Two Nation Theory

[thebrownguy]

The problem is the screwed up notion of secularism that is perpetuated in India. Somehow being nice to Muslims is considered secularism.

This is big brother attitude, not secularism. This allows Hindus to GRANT freedoms to Muslims as if they were not their RIGHT to begin with.

How would you define secularism Asim? Tell me. And what big brother attitude are you talkin about? Our constitution does not distinguish between a Hindu and a Muslim to begin with. So how will the "hindus" "GRANT" the rights you are talking about?

This is indeed ironic, a Pakistani talking about secularism!! Please answer the question Asim. I always wanted to know a Pakistani's view in secularism.

 

[Tiger Prowling]

Maulana Maududi’s Two-Nation Theory

Maulana Maududi’s Two-Nation Theory And The Struggle for Pakistan.

The earlier part of the twentieth century has witnessed a turmoil in the Islamic world. The Ottoman Empire was disintegrating. Most of the Muslim countries were under colonial rule. The intellectual and political dominance of the West nearly destroyed the vitality of a Muslim mind and turned it against its own religious, cultural, and historical heritage. Many persons in the different parts of the Muslim world confronted the challenge, and fought to unshackle the Muslim body and mind from Western slavery. In the Indian Subcontinent, a few rose to revive the vitality and confidence of the Muslim people. Among them Maulana Shibli Numani, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Allama Mohammad Iqbal, and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi were the most prominent. They came forward with constructive thought and vision to renew Muslim’s sense of identification with their religion, culture and historical heritage. These vanguards of Muslim India believed that the revival of Islam is the only way to save Muslims from sliding into abyss of the world of self destruction, and to that end they made contributions that left indelible impressions on the people and politics of the region. The forces, moral and intellectual, organized over a period of time by these men, by gradual process of growth, culminated into a movement—Pakistan Movement. Pakistan Movement was based on the theory that Muslims are entirely separate people from Hindus in every respect. They form an ideological community with divine guidance for every field of human life, and it is a dictate of their faith to establish a state where they can rule according to the law revealed by the Almighty. This theory is popularly known as two-nation theory. Under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the movement, in less than a decade gave birth to Pakistan The man who is most credited as an intellectual force behind the two-nation theory and a front against united Indian nationalism is Maulana Abul Ala Maududi. In the following lines, we intend to examine his contributions, as political thinker, in the face of the opposition launched by the nationalists against the two nation theory, Maulana Maududi was one of the most vigor crusaders for the cause of Islam the Muslim world has seen in the recent history. Few men have worked as relentlessly to give the practical shape to the guidance embodied in the Quran and the Sunnah as Maulana has done. He was scholar, reformer, revolutionary leader, and an Islamic thinker. His belief that preaching, printed literature, and even Islamic education is of little avail unless Islam can be implemented practically in a full blooded Islamic state was behind the fervor with which he argued for the two-nation theory. Maulana Maududi’s greatest contribution of the time was that he made Muslims cognizant of their identity and raised in them a fervor to organize their polity on the principles of Islam. While Quaid-i-Azm Mohammad Ali Jinnah was mustering the forces to fight the Hindus and the British for a Muslim homeland, a group of nationalist Muslims were undermining his efforts by pedling the congress’ theme of one country, one nation. Unfortunately, among the nationalist Muslims, there were many ulema. A few of them had selfish reasons, but many were misled by their inability to look at the Hindu-Muslim problem in a thorough and comprehensive way. These ulema came to be known as Congressite ulema. They preached Indian nationalism in their speeches and writings as a gospel of truth. Muslim League, against the outpouring of the “learned and pious”, found itself in the corner with little argument to defend its two-nation theory. Maulana Maududi came to their rescue. Maulana, through his extremely prolific writings, built a conceptual framework for Muslims to analyze the claim of Indian nationalists, He showed that the independence of India will not be the independence of Muslims people. For Muslims, being in minority, independence would only mean a change in masters, British will be replaced by the Hindus and that would be no independence for Muslims. Maulana’s writings had aroused Muslim’s feelings that they were a nation by themselves and cannot be integrated with Hindus. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, a noted historian, writes: “Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi’s careful analysis of the policies of the Indian National Congress opened many eyes. It did not win him too many adherents and followers, but it did serve the purpose of turning sincere and intelligent Muslims away from the Congress who mostly swelled the ranks of the Muslim League as followers of Quaid-i-Azam.” (Ulema in Politics, Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Ma’reef limited, Karachi, 1974, p. 3391.) Here, it would not be inappropriate to briefly outline the background and psychology behind congressite ulema’s wanting in acumen and lack of insight into contemporary affairs which led them to swallow the hook, line and sinker thrown at them by Hindu Congress. They lived in ivory towers, and were oblivious to the changes that were taking place just outside of their Khanqahs secluded life of religious seminaries and an age long observed custom of taqlid (following a certain school of thought) deprived them of dynamism and turned their minds and hearts prisoners of their own doctrines. Religious knowledge and social sciences were separated which led to bifurcation of religious and profane world. As result, the graduates of religious seminaries were impoverished in the knowledge of politics, social sciences, economics, and international relations, which greatly restricted the insight into contemporary affairs. More sadly, mainly due to the shackles of age long traditional thinking, their capacity to apply the Quran and Sunnah to arrive to a solution to a modern problem (ijtihad) became stagnant. However, there were ulema, such as Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanavi among others, who were urbane, knowledgeable, and with insight in the national and international affairs, but they were few and far apart. The task of Maulana Maududi and others who were fighting the ideological war against Congress’ one-nation theory became massive and complex when the “leading lights” of religious seminaries swallowed the sugar-coated doctrine of Indian nationalism and wrote books and gave zealous speeches to convince Muslims to throw their lot with the Indian National Congress and give up their struggle for an independent Muslim state. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni, a great religious scholar of Deoband, was the leader of the Deoband Congressite ulema. He, in support of Indian nationalism wrote a book, “Mutahhedah qoomiyat aur Islam” (united nationalism and Islam). The burden of the preaching of Maulana Madni’s book was that the Muslims living in India were part of the monolithic Indian nation. He juxtaposed Muslims and Hindus into one nation, which brought strong condemnation from Allama Iqbal. He expressed his anger in a couplet in these words: “Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what monstrosity is this? He chanted from the pulpit that nations are created by countries. What an ignoramus regarding the position of Muhammad.” Maulana Madni indulged in “willful distortion” of Quranic verses, prophets traditions, and history to propound his theory of united nationalism. His book proved a boon for Congress to counter Muslim League’s claim to a separate nationhood. Maulana Maududi, an ardent proponent of two-nation theory, wrote a series of article to expose the fallacy of Maulana Madni’s position on “united nationalism”. He exhorted that Muslims were a distinct community and could not be submerged with Hindus without compromising the foundation of their faith. He pointed out that the united nationalism is a trap of deception which would lead to an utter destruction of the collective identity of Muslims. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, impressed by Maulana Maududi’s full dress rebuttal, writes: “In fact Mawlana Mawdudi’s rejoinder was so logical, authoritative, polite, and devastating that it was beyond the capacity of supporter of a united nationhood to counter. Mawlana Mawdudi’s superior scholarship, his telling arguments, his logic and his knowledge of modern concepts in political science and law made it impassible for the Jamiat group to answer his contentions. In fact Mufti Kifayat ul-llah who was a faqih (a jurist) “and, of the demand of logic and academic debate and, therefore more cognizant advised his colleagues against any attempt to continue the discussion, because he opined that Mawlana Mawdudi was in right and there was no point in attempting to defend the indefensible.” (see Ulema in Politics, page 351, 352) Muslim League had an attractive slogan of two-nation theory, but had no literature to convince the nationalist Muslims/Congressite ulema, the Hindus, and the British of the validity of its theory. Between 1937-39 Maulana Maududi wrote two remarkable books, “masla-i-quwmiyat” (The problem of nationalism), and “Musalman awr mawjudah siyasi kashmakash” (Muslims and the present political crisis). These two books provided Muslim League with the much needed intellectual ammunition to fight the nationalist movement. Study of these books were once considered a must for the leaders of Muslim League. It can be said with confidence that Maulana’s articles and books were landmarks in the path of struggle for Pakistan.

TO MY

 

[humblehobbes]

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I write in response to your mail, not in support of the one you replied. May I add that the intention is to clarify, not to enter into a quarrel.

First, you are perfectly correct in pointing out that secularism, the original western democratic liberal term, was separation of state and religion. It is another thing that Indian political leaders, in the early days after partition, due largely to impulses created by that very Two-Nation Theory that we really ought to be discussing, decided to recast secularism as equal acceptance of all religions by the state. I suspect that there was some genuflection to Gandhian thought implicit in this decision.

Even today, when 'secularism' is used in Indian political discourse, it is this adaptation of the concept that is being discussed, not the western version. So the BJP and the Sangh Parivar accuses the INC and similar of 'pseudo-secularism', on the grounds that the INC, and those parties deriving their idea of secularism from the INC, pamper the minorities, and do not really treat every religion on par. On the other hand, the INC retort is that special policies are needed to bring minorities forward, and quotas and preferential treatment and selection are all part of what today is called elsewhere affirmative action (not in India).

If you spend a little time on the subject, it will be apparent how the Two-Nation Theory, and the controversies swirling around it at the time of Independence, has influenced these stands today. That by itself, btw, is the justification for discussing these long-past subjects today; there is no lack of those who ask with perplexity what bearing the events of the 40s of the last century have to do with us. These aspects are how they affect us.

Second, I learnt early on in interacting with citizens of Pakistan that each Pakistani is an individual, with opinions of his or her own, and that it is insulting and also sloppy thinking to club them together. To say 'Pakistanis think....or say....or do' is lazy and inaccurate. A thought: the same thing applies to the Australians, the Bangladeshis, the Chinese, the Danes, the English, the French, the Germans, the Hungarians - you get the picture, I am sure, that the Icelanders, coming next in the list, are the same, and so on. The radix is after all a limited set of characters.

Third, it is regrettable that you should state that the State colluded in the Babri Masjid incident or that it had anything to do with the Gujarat riots. I am deliberately choosing neutral terms that I am not in the habit of using normally, so as not to give a handle to anyone to say that my words or definitions are incendiary in themselves.

The point is that in the Babri Masjid case, there was actual subversion of the administrative process, and a violation of the law by a party and its affiliates, and sworn by oath to uphold the constitution. This party and its affiliates were in power, having been elected to power. They were soon out of power, having been elected out, to some degree due to the fall-out of this incident. There was no question of the State having participated in this incident; any number of witnesses belonging to the state administration have come forward to record the subversion that took place, and allowed the incident to occur.

In the Gujarat case, too, the position is identical. A set of fascists took over the state machinery, based on deep indoctrination of the people of the state over decades, and managed to ensure that their rampaging mobs were not fired upon by the police, and that the police themselves were withheld.

Your statement that for believers in 'ahimsa', (you) sure massacre a lot of people now and then is unfortunate. I could respond in several ways, none of them including the 'tu quoque' argument that has been defined as " 'Your shirt is torn.' 'So what? Your fly is open.' " I refuse to use that last resort of the intellectually bankrupt.

It is sufficient to say that there have been failures of the state, and that political parties and politicians have not played a glorious role. No Indian, no thinking Indian denies or wishes to deny it; we would rather act to ensure that these do not recur, and move on.

As we write this, there is a dedicated band of Indians prosecuting the highest circles of the political party concerned to bring them to justice for inciting the mobs to break down the Babri Masjid; you will find on examination that all sections of Indian society are represented in that team of prosecutors, and that recently, the most damning evidence was presented in court by the personal security officer of Advani at that time, a Hindu woman police officer. Your words are a presumably unintentional slur on their honour and professional integrity.

So too the case of Gujarat. I am not a rich man, but I have done what I could in my personal capacity for the amelioration of the condition of those affected; it can only be amelioration, no earthly agency can make up to the bereaved the losses that they have suffered. Yet another set of people, Indians all, led by another Hindu woman and a team of lawyers of all persuasions, Teesta Setalvad and her team, and her associates, have been doggedly pursuing the perpetrators. It has come to the stage where the Supreme Court intervened, set up special mechanisms to look into the charges, and has kept an active eye on the proceedings. Teesta Setalvad and all her team have received numerous death threats, but continue without flinching.

I sincerely wish that before allowing your anger to dictate your words, before writing that awful last paragraph, you had thought of these facts.

Fourth, you will say that much time has been taken, and is being taken by the legal process. Yes, it is a fair complaint. I regret it as much as anyone else, having been the victim of the delays in the Indian legal process, as many of my other Indian friends may have been.

These were not delays especially designed to victimise the community you belong to, by the majority community in India. Other communities, other sections of society have been victimised; the law has acted, but it has acted at intervals similar to those seen in these two cases. Over the last one week, there has been a furore in the country over the verdict in the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy being delivered. That's 26 years; it was not intentional, that is the time our courts take, that is the saturation that they have been subjected to. There is a case in the Calcutta High Court that is more than 150 years old. Nobody likes the situation; there are various attempts at improving things. However, the bottom line is that nobody is delaying these deliberately to victimise a particular community.

While I understand that the events that you have mentioned stir deep emotion, I request you to consider things calmly and rationally, irrespective of the stand that is taken against you. It is to no effect to meet anger with anger, incivility with incivility and land up in a welter of curses against each other.

 

[Omar1984]

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.

Lets see what kind of countries majority of Pakistanis living outside Pakistan chose to live in:

Overseas Pakistanis:

Saudi Arabia----- 1,100,000
United Kingdom-- 1,000,000
United Arab Emirates 880,000
United States-------- 210,415
Canada------------- 124,730
Kuwait-------------- 100,000
Oman--------------- 85,000
Qatar---------------- 52,000


Theres not many things in common india has with the countries listed above. india has a 1.2 billion population. More than 900 million hindus, and india is a 3rd world developing country with the largest population of poor people living below the poverty line than any other country on earth.


I live a comfortable life here in U.S. (this country has everything and theres many opportunities here) and I get along well with Americans (Americans like to mind their own business here unlike indians), i think if i was living in india i would be having fights with everyone there.


However, this life in the west is only temporary. I will go back to Pakistan because Pakistan is my homeland and it sure feels good going there and hearing the azaan 5 times a day, getting halal food everwhere, I can pray anywhere there and no one will stare, everyone is like you and you dont feel any different from the person next to you. (i just feel hindus are very different from us, we have more things in common with Christians and Jews than we do with hindus, and on top of that the hindu population in india is so much 900 million, Pakistan's total population is just 170 million).

 

[Waffen SS]

The two nation theory is nothing but an attempt by the punjabi majority to refuse the existence of other ethnicities in Pakistan.

It resulted in 1971 and the flawed two-nation theory was sunk in the bay of bengal.

I don't blame INDIRA GHANDI and INDIA for what happened back then. This what an adversary is supposed to do. It is absolutely natural.

The ones who broke the fatherland back then, now claim to be patriots. They denied East Pakistanis their rights and converted them into BANGALESE.

This whole idea of a single identity or culture for all Pakistanis is never going to be acceptable to large number of pakistanis including me.

 

[billi]

The problem is the screwed up notion of secularism that is perpetuated in India. Somehow being nice to Muslims is considered secularism.

This is big brother attitude, not secularism. This allows Hindus to GRANT freedoms to Muslims as if they were not their RIGHT to begin with.

Secularism just means that one has the right to practise any religion she wants and that will not be a cause for discrimination.
thats all. all else is nonsense.
You are from Pak. Your constitution says that you are muslim country. You have no idea about how a secular country should be or not be. So neither are you or your compatriots entitled nor qualified to pass judgement on religious freedom. If so , start a campaign to make pakistan secular and stop ill treating your minority, including fellow ahmadi muslims.

 

[billi]

The two nation theory is nothing but an attempt by the punjabi majority to refuse the existence of other ethnicities in Pakistan.

It resulted in 1971 and the flawed two-nation theory was sunk in the bay of bengal.

I don't blame INDIRA GHANDI and INDIA for what happened back then. This what an adversary is supposed to do. It is absolutely natural.

The ones who broke the fatherland back then, now claim to be patriots. They denied East Pakistanis their rights and converted them into BANGALESE.

This whole idea of a single identity or culture for all Pakistanis is never going to be acceptable to large number of pakistanis including me.

pakistan is a flawed entity based on muslim muslim bhai bhai. In reality only the most powerful group within that entity grabbed all the power and are suppressing the rest.

 

[billi]

I write in response to your mail, not in support of the one you replied. May I add that the intention is to clarify, not to enter into a quarrel.

First, you are perfectly correct in pointing out that secularism, the original western democratic liberal term, was separation of state and religion. It is another thing that Indian political leaders, in the early days after partition, due largely to impulses created by that very Two-Nation Theory that we really ought to be discussing, decided to recast secularism as equal acceptance of all religions by the state. I suspect that there was some genuflection to Gandhian thought implicit in this decision.

Even today, when 'secularism' is used in Indian political discourse, it is this adaptation of the concept that is being discussed, not the western version. So the BJP and the Sangh Parivar accuses the INC and similar of 'pseudo-secularism', on the grounds that the INC, and those parties deriving their idea of secularism from the INC, pamper the minorities, and do not really treat every religion on par. On the other hand, the INC retort is that special policies are needed to bring minorities forward, and quotas and preferential treatment and selection are all part of what today is called elsewhere affirmative action (not in India).

If you spend a little time on the subject, it will be apparent how the Two-Nation Theory, and the controversies swirling around it at the time of Independence, has influenced these stands today. That by itself, btw, is the justification for discussing these long-past subjects today; there is no lack of those who ask with perplexity what bearing the events of the 40s of the last century have to do with us. These aspects are how they affect us.

Second, I learnt early on in interacting with citizens of Pakistan that each Pakistani is an individual, with opinions of his or her own, and that it is insulting and also sloppy thinking to club them together. To say 'Pakistanis think....or say....or do' is lazy and inaccurate. A thought: the same thing applies to the Australians, the Bangladeshis, the Chinese, the Danes, the English, the French, the Germans, the Hungarians - you get the picture, I am sure, that the Icelanders, coming next in the list, are the same, and so on. The radix is after all a limited set of characters.

Third, it is regrettable that you should state that the State colluded in the Babri Masjid incident or that it had anything to do with the Gujarat riots. I am deliberately choosing neutral terms that I am not in the habit of using normally, so as not to give a handle to anyone to say that my words or definitions are incendiary in themselves.

The point is that in the Babri Masjid case, there was actual subversion of the administrative process, and a violation of the law by a party and its affiliates, and sworn by oath to uphold the constitution. This party and its affiliates were in power, having been elected to power. They were soon out of power, having been elected out, to some degree due to the fall-out of this incident. There was no question of the State having participated in this incident; any number of witnesses belonging to the state administration have come forward to record the subversion that took place, and allowed the incident to occur.

In the Gujarat case, too, the position is identical. A set of fascists took over the state machinery, based on deep indoctrination of the people of the state over decades, and managed to ensure that their rampaging mobs were not fired upon by the police, and that the police themselves were withheld.

Your statement that for believers in 'ahimsa', (you) sure massacre a lot of people now and then is unfortunate. I could respond in several ways, none of them including the 'tu quoque' argument that has been defined as " 'Your shirt is torn.' 'So what? Your fly is open.' " I refuse to use that last resort of the intellectually bankrupt.

It is sufficient to say that there have been failures of the state, and that political parties and politicians have not played a glorious role. No Indian, no thinking Indian denies or wishes to deny it; we would rather act to ensure that these do not recur, and move on.

As we write this, there is a dedicated band of Indians prosecuting the highest circles of the political party concerned to bring them to justice for inciting the mobs to break down the Babri Masjid; you will find on examination that all sections of Indian society are represented in that team of prosecutors, and that recently, the most damning evidence was presented in court by the personal security officer of Advani at that time, a Hindu woman police officer. Your words are a presumably unintentional slur on their honour and professional integrity.

So too the case of Gujarat. I am not a rich man, but I have done what I could in my personal capacity for the amelioration of the condition of those affected; it can only be amelioration, no earthly agency can make up to the bereaved the losses that they have suffered. Yet another set of people, Indians all, led by another Hindu woman and a team of lawyers of all persuasions, Teesta Setalvad and her team, and her associates, have been doggedly pursuing the perpetrators. It has come to the stage where the Supreme Court intervened, set up special mechanisms to look into the charges, and has kept an active eye on the proceedings. Teesta Setalvad and all her team have received numerous death threats, but continue without flinching.

I sincerely wish that before allowing your anger to dictate your words, before writing that awful last paragraph, you had thought of these facts.

Fourth, you will say that much time has been taken, and is being taken by the legal process. Yes, it is a fair complaint. I regret it as much as anyone else, having been the victim of the delays in the Indian legal process, as many of my other Indian friends may have been.

These were not delays especially designed to victimise the community you belong to, by the majority community in India. Other communities, other sections of society have been victimised; the law has acted, but it has acted at intervals similar to those seen in these two cases. Over the last one week, there has been a furore in the country over the verdict in the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy being delivered. That's 26 years; it was not intentional, that is the time our courts take, that is the saturation that they have been subjected to. There is a case in the Calcutta High Court that is more than 150 years old. Nobody likes the situation; there are various attempts at improving things. However, the bottom line is that nobody is delaying these deliberately to victimise a particular community.

While I understand that the events that you have mentioned stir deep emotion, I request you to consider things calmly and rationally, irrespective of the stand that is taken against you. It is to no effect to meet anger with anger, incivility with incivility and land up in a welter of curses against each other.

Very beautifully written. Are you a writer of some sort

 

[billi]

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.

thats what you have been taught in Pakistan schools. If you really look at it there was no such thing. No kid was forced to sing VM before 1947. Wonder where you got that source from. It is all just an excuse .

 

[Bang Galore]

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

.

Another Strawman ! Maybe even bordering on Dissembling !

Who argued that Z community is incompatible. What the heck, for your sake we would be willing to make them an offer if they want to accept. The British never claimed to be one nation with India. Pakistan was carved out of India as the homeland for Muslims. A portion of the X community-X(y) did not accept the thesis that X is incompatible with Y and preferred to stay with Y immediately bringing into question the theory that X is incompatible with Y.

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

The problem with that is once you have gone down that road in your argument, you open yourself to this:

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?

So, where do you stop? When you deem it convenient? After all if the above is accepted and considering that X/2 happened in 1971 causing X1 & X2 over non religious differences, then X1 could be further divided by the acceptance of further incompatibility within X1. After all wouldn't you be the outsider in some or all of the cases?

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.

One could and they would probably be right. I don't think a united country was tenable after so much bad blood had been created. It would have been held hostage to religious bigots on both sides and no movement would have been possible because most voting would have happened along religious lines with everyone petrified of being called a traitor. I have argued on another thread that partition on a practical scale was the best thing to happen to India because it removed grounds for high level of religious tension because of the changed numerical situation. I don't think that changes in personal laws would have taken place in an atmosphere charged with religious tension and we would have been worse off for it. I don't even want to think about the foreign policy of such a state.

My point was just that on a personal level, it reinforced bigotry in both communities and made it that much easier to vilify the other. My argument was on the moral plane, not on the practical one.Maybe a point of agreement here?

 

[billi]

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.

thats what you guys think because in your country you have only oppression by majority ( punjabi sunnis oppressing ahmadi muslims).
In fact all of you are shortsighted to understand that the muslims would have been 35% of the population and would be winning elections everytime.
I would say it was the failure of Jinnah to foresee such an eventuality.
Also, there is no country(except india) where a significant muslim population has let the power belong to other religions. That mentality and land ownership are the 2 main causes for partition. the rest are just excuses masqueraded as reason.
I am also extremely glad that India was partitioned. in fact I will be glad if UN resolutions are done on kashmir . It would give a great reason to declare india a hindu country. I think that will end the bloodshed.

 

[billi]

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.

haha.. india is as secular as secularism can be. Your country has defined itself to be fundamentalist in your constitution.

 

[Bang Galore]

Gandhi: "I'm a Hindu therefore I'm an Indian"

And you forget this:

"I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, I am a Jew - and so are all of you." - Gandhi

On the other hand, how could you not forget it.
It is the antithesis of everything you stand for.

 

[billi]

Nobody said getting secularism is easy. Look at Pakistan, the leader talked about secularism till the very end, the next generation effed it all up.

The reason that Indian government appeases Mullahs is so that they don't have to act upon the blatant acts of violation of secularism. The state of Gujarat was killing Muslims in vengeance - 'Secular' India did nothing but re-elect Modi.

you think so because you dont understand anything but revenge , force and fighting. the State had nothing to do with the killing of muslims, just as the state did not burn hindus in a train.

muslimes buurned hindus, hindu mobs killed muslims . both acts are despicable. the state was merely incompetent in its response. Sources from the scene tell me that the police were scared to intervene and face thousands of armed rioters because they were not properly equipped. And this happens is a problem in india(remember when pakistani terrorsits hit mumbai, initially the cops only had lathis and wwII rifles as defnce)
So it is only the opposition parties who are giving a communal colour to this. Modi is a hero in Guj because he has done so much for the state including its muslims. modi can be in Guj what Jinnah is to you guys.