Two Nation Theory

[toxic_pus]

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.

I will not disagree with you on that and this is particularly true for pre-partition generations or the generations immediately following the partition. Today's generation thank Jinnah a trillion times for creating Pakistan.

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.

And it is a feeble justification for sectarian politics. Yesterday's communalism, today's political maneuvering.

Remember how on another thread I was arguing that one always finds a way to justify 'means' once 'end' is achieved. Thank you for finally agreeing.

 

[humblehobbes]

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.

U may not have allegiance to the Name India, but I do, and I have bit of sorrow that it would have been great had it been a big United Country.. The reduction in expenditure of defence alone would have made the subcontinent in to a Industrial Power.

But that aside, I am happy where I am and not at all dreaming about Akhand Bharat

ps : Last part in red is to prevent a ban in case some one thinks it out of the line

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

Not a strawman at all - you are insisting that X and Y communities would have no problems living together, a statement with which I have no particular disagreement, but that said, you also have to accept that the by extension that argument means that any community should be able to live with any other community in the world, yet we have multiple nation States because those perceived 'communal differences' do play a role in our identities, and our fears, especially as minorities.

No amount of Utopian ideals of 'every community can exist in perfect harmony with any other community' can change the reality of human nature.

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.

Sure - there was distrust of the British and a degree of racism and denial of equal treatment that led to the conclusion that this was one particular community that the Indian community could not coexist with - it was a calculated decision based on perceptions of the British at the time.

By the same token, those who did not have faith that the rights of minorities would be protected in a United Indian State carved out of British India had come to a calculated decision and conclusions similar to those of the Indian leadership about co-existing with the British. So why only hold that against Pakistan and Jinnah?

 

[humblehobbes]

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

You stole my line. I was hoping to use it when he uses it the next time around

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will not disagree with you on that and this is particularly true for pre-partition generations or the generations immediately following the partition. Today's generation thank Jinnah a trillion times for creating Pakistan.

Please continue thanking and aim to rid the remainder of this rather irritating 'nostalgia'. I mean really, I used to take comments by older Indians about 'partition shouldn't have happened blah blah blah' in good humor, but after hearing it for the millionth time its all I can do to maintain a stony silence (lest I utter something rude) and hope the hint is taken.

And it is a feeble justification for sectarian politics. Yesterday's communalism, today's political maneuvering.

Why? If one fears for the rights of a community, and the option for a separate nation state for that community is feasible, then why not use whatever is available to protect those rights?

The argument was that the communities were distinct, and the rights of the minority should be protected and may not be protected if a United India was constructed, not that one community should go out and massacre the other one.

Remember how on another thread I was arguing that one always finds a way to justify 'means' once 'end' is achieved. Thank you for finally agreeing.

I fail to recollect the argument, or the context, but sure, another way of saying that 'history is written by the victors'.

 

[indushek]

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.

This shows your knowledge on various issues.

Please don't comment if you cannot understand the issue.

Vande Mataram means i respect the country who is my mother,
and it is not religious, if u don't know Hindi please learn. The movement of Vande Mataram is etched in the history of freedom struggle and was a force multiplier for freedom strugglers. Both Hindus and Muslims sang this song as a show of Wish for Freedom and it was to be the National Anthem of Independent India until the manipulative and cunning fox Nehru came by and favoured Jana Gana Mana. One can't help if after the struggle people with myopic views distorted the fact for you. Well one thing is i don't wonder as a pakistani u don't understand this song but recently i think it was the deobandi's who issued a fatwa or some **** saying that singing this song is un-Islamic which i really a icing on the cake.

If you feel that just making people sing a song is tyranny of Majority what was the rule of Mughal Dynasty and particularly Aurangzeb??? flower bed for Hindus. What were they called Dhimmis wasn't it, any body with a history book can tell how many Hindu Temples were erased from the face of India even when Hindus were the majority.

The problem is it was the insecurity of these same people who thought that once freedom is gained they will be persecuted by the Hindus who were for long time subjugated and persecuted under them!!!! Well even if i was in their place i would feel the same.

The problem is this nation of Hindus (which never meant a religion as such but a collection of various beliefs) was not martial in nature but always spelled ahimsa dharma. Though i am proud of it i sometimes wish it was not so. Ye din dekhna nahi padta.

I don't think any nation was subjugated for such a long time as mine. First by Persians then Muslims and then the British, through Mongols and other Nomadic tribes and the list is complete.

Just to support your arguments don't spell out such BS statements. And yes i am SECULAR and have many Muslim friends here and respect all people as on and believe in it too.

JAI HIND.

 

[Bang Galore]

Not a strawman at all - you are insisting that X and Y communities would have no problems living together, a statement with which I have no particular disagreement, but that said, you also have to accept that the by extension that argument means that any community should be able to live with any other community in the world, yet we have multiple nation States because those perceived 'communal differences' do play a role in our identities, and our fears, especially as minorities.

No amount of Utopian ideals of 'every community can exist in perfect harmony with any other community' can change the reality of human nature.

Sure - there was distrust of the British and a degree of racism and denial of equal treatment that led to the conclusion that this was one particular community that the Indian community could not coexist with - it was a calculated decision based on perceptions of the British at the time.

By the same token, those who did not have faith that the rights of minorities would be protected in a United Indian State carved out of British India had come to a calculated decision and conclusions similar to those of the Indian leadership about co-existing with the British. So why only hold that against Pakistan and Jinnah?

Your argument would have only made sense if India was divided on geographical or ethnic grounds. It wasn't. It was divided on religious ground across ethnicities,cultures & languages and the last time I checked, the British weren't a religion even if some of them act that way. The correct analogy would have been with Christianity but wait a minute.. there was no division there.
So, Strawman still stands.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

U may not have allegiance to the Name India, but I do, and I have bit of sorrow that it would have been great had it been a bug United Country.. The reduction in expenditure of defence alone would have made the subcontinent in to a Industrial Power.

Reduction of defence expenditure could have also occurred with partition being done properly or with territorial disputes being resolved earlier in our history.

Alternatively, given that India was mismanaged both economically and in governance for decades, one could argue that a United India with communal tensions would have been in flames as a result of that mismanagement and the resulting inequalities, injustice and poverty.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your argument would have only made sense if India was divided on geographical or ethnic grounds. It wasn't. It was divided on religious ground across ethnicities,cultures & languages and the last time I checked, the British weren't a religion even if some of them act that way. The correct analogy would have been with Christianity but wait a minute.. there was no division there.
So, Strawman still stands.

India was divided on ethnic and geographic grounds, as well as religious, so differences beyond religion existed as well. Religion forms part of the identity matrix of people, just as race, ethnicity and geography do. You cannot arbitrarily dismiss one strong aspect of a peoples identity (religion) and claim that that particular community should be able to co-exist with Y community, and insist that another community, that is distinct on the basis of racial (and religious) identity is somehow completely incompatible.

At the end of the day our identities and how we see ourselves as distinct (be it race, religion, ethnicity, geography or a combination of these and other factors that form our identity matrix) is up to us, and not for an outsider to determine whether or not we are compatible or incompatible with Y community.

 

[Awesome]

Just to support your arguments don't spell out such BS statements. And yes i am SECULAR and have many Muslim friends here and respect all people as on and believe in it too.

This is the thing, Indians need to pick up a dictionary. Respect and having multicultural friends has nothing to do with secularism. This is the typical Indian excuse, Oh we're so secular look at Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Amir Khan.

Secularism is separation of state and religion.

Your state is siding with Hindus with the destruction of the Babri Masjid

Your state perpetuated the massacre of 2000 Muslims in Gujarat to avenge the deaths of 50 Hindus

For believes in 'ahimsa' you sure massacre a lot of people now and then.

Secularism is separation of state and religion. If you're not even able to prosecute genocidal maniacs due to religious considerations, you're not a secularism. You're a big black mark on secularism for that matter.

 

[blueoval79]

Pakistanis bashing India for secularism.....Ironic....

 

[PracticalGuy]

I always believed.. partition of British India was a POLITICAL decision where Mr.Jinnah prevailed over Mr.Nehru for his own share of power and for his dream to become an undisputed leader of a sovereign nation in which ever form it might be and just like any other politician he took a shortest root possible to realize his dream by exploiting Muslims vs Hindus theory. But alas..the very fact that he was not such a "real politician and religious zealot" was evident on the very first day of the creation of Pakistan by declaring his new born Muslim nation to be an all inclusive secular one which was more or less his very inner conscious and his real being which came out.

Now that the partition is a reality each side is trying very hard either to justify it or deplore it which ever satisfies their ego.

what ever might be the reason for the partition but who ever still believes that Muslim oppression in Undivided India as a reason is just naive for the very fact that not all Muslims in the undivided India thought that the very "oppression" was not reasonable enough to relocate to Muslim Pakistan. Let alone the ordinary Muslim the very blood relation of the Father of the Muslim Pakistan chose not to relocate to Muslim Pakistan and continue to prosper in the "Hindu India" should ring some bell to the advocates of the "Muslim oppression" theory...

 

[toxic_pus]

Please continue thanking and aim to rid the remainder of this rather irritating 'nostalgia'. I mean really, I used to take comments by older Indians about 'partition shouldn't have happened blah blah blah' in good humor, but after hearing it for the millionth time its all I can do to maintain a stony silence (lest I utter something rude) and hope the hint is taken.

You will be pleased to note that post 2000, that 'shock generation' (I call them that) is shocking us by reversing their stand on partition. Most of these 'shock generation' however maintain that 'partition was bad' because of the massive loss of life, property and complete uprooting of communities through which Pakistan was created.

Why? If one fears for the rights of a community, and the option for a separate nation state for that community is feasible, then why not use whatever is available to protect those rights?

That is a dicey argument. Apparently Baluchistanis 'fear for the rights' of their 'community'. Are they then justified in their claim to break away from Pakistan?

The argument was that the communities were distinct, and the rights of the minority should be protected and may not be protected if a United India was constructed, not that one community should go out and massacre the other one.

Wrong. The argument was that religion defined a community, and hence, for example, a Bengali is not a Bengali first, but a Hindu or a Muslim first. The fact of political unrest in East Pakistan and subsequent creation of Bangladesh, is precisely the antithesis of that argument.

I fail to recollect the argument, or the context, but sure, another way of saying that 'history is written by the victors'.

Nevermind.

 

[jeypore]

Pakistanis bashing India for secularism.....Ironic....

Sir you are wrong, If the situation was reverse, would Indians be arguing in same manner, I think not. Regilion and Culture makes a lot of difference, I believe in Secularism also, but it has it's limitations and I believe AGNO explained it really well here....

 

[Awesome]

I always believed.. partition of British India was a POLITICAL decision where Mr.Jinnah prevailed over Mr.Nehru for his own share of power and for his dream to become an undisputed leader of a sovereign nation in which ever form it might be and just like any other politician he took a shortest root possible to realize his dream by exploiting Muslims vs Hindus theory. But alas..the very fact that he was not such a "real politician and religious zealot" was evident on the very first day of the creation of Pakistan by declaring his new born Muslim nation to be an all inclusive secular one which was more or less his very inner conscious and his real being which came out.

Now that the partition is a reality each side is trying very hard either to justify it or deplore it which ever satisfies their ego.

what ever might be the reason for the partition but who ever still believes that Muslim oppression in Undivided India as a reason is just naive for the very fact that not all Muslims in the undivided India thought that the very "oppression" was not reasonable enough to relocate to Muslim Pakistan. Let alone the ordinary Muslim the very blood relation of the Father of the Muslim Pakistan chose not to relocate to Muslim Pakistan and continue to prosper in the "Hindu India" should ring some bell to the advocates of the "Muslim oppression" theory...

That argument is only perpetuated in Indian school of though, it helps put partial blame on Jinnah. There is no comparison on what sort of a person Jinnah was and what was Nehru.

Jinnah knew VERY well that he would not get to rule Pakistan. He was fighting a terminal illness, something he and his Hindu doctor kept hidden from the world since they would've delayed the partition till he died. TB was totally incurable, Jinnah fought for Pakistan not for political power and as he had predicted, he barely lived on for another year before handing over all his efforts to the next generation to take forward.

You can blame the next generations, but not the ideologies that Jinnah had which culminated in the foundation of Pakistan.