The Lahore Resolution was based on the ‘Two-nation theory’ which claimed that India was inhabited by two nations — Hindus and Muslims — and that both these ‘nations’ required a separate homeland for themselves. This theory, as time as shown, was very simplistic in its outlook. While religion is certainly a strong marker of identity, this theory assumed that religion was the sole basis of identity and that people with the same religion naturally formed one nation.
This theory showed problems even before the partition of India when the Khudai Khidmatgar movement, a nationalist yet very religious movement, led by Abdul Ghaffar Khan in the Frontier province disagreed with the ‘fear of Hindus’ concept and aligned his party with the Indian National Congress. Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s movement was based in the Pakhtun concept of ‘Pakhtunwali’ whereby anyone, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, observing its principles was part of the Pakhtun community and treated as an equal. Ghaffar Khan was a very conservative Muslim, but his personal faith did not deter him from making common cause with Gandhi in promoting non-violence and toleration — with both inspired by their own respective faiths. Similarly, the Unionist party, a composite party of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, was the best example of political cooperation between people who were supposed to be so different. People like Sir Fazl-e-Hussain were pioneers of the idea that Hindus and Muslims can indeed work together and showed cooperation, in fact, in the Punjab.
Fate had it that the proponents of the ‘two-nation’ theory won the day and established Pakistan. However, the theory did not stop being significant after the creation of Pakistan. The concept of a two-nation theory negated the existence of differences amongst the Muslims of Pakistan. So the Baloch could not argue for autonomy, the Bengalis could not get their language recognised as an official language and the making of Sindhi an official language in the Sindh was termed an act of secession by some quarters in Pakistan. The persistence of this two-nation theory has not only thwarted the creation of a multicultural identity in Pakistan, but also adversely affected the Muslims living in India. Not only did the 140 million Muslims in India had to grapple with the fact that their upper and educated class had mostly moved to Pakistan, they had to, and in some cases still have to, convince their fellow Indians that they are not fifth columnists for Pakistan. After all, a legitimate argument could be made that since Pakistan had been created for the ‘Muslim nation,’ there was no place for them in what was supposed to be a ‘Hindu’ nation.
On the 72nd anniversary of the Lahore Resolution, however, let me posit another ‘two-nation’ theory. This new theory is based on India and Pakistan as two distinct nations which work together on topics of mutual concern and benefit. I recently visited Delhi and was rather surprised to note that even when I spoke very good Urdu, people recognised that I was from Pakistan, and even the most Muslim of neighbourhoods in old Delhi seemed ‘foreign’ to me. I know this is a generalisation but the separation of nearly 65 years has created significant distinctions between the polities of Pakistan and India.
Therefore, the time has come to refashion the old two-nation theory into one which takes citizens of India and Pakistan as basic members. After all, except for the extreme right there is no constituency in India which wants to annul the partition and most Indians would actually like a strong and prosperous Pakistan with which they can trade and visit. The Muslims in India, too, want to develop independent of a reference to Pakistan — after all, they are as Indian as anyone else. Similarly, there are at least five million non-Muslims in Pakistan, who want to be recognised as full citizens of the country and not live like an uneasy appendage to the Muslim majority. Such a two-nation theory I would like to believe in.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 27th, 2012.
COMMENTS (79)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713853507-0/MalalaHilary-(2)1713853507-0-270x192.webp)
There has been much discussion here about India as never being a nation. I wonder when they were naming oceans around the world, why is it that the only ocean in the world that is named after a nation is named after India? What was that India they named an entire ocean after? Not a nation? If so, what was it? Just a figment of imagination throughout the world? How did the world visualize this land as? And, why? When all those explorers, like Columbus and Vasco de Gama and even some Chinese guy, who left their homelands to find "India", which country was their destination and which people they were seeking to engage with? They knew the answers to those questions very well. World didn't start to record its history around 700AD!!!!!
@geeko: You problem is that you desperately want an identity for yourself and for Pakistan, but it is as elusive as a mirage on a hot summer day. So the only thing you can do is bash the Indian Identity.
Even your beloved Iqbal once proudly chanted, 'Hindi hai hum... watan hai Hindustan hamara'. For him Hindustan was his identity and 'Jannat'. So get a grip on your emotions and use a bit of logic instead. On the other hand, it might be too much to expect that you understand.
OK - all is well that ends well. Leave others, we Indians are happy to be Indians.
@ YURI I guess must be in afool paradise....partition was an optimistic reality which needed to be done for sure....!
Super!, what a theory!!!, I am just speechless at the surface and simplistic knowledge of the writer about our history, events, and ideologies. It is pity that he is a history teacher.
@kaalchakra: " ... Not all. Except for the Hindus and Sikhs there, for instance, Kashmiris, as Geeko would confirm, were Persians. ... "
I see, your historians have released a new edition of Pakistan Studies.
@Geeko "Pakistan was never a part of India, because the Republic of India was born one day after the Republic of Pakistan, in the 40s." 14th of August day of Independence, this is the biggest lie has been pulled off on the people of Pakistan by persons like you since 1947. Both Pakistan and India became dominions exactly at the same time.Kindly read the Independence Act of India which received the Royal assent on 18th of July 1947 Clause(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan. I hope this will help you.
@truebluepakistani:
Keep dreaming. You mind me of Emperor Nero who fiddled as Rome burnt !!
India was and is a nation long before any notion of nation was developed .Rigweda has mention that the land between Himalaya to sea is one.Ramayana and Mahabharat has mention all the places of India. Politically India may be fragmented for many years in her long history,but India was and is always one culturally and spiritually.It is clearly mention in Mudraraksham (Play written about Chandragupta Maurya ) that when Alexander attacked India,Chanakya was teacher in Takshsila university,he went Patiliputra and pleaded to Dhananda to save India form foreigner. In modern time We seek inspiration and cherish our civilization our culture which is unique from rest of world, diverse but one form Himalaya to Indian Ocean.Now the problem is if our western neighbor does not justify that India was never been a one united country in past, their own existence will be questioned, so they will do.We Indian know who we are but I don’t know much about Pakistan. Is Pakistan Arab country or Turkish or Kurdish or Iranian or Egyptian or Indian???
@gp65:I would be very happy if he was just being sarcastic .
@jagjit sidhoo: I think Bablo was sarcastically commenting on the lies propagated by Pak cschool history books. He appears to be a very well read person and is unlikely to truly hold the opinion he expressed.
@Babloo: Before the invasion by Alexander ,Muhammad bin Qasim and the others that followed there was a" local population" . Majority of the population of Pakistan and North India are descendants of this local population as the invaders were few in number and a large number of them went back with the loot . Some of the invaders did settle down in the region and their descendants are very much here but the majority of the population are the descendants of that "local population" .
@ Suresh Your comment suggest that You do not know what 'holy book' permits or does not permit. But you are not alone, unfortunately too many muslims also do not know what 'the holy book' permits.If they had known and lived by it Pakistan would have been an enviable place. Mr Asad was excited to move to Pakistan in '47, and left in disgust in .51.If you are ,interested in knowing who he is, acquire book "THE ROAD to MECCA'" by Mohmmad Asad, If you want to know what book permits or not , get his translation "The Message of The Quran'' he was an Austrian jew by birth.
as long as behind curtain destructive policies keeps on planning, i am against these theories, concepts or liberal relations. forget about goodie-goodie relationship.
How does the good author feel about his liberal intellectualism and the rejection by our "Indian brothers"?
Geeko, great comment and argument. the indians will never understand because they don't want to.
Babloo
Not all. Except for the Hindus and Sikhs there, for instance, Kashmiris, as Geeko would confirm, were Persians. (Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs were economic migrants from UP, Bihar, and Punjab, invited by the Dogra rule to oppress the native Persians).
YKB,
Excellent article. Had I been a Pakistani liberal (thank the Most Gracious and Most Merciful Allah that I don't need to be one), this precisely is what I would have been saying all along. Pakistan exists because it exists. At least now. It doesn't need a 'reason' to exist. Never have I heard a single non-lunatic Indian wonder or ask why India exists.
In all sincerity, please please please avoid Aitzaz Ahsan typed of foolishness. There was far more sense in Jinnah's TNT than will ever be deciphered in Aitzaz Ahsan's. If as a liberal, you seriously love your land, don't saddle it with another 'national' falsehood in trying to save it from one kind of falsehood.
(IVC is a beautiful idea but it is not and was not Pakistan. Don't conflate the two.)
Best.
I agree with the author and his attempt to have a fresher look at TNT.We can't rewrite history, but can create a better future.
@geeko Seriously dude? Indian IDENTITY, of course there has always been an INDIAN identity, did you even read what i wrote or just thought of typing anything you can...India has always existed and people living here and culture that developed here became INDIAN.
What is Pakistan?...Barring the Islamist ideology(The only ideology that binds Pakistan). Without the historical India, what is the connection between Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Pakhtunhwa(and FATA)...nothing. The Pakhtuns originally are part of Afghanistan, they shouldn't be taking orders from Islamabad, but rather they should live with other Pakhtun on the other side of the British drawn 'Durand Line'. Balochistan has no cultural heritage to share with Punjab or even Sindh, its a culture close to Persian culture. And Sindh, pre partition Sindh was close in culture and lifestyle to Gujarat in west India rather than Punjab. By your logic, they should all be separate countries.
The only genesis of creation of today's Pakistan is that these regions were muslim majority regions of INDIA, i.e "Indian Islamist Nationalism". India is still a passive part of this nationalism. The fact that you speak in Urdu is evident of this, Urdu is from North India, not Punjab, Sindh, or even Kashmir.
Had Pakistan been a unique, exclusive, self-sustaining nation(culturally ), Hindi films, music, TV shows from India would not have been so popular in Pakistan.
Pakistan was created out of a religious, Islamist ideology, there is no secular rationale for creation of Pakistan...you are insulting Jinnah(a Gujarati Bombayite) by saying that Pakistan's identity is not on the basis of religion.
A majority of Pakistanis are different that a majority of Indians in language, genetic composition, ethnicity, religion, diet, history, pre-history, complexion, culture.
I thought Pakistanis were overwhelming Arabs ? Did I misunderstand history after reading Pak history books ? Will some historian correct me ?
@James: Here we go again : was there an Indian IDENTITY ? Yes, or no ? Of course, NO! Of course Vasco De Gama & co. would call it "Hindustan" because the majority were practising Hinduism, a "religion" which back then wasn't even defined (please, don't now throw at me the "Sanathana Dharma" mantras) ; it was a GENERIC term for the territory that they wanted to occupy/visit/... but the PEOPLES were not "Indians".
It's like in South Asia, we speak of "goray". But do you think that in Western Europe they consider themselves "White" in terms of NATIONAL IDENTITY ? Of course, NOT. In the same manner, outsiders needed a term to encompasses the whole area.
And, being honest, you're not the paragon of perfection which appeal us either and as I said, we don't want to join India either, don't know why you still keep saying that as if there was indeed a demand : I agree though, we're not the same because of the past 60 years, you're Indians, and we're Pakistanis.
(I'm originally from Kashmir by the way, so much for "Punjab-centric")
@geeko You are mixing the concept of "nation" with "nation-state".
India became a 'nation state' under British coz the western concept of nation-state was introduced by them.
India as a 'nation' has always existed. 'Hindustan' is a Persian name of 'Bharat', just like 'India' is its western name. 'Bharat' as a nation has always existed, since the days of Vedas(there is no written history of the country before that) till today. Read about Alexander, he didn't set off to conquer, "Indus region" or "Panjab", he came to conquer INDIA. All the Greek records mention the region including the eastern cities Pataliputra, as INDIA, i.e one unit. Vasco Da Gama is known for discovering trade routes to INDIA, not Kerala(where he landed), Colombus started his trip for INDIA(hence the name "Red Indians" for native Americans). INDIA, as a cultural, geographic, singular enitity has ALWAYS existed.
Pakistan as a geographic, cultural entity has no "independent" history. Your problem is exactly what Pakistani state is often accused of, being 'Punjab centric'. For you Balochistan is also Punjab, Pakhtuns also "wanted to live near Indus" etc. You are just assuming everything.
Nobody in India, even has a trickle of dream to join land with Pakistan(or as the right wingers say, "occupy Pakistan"), coz you are not worth it(being honest) and also, coz after 65 years, we are different people.
The only basis of creation of Pakistan as a country was "ideology" and that "ideology" was Islam. I am a Christian by religion yet I am saying this.
Here is it .Article written in a well proposed propaganda against Two-nation theory.it's a street fashion to abuse and put a smile on two-nation theory .Point is ,we as Pakistani stick to our oldish classic two-nation theory .we are open for debate but emotions must not be hurt.how this is possible that one-sided trade going well under nose of trade ministry and liberal intellectuals said that would be OK one day"!.allot of complications are there. Pakistan is 18 crore people market .Indians know this! I have friends in India .we debate on issues .we argue ,challenge each other.Don't have hatred in heart!
If we look at Africa,colonial powers have divided the landmass into 54 countries. The fault lines of tribalism,language and religion have been exploited to the hilt. Third World populations let hate against other ethnic groups overpower any alternate unifying thoughts.From the Hutu-Tutsi conflict to Boko Haram in Nigeria or clashes between Sudan and South Sudan,all mirror the problems of the subcontinent. To conclude -- the West is smarter than the Third World countries
@geeko: You seriously need some lessons in ancient Indian History. Just to correct the concept of 'nation state' is western but concept of 'nation' is very old. Mentioned in Vedas, India or Bharat (named after emperor Bharat) has been clearly defined by its geographically boundaries. Incase you don't know Vedas are the oldest scriptures in the world, came into being long before your religion even existed. Or read the OECD report by Angus Maddison easily available on their website to familiarize yourself with India.
@Anurag Singh (@anuragiiith): Huh ? I was replying to one Indian who thought that Pakistanis wanted to join India, please read the rest of the posts before commentating.
@geeko: Buddy Don't be so hyper. I know Majority of pakistanis don't want to merge with India. I respect that and don't even want that. For your kind information majority of Indians also don't want to merge with paklstan. Both these facts are realities but due to different reasons and I think you know the reasons. So live and let live. :)
@Faisal: And when was India covering exactly today's territory ? Under Ashoka ? Aurangzeb ? As you said, there was no concept of nation, that's why there was no idea of "being Indian", so my ancestors or your ancestors were not seeing themselves as "Indian", it didn't exist, as I said, there's a common civilizational heritage which belongs as much to Pakistan as it belongs to India or to Sri Lanka, but you can't say that we were "a part" of India, as if India was a nation since immemorial times ; if you do believe so, you have to believe the other way, that India was a part of Pakistan, too. Also, it hasn't to do with a name : Pakistan was coined in the 30s and is literally an anagram for the country's region, think otherwise... if today's India was named, don't know, Nehrunistan (huh) and Pakistan India, I'm sure that you would have said "Nehrunistan has always been a part of India... give me the ancient name of Nehrunistan ?" That's a tricky question, it's not because India and Indus have three letters in common that the former encompasses the latter.
Again, the IVC covered all of Pakistan, and minor parts of north India and even Afghanistan, but where did I said that it was exclusively in Pakistan ? Read me again, I talked about Rajasthan, Gujurat, ... but it doesn't change the fact that the whole of Pakistan was encompassed by the IVC.
And don't see why you used the old categories of Max Muelle & co, like "Indo Aryan" or "Iranic", the Brahuis of Balochistan speak a Dravidian language but don't feel close to India at all either, languages don't say anything about culture, otherwise Afghanistan wouldn't know ethnic problems, and Urdu is just a language, it doesn't "Indianize" at all.
@Geeko Saying that "Republic of India" was born in 1947 and before that there was no India, is like saying that "People's Republic of China" was born in 1949 and before that there was no China or like before Saudi Arabia, there was no Arabia. India is an age old nation, Hindustan is its Persian name, its original name is "Bharat", just like China's real name is "Zhonghua"...The concept of Nation State is a western concept which came mcuh later...Pakistan on the other hand never had a political autonomy or identity, can you give the ancient independent name of the region known as Pakistan.
Baloch and Pashtuns have never been a part of "Indus", Baloch are culturally closer to Iranians and Pashtuns are culturally closer to Central Asians. In terms of language, Punjabis and Sindhis speak "Indo-Aryan languages" like North Indians, whereas Baloch and Pashtuns speak "Iranian languages"...Just coz some westerner, thought that Pakhtuns "preferred to live around" Indus does not mean it is true
IVC was not mainly in Pakistan, most cities of IVC are in India in different parts of Indian Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana etc(Which geographically is as big as the whole Pakistan.
Pakistanis speak Urdu and the whole culture is Urdu centric, from songs to poetry to literature, which is not essentialy a Pakistani language
@Yuri Kondratyuk: More to Poet Iqbal and Mr Jinnah than Patel,Nehru- Gandhi Tag team almost ruined the Party,they almost rained on the parade.Read History correctly,you still get 80% mark,well done!
@Ishant: I tend to agree with you,I'm such Indian from South,Have absolutely no feeling one way or other,unlike North of India,I do not even have an iota of hate or dislike for Pakistan,only know this much(a realist,oil and water do not mix,Islam and Hinduism are opposite and contradictory,it does not matter to Hindus,but it matters to Islam,that's way it is),so no harm to India/hindu,we live with other religions,Islam is just one more,but Muslims can not think that way,they got to be better,superior ,only one who are Right)
@truebluepakistani:
As an Indian i agree with you, Pakistan is the best country for Muslims and India for Hindus
Those muslims who wish to live in Pakistan,should be given Pakistani passports whereas those Hindus who want to come to India should be given Indian Passports
@wonderer: Land-owners of Punjab were against not only the creation of Pakistan, but also against the independence from the British Raj in its first stage. Just take a look at the policies of the Unionist Party of Punjab (which represented the region's bourgeoisie, Sikhs and Hindus incl.) before the urge from the masses for Pakistan.
@Yuri Kondratyuk: Was India prosperous in the 40s ? In the 50s ? In the 60s ? In the 70s ? In the 80s ? India began to be "prosperous" since recently because of the economic liberalization in the late 80s, I can tell you that in this period of time, the one preceding it and until today, majority of Pakistan don't want to be a part of India
@Ishant: Who said that we are the "same peoples" ? Not me. Peoples who do it, from either nation, are factually incorrect, and as you pointed out, many, many ethnic groups from both countries don't feel the holistic idea of "we're all the same".
@Faisal: Pakistan was never a part of India, because the Republic of India was born one day after the Republic of Pakistan, in the 40s. There was a common civilization but it wasn't "India", there was no Indian identity, "Hindustan" itself being a term coined by foreign invaders. A Punjabi and a Tamil certainly didn't feel being of the same group, esp. if the former was Sikh or Muslim.
About Balochistan, Mehrgarh can tell us a lot, and concerning the tribal areas, the Pashtuns in this region, as Sir Olaf Caroe notes in his book "the Pathans", have always preferred to live around the Indus than with their West Asian brothers, thanks to the climate, and if Abdur Rahman Khan, himself a nationalist Pashtun, agreed on limiting the Durrand line next to Peshawar, he knew that disconnecting the Pashtuns of Peshawar and surroundings would affect them economically.
@Geeko cultural history called “the Indus spirit”… but “some” (who weren’t for the creation of Pakistan to begin with) can find frustrating to see Hindus and Sikhs from north Indian (not only Punjab) as part of our cultural being, if we subscribe to a non-religious, but socio-cultural justification of Pakistan’s existence.
Firstly, "Indus spirit"??, then what about Balochistan or Tribal regions?
Secondly, Pakistan does not have an independent history, since the time of civilization, the geographical region, known as "Pakistan", has always had a shared history with India or others. Read the history and you will find, that the geographic Pakistan has never been a politically independent territory(except for the 50 years of Sikh empire), it has always been a part of India based empires like Maurya, Gupta, Pala, Sunga Empire, Delhi sultanate, Mughal, Maratha, British India, Persia based empires like Achaemenid Empire, Sassanid Empire etc Arab caliphates or Afghan based empires. even Indus valley civilization is not geographically Pakistani, 5/8 I V civilization cities are in India. Even Urdu is not an "Indus language", its from North India(Ganges-Yamuna doab).
I think this article makes a lot of sense.
@Elhaan Khan:
You say that India is a prized catch that's worth controlling and being part of because it's prosperous now. But, if there were no partition, the disease of religious extremism and terrorism would have engulfed and ruined India. Just imagine state sponsored LeT hate rallies in Bangalore!! We Indians are forever indebted to Sardar Patel for seeing through the plans of British and the Muslim League.
When we talk about the "we are the same people" thing between India and Pakistan, we are only talking about some selected parts, In India its only the 'North Indians' and in Pakistan its only the people from Punjab and Sindh, who have a cultural bondage with each other(including the partition migrants). South Indians in India and North-Western Pakistanis(Pashtuns, Baloch, Hazara etc) do not share this view of "we are the same people".
@Ishant: Hold on man, no one in Pakistan wants to join India either, it's not a kind of "charity" that you're giving to us, and as I said, we indeed don't have any substantial similarities (and about the Punjabis, can tell you that Lahore is no more Punjab's cultural capital, but a bunch who tries to speak a mercurial Urdu out of shame) and we should continue our national paths without considering the Other in terms of competition.
@Elhaan Khan:
There was never a valid two-nation-theory, and there will never be another.
Here is the most important argument, which proves that the Two Nation Theory was wrong, and creation of Pakistan was not the outcome of this theory.
URDU the National Language of Pakistan came into being only because Hindus and Muslims lived together in harmony, and they were culturally united. Otherwise the birth of a language synthesizing Hindustani and Persian was not possible.
Pakistan was created by the feudal land owners in Punjab and Sindh to protect their interests, which they successfully accomplished and are still enjoying the fruits of.
If Muslims are one Nation, why then is Pakistan not at peace with itself?
In fact I think many people in Pakistan don't realize, that the common Hindus in India do not actually have anything against the partition, its only the Muslims and the Hindu migrants(from Pakistani side of Punjab and Sindh) who were upset about the partition, that too only for the few years in the beginning. We Indians have no desire to join Pakistan in India, to be honest Pakistan is not really an attractive asset. We should live like normal neighbors, its been 65 years, we are not the same people anymore. We are just two neighbors with some "similarities".
@Mir: Well, actually Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism... are a part of the Indus spirit in my book, that's why I said that it's the only conceptual paradigm which promotes tolerance of religious or ethnic minorities. We can't go on with our belligerent anti-India rhetoric for eternity. Also, a lot of peoples think that Pakistan was created in opposition to another nation (mainly, a so called "Hindu" India) whereas the names I mentioned earlier - amongst others - have shown that Pakistan was actually born before Pakistan..
Sir, you are right. Remembering rather recalling history is good for childern to teach, but one has to live every second of today. There is a realisation on both side of borders for living in todays world. This is what our piliticians, bureaucracy, military men, media persons and other opinion makers have to learn as well. They need to devote their time and enregy (with sincerity) towards living in harmony and tranquillity for welware of ordinary pleople of both countires which is a reality on the face of earth.
A Peshawary
Ayesha, by your logic, the Christians, Shias, Ahmedis, are perfectly justified in asking for separate countries of their own carved out of Pakistan. After all, they are being discriminated against for the last 65 years and now are starting to be murdered outright.
brilliant article. How does two nation theory curb diversity and individuality is something new to me
@geeko: although we need new ideology im not sure about how much indus spirit will be accepted , i think new meaning to two nation theory could be based ons emphasis on minority rights blended with all inclusive, tolerant ethos of indus valley civilization. The philosphy of inclusiveness, spiritualism,tolerance and diversity from budha to contemporary times sufism must be included in our textbook and must be promoted as a policy by state.
Long back a teacher told me that qualification is just an entry card to get into an office, you have to prove everyday your significance. Doctor will get a job if he is qualified but patients need medicine and not taweez of doctor’s degree. Same is the case of the two nation theory. It was good to get a country but to run a country you need to feed people and any theory cant cook food. People say that that two nation theory was drowned after 1971 but actually that was the prime test of it and it passed. Bangladesh is still a muslim country despite all what happened. I live in uae and see uae national being proud of being an new identity “emirati” because emirates feeds its small population very well and nobody asks them whts this rather new identity. One more thing, if a mother doesn’t feed its baby and baby later kills the mother, wht does that mean? Mother love theory is wrong?
What use can we put the new two-nation-theory to, if any?
You are right for the most part except to say India "was supposed to be a ‘Hindu’ nation." (Para 4 last line). At no time was India supposed to be a "Hindu nation" -- not then, and certainly not now. At all times, India worked towards being a secular, multireligious, multiethnic, multilingual nation -- and it is still a work in progress. And that is the principal difference between India and Pakistan. As for you romantic and utopian hopes, it's utterly noble, but a majority of your countrymen, brain addled by doctored history, won't allow it to happen. And there are not enough visionary or powerful enough liberal leaders to show the way. Too bad.
do u really think that this NATION STATE nationalism will work in the absence of accepting ethnic, cultural diversities ? south asia is a home of different etinicities and without accepting them and their continuity no nation state nationalism works. while re-framing two nation theory u forgot bengalis esp bangladesh. i think there is no room of ONE NATION OR TWO NATION THEORY. such point of view was there even in iqbals allahbad adress 1930.
"Therefore, the time has come to refashion the old two-nation theory into one which takes citizens of India and Pakistan as basic members.''In a secular country every citizen is a basic(equal) member why not just use the word secular?
Separation was a great thing for both India and Pakistan. Both can live as first class citizens in there own country.
Imagine what would have happened had the countries not separated ?
Riots and violence
@athiest, we don't want to go to those sites. our media is better is more professional (as your perma-presence would seem to corroborate.)
Real two-nation theory of Pakistan
Pakistan stateand
State within State"I recently visited Delhi and was rather surprised to note that even when I spoke very good Urdu, people recognised that I was from Pakistan, and even the most Muslim of neighbourhoods in old Delhi seemed ‘foreign’ to me."
You got busted because you spoke Urdu. Contrary to what you have been made to believe, Hindi is not "what Indians call Urdu". Hindi sounds very different from Urdu. ( ex: "takalluf" vs "shishtata" - synomyms both, but not homophones by a long shot )
Excerpts from Pakistan Resolution moved by G.M Syed on 3rd March 1943 in Sindh Assembly "Muslims are justly entitled to the right, as a single, separate nation, to have independent national states of their own, craved out in the zones where they are in majority in the sub-continent of India.", Even this resolution which was passed in favor of Pakistan by our elders in Sindh Assembly calls for "National STATES", not state. Our establishment should honor 23rd March and Sindh Assembly resolution by giving full autonomy to Sindh provinces.
Go to any Indian news site and see how many 2 nation-articles are published there, heck even timesofindia does not published these articles :P
We should develop a new theoretical framework, where our national narratives should incorporate all segments of our society, covering all ethnic and religious differences, and I think that the way to follow would be to adopt Aitzaz Ahsan or A.H. Dani's concept of cultural history called "the Indus spirit"... but "some" (who weren't for the creation of Pakistan to begin with) can find frustrating to see Hindus and Sikhs from north Indian (not only Punjab) as part of our cultural being, if we subscribe to a non-religious, but socio-cultural justification of Pakistan's existence.
We have to dessicate our 'official' textbooks though (anti-India, anti-Hindu, ...), and the likes of K.K. Aziz have already show the way.
Many Muslims in India (non Kashmiris) want to come and settle in Pakistan even now. What should we do, shall we take them?
Clap clap! Mr. Yaqoob, you keep getting better and better. - With respect from across the border.
A few years of "Shining India" slogan is enough to make people question two nation theory ? Are you then going to question if Islam is good for sub-continent if india lands people on the moon ?
Sir you can beleive in whatever you want. The reality is that in last 65 years, the state has killed all diversity and virtually outlawed it. Thats how Indic religions which were 22-25% of Pak poluation in 1947 are now just 2 %. The state is becoming even more repressive of the very few remaining as the recent abduction and conversion case before supreme court shows. So its better to look at reality of what the state has become.
Muslims in India have longback taken a different route from Pakistanis... they may identify similarites but the might of Indian society and culture is far too stronger than islam. This has been proven in Bangladesh case. You cannot erase centuries old culture and langauge with alien religion from Middle East. The same problems are persisting today in Balochistan.....India is a strongest bastion that has resisted the spread of abrahamic religions because it is opposite and more sophisticated and powerful than these forces. It will always be a challenge for islamic societies to live beside India as it is opposite of what they believe. You either do what we do ---secular societies or follow strict islam the results of which we are seeing in Pakistan...
But a very nice summary by the author... much better than what some others have written with half knowedge.
I agree with you, also Islam is a religion which asks us to respect the faiths of non-muslims, and has simply put that no one can be converted to Islam forcefully. So minorities have full right to live peacefully and independently follow their religion. This misunderstanding should be cleared.
Very good write up. The irony is that on 3rd march 1943, Sindhi nationalist giant Saeen G.M Syed proposed Pakistan resolution in Sindh Assembly (based on 23 March 1940 resolution) but the same person was termed traitor in Pakistan. He always wanted Establishment to respect the very resolution, which forms the basis of Pakistan but our establishment always believed in religious rhetoric and over centralization as core of this new country, which caused not only increased sectarianism but also developed sense of deprivations in smaller provinces. This is time for our establishment should revisit their past actions, and follow the 23rd March 1940 resolution in letter and spirit by accepting Pakistan as federation of multi-nation states with full autonomy.
Pakistan as a nation state has been in existence for 62 years.Now is the time for her to move away from 1947 and to 21st century.Polity and principles of 20th century is history.Sooner pakistan becomes Pakistan and not un -India better for her development of its diverse national identity in which all nations will live with equal opportunity.This is what your modernday Gandhi Mahmood Khan Achakzai has been telling you.Listen to him!get yourself away from India.Free yourself from India.Unshackle yourself from India.india is just another nation like Iran,Afghanistan and China!
Interesting article but I agree with the observation that Pakistanis and Indian Muslims are also two different communities. It is only the migrant community in Karachi that harbours some nostalgia for Muslim areas in India but most native Pakistanis consider these parts of India as Indian as any other.
Totally agreed good one sir.
Well said! You are also right that the extreme right is a marginalized force in India with no locus standi as representatives of the Hindu majority. That is because the religion/ philosophy does not allow anyone to speak for it. This is largely the same case with other religions that originated in India - Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism; once the Sikhs realized that they were empowered in areas that they were a majority (and treated as equals in other parts), the need for Khalistan vanished. Another factor that is common among these four religions is the absence of 'dawaa' - I can adhere to the best parts of these four with no apparent contradictions, and no one wants me to disavow who I am to accept their (possibly different) point of view. Unfortunately, Pakistan and the self-appointed guardians of Islam do not see the world in this manner; you are either with them or against them - the origins of the 2-nation theory. This is also contributes to the continued difficulty in assimilating a (thankfully diminishing) percentage of the muslims in India (and in the West); but it is still work-in-progress. Note - this is not a diatribe against Islam - merely a statement of the facts.
So is the gist of this article: "This new theory is based on India and Pakistan as two distinct nations which work together on topics of mutual concern and benefit."?
Well Mr. Author, we are 2 distinct nations, nothing new there. As for working together on topics of mutual benefit, ask the puppet masters of your deep state as to what topics they can identify to work with India for our mutual benefit. I am sure you won't be surprised by their answer.
As for your comment: "the Muslims in India, too, want to develop independent of a reference to Pakistan — after all, they are as Indian as anyone else.", stop pretending that you or for that matter Pakistan has any interest in the welfare of the Muslims residing in India. They can take care of them selves, thank you. Anyways, whatever little moral authority Pakistan had as a spokesperson of the Muslims in the sub-continent, they lost in 1971.
As an Indian, I totally buy into this theory. As you mentioned, we have no desire to undo the 1947 parition. This was proved by India in 1971 when it made not attemptto try to subsume East Bengal within itself. Of course if it had done so, it may not have been a moral thing to do, it may not even have been successful. But the point is that there was no attempt to do so.
Also 150 million Muslims who live in India clearly do not believe that they cannot live with Hindus in one nation. The other flaw with the old 2 nation theory is that it does not even recognize the existence of Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists and atheists. Which of the 2 nations are they supposed to go to if one nation is reserved for Hindus and other for Muslims?