to give such an answer( considering that an appropriate question for this particular answer was never put forth). Shows insecurity. Nothing else. We have reconciled to the existence of Pakistan long ago. Its just some of you who think that we havent reconciled.

The snide comments, that my post was a response to, were from your countryman. So long as the snide comments (whatever spin you want to put on the reasons behind making them) from Indians continue, you'll get a similar response.

And your first comments bely the statements of India's political leadership in those early days - we were after all supposed to fall right back in 'India's lap' or something of the sort.