This is a considerable topic of today’s debate. There are two parties one is in the support of two nation theory and the other highly criticizes the idea behind the two-nation theory. The given three articles explain the history as well as the current scenario related to the two-nation theory. First is the nationalistic narrative based on the Hindu/Muslim identities or Religious factors. This identity narrative had been becoming famous after the 1937 election campaign that Hindus/Muslims are two different nations with different cultures, languages, religions, and historical elements this is known as the two-nation theory. As Quaid e Azam said; “India is not a country but the subcontinent of different nationalists”.
Muslim leaders at that time, once who were an ally of Hindu-Muslim unity, after analyzing the future of the subcontinent by seeing the depiction of the 1937 elections were afraid of Hindu domination in the region. Therefore, they used the strategy of Two nation theory to secure the identities of Muslims of the subcontinent. This is the traditional narrative regarding the two-nation theory. The modern and counter narrative states that along with identity and religious factors there are lots of other hidden stuff, included within the theoretical implementation; political interests (Public Support, Power & authority) of Muslim leaders which directed them towards the confusion, hence, Jinnah got inspired by the notion of two-nation theory but with the passage of time there seems contradictions in his sayings either he wanted to build a Religious State or a Secular State.
Many scholars like Ayesha Jalal clarified in her writing “The Sole Spokesperson”, that Jinnah never wanted an Islamic state and that two nation theory was misused as an ideological weapon by Islamists based on Religious discrimination. The prime goal of Jinnah’s attempts was to secure the identities of Muslims of the subcontinent, therefore, he fought for the partition. According to the scholar Yasmin Rashid, it was a tough time for Muslim leaders to take a decision, unfortunately, the outcomes of this decision were unpredictable which results in violence and exploration later. Both nations have compromised and sacrificed for this partition Simultaneously, Pervez Hoodbhoy also critiqued this theoretical ideology and said: “Pakistan is in a state of confusion because it was born in a state of confusion”.
He further added that we should have got rid of this ideological weapon. For him, the two-nation theory is no more than ridiculous or nonsense talk. The political interests are too simple to understand but one should think critically; at that time Hindus were in majority as well as in Power, and they formulated a strong political party. While on the other side, the political structure of the Muslim League was completely distorted, and the leaders were not much capable of winning elections on their own. Then Jinnah joined the Muslim league because of Allama Iqbal’s assertion and the Muslim League began to popularize among minorities of the subcontinent. It was the need of time to raise the slogans of the two-nation theory and cultivate the seeds of Muslim identities, Religious factors to nurture the sentiments of Muslims.
Jinnah never gave any hate speech against Hindus rather he always welcomed Hindus, Sikhs, including all the minorities living in the subcontinent to join Pakistan. Where they could enjoy all their freedom without any exploitation of Religious beliefs. And advised those Muslims to stay loyal to their state who chooses to live in India. This was the rise of confusion which has deeply rooted within the soil of Pakistan still every Pakistani is facing an identity crisis. Whether they wanted a democratic or authoritative political system within the state. Should they take decisions about the state being a Muslim or a Pakistani? On one hand, Jinnah was demanding a separate homeland for Muslims at the same time he was giving speeches like; religion has nothing to do with the matters of state. The question risen in the given article is; if Pakistan is a state for Muslims then why did East Pakistan become Bangladesh in 1971? Why did that incident take place?
If Muslims are one nation then why are they get divided into three states; Muslims chose to stay in India, the Muslims came to Pakistan and after partition, the Muslims chose to live separately is a big question mark on two nation theory. That was the time when Indira Gandhi had given the statement that the two-nation theory is dead. The reason is that we exploited their rights in the same manner as Hindus were exploited and exploitation is unacceptable in every shape and condition. After the birth of Pakistan Urdu Bengali dichotomy arises with certain questions; Do the Muslim leaders want freedom from Hindu exploitation/domination for Muslims or just Urdu-speaking Muslims? Do they want to construct a separate homeland to exert violence on the subalterns? The answer to these questions relied on the partition of East Pakistan.
The second most significant issue is the identity crisis which according to the critiques of two nation theory, still Pakistan is facing an identity crisis. Because of the misconception that Pakistan is just for Muslims, Islamic extremism is at its peak. Within every span of time, we have seen a new case of blasphemy. We never accept changes and diversity. That’s the reason Baluchistan has been exploiting now as Bangladesh was in the past. The question is: why have our leaders kept us with confusion? Was there no other eligible leader who could take forward Jinnah’s perception? Was Jinnah going to declare Pakistan a secular state as Nehru did in India? Definitely, with the requirements of time, Jinnah would declare Pakistan a secular state but unfortunately, the lack of leadership qualities and eligibility made Pakistan an Islamic extremist state after Jinnah’s death.
As written in the second article of my research work India’s former vice president Muhammad Hamid Ansari “there is a feeling of unease, a sense of insecurity is creeping in because of vigilantism and intolerance”. This statement is elaborated much better by looking into India’s Citizenship Amendment Bill, this bill was passed to target Muslims and according to Shashi Tharoor CAB ensures the victory of Jinnah’s two-nation theory over Gandhi’s Hindu-alliance philosophy. Since, the Modi government, Muslims have been killed for performing their Religious obligations due to the anti-Muslim policies. This recent incredible increase in the violence and intolerant behavior of the Indian government has given a boost to Iqbal’s notion of a separate homeland and Jinnah’s ideology of two nation theory. It also justifies Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Chaudhary Brothers, Nawab Mohsin ul Mulk, and, all other Muslim leader’s unlimited struggles. The most interesting information I got is that according to Shashi Tharoor, the idea of two separate nations was first given by the head of Hindu Mahasabha (maybe Parliament or Assembly) in 1937.
Indian Journalist Sagarika Ghose in the Times of India had written Jinnah as a champion of two nation theory about the current destruction n taking place in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Jaswant Singh for Indian finance and external affairs minister had given a straightaway comparison of Jinnah and Gandhi’s strategy in his book, Jinnah: India, Pakistan Independence; he openly praised Jinnah for being nonsectarian in his approach and criticized Gandhi for sacrificing religion over democracy. And In Jaswant Singh’s book had ferocious and lethal results t t Modi Government on his position in the party for his statements.
The critic of two nation theory Ayesha Jalal does not deny the importance of religious beliefs and the factor of Hindu domination but her concern is those hidden and ignorant factors behind this theoretical framework that are making it an ideological weapon in addition to this the inculcation of religion in the curriculum of Pakistan is also a problematic factor for her as it is the sustainability of the confusion we have in our minds related to the social, political, religious affairs. Ayesha Jalal wrote in her book that partition was all about how things would be turned out and the eye-witnesses on both sides were guilty of it after the partition had taken place. The major problem is that we are not seeking to know the actual truth and our education system is producing robots that have given information and certain directions to do. We are still confused about our identification of being Muslims and a citizen of Pakistan. The religion we are practicing today is not the actual truth. And what we are practicing is becoming a truth for the rest of the world. the confusion is that we are not able to differentiate between the religion and the political affairs of a state and this intermixing had been started from the birth of Pakistan.
The other problem is we are not questioning the historical factors of why the All India Muslim League was not capable of producing leaders for the newly born state. Why after the death of Jinnah our political, economic, and social system was collapsed? Why have the Religious elements been so strong that we are seeing blasphemous issues everywhere within Pakistan? Why the issues like blasphemy so frequently happened in Pakistan? Why islamophobia is specifically attached to Pakistan? Because we have misused Islam for ages.
What do all types of blasphemous cases; Mashal khan murder, and Asia Bibi sentenced to death, tell us? Does it mean that the two-nation theory created more religious differences rather than uniting us on one page? The exploitation that happened in Bangladesh and now happening in Baluchistan gives a strong message about the justification of the two-nation theory.
Two nation theories formulated the basis for the creation of Pakistan and the construction of Muslim identities. The thing is that the real essence, meanings, and interpretation of the Two Nation Theory had been dishing later. The life of those Muslims who were struggling to get the basic needs of living after the partition became challenging, vulnerable, and pitiful. It is negotiating because taking the suspicious step of rejecting the law that, all landowners had to allot their lands to the respective state that the Two Nation Theory meant to provide shelter to the elite Muslims of the subcontinent. Ayesha Jalal quoted Manto in her book who referred to both Hindus and Muslims as the salve of religious passions, animal instincts, and cruelty.
Analysis:
In light of the above discussion if we see Two Nation Theory in the context of the Subcontinent; it produced a lot of destruction within the region on both sides. It resulted in bloodshed, people became enemies of each other who were once neighbors and were sharing common walls, having trust in each other. The Hindu-Muslim relations were quite good before partition but after partition, the scenario would completely change. Two Nation Theory brought poverty, hunger, enmity, cruelty, religious differences, and hatred feelings. Families were detected, and people lost their loved ones. If we critically look into the things Two Nation Theory is the beginning of Shia-Sunni conflicts as it does not create hate among Hindus and Muslims but also created religious differences among Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims; when a Shia from the north and a Sunni from the South had been asked to live together how could be they get closer then their Hindu neighbors even having the same faith. How would the comparability develop especially in the situations where they had been deceived by their close ones, or have been killed by their Hindu neighbors? The result of driving the partition based on religious discrimination let Pakistan sectarian division, for instance, now out of every other Sunni mosque in Pakistan there has been written that “Only Sunni come to offer prayers”. Similar situations with Wahhabi and Shia mosques.
If we see the partition in the context of India then the Two Nation Theory seems justified as the condition of Muslims in India is so miserable after the BJP’s Government. For example, recently there has been an issue related to “taking scarf in educational institutions” the issue was highlighted on social media sites when a girl named Muskan in a burqa tried to enter the school for the submission of assignments and the Hindu students get offended, trying to attack her then the fuel raised the slogans of “ALLAH Hu Akbar”. Furthermore, Muslims can’t perform their religious obligational. e. they cannot sacrifice a cow on the day of Eid and if they, do so, in return they have to pay by sacrificing their lives. Additionally, the condition of Kashmir is also an alarming situation and as written above many Hindu scholars and politicians declared it Jinnah’s triumph
When we see it in the context of Pakistan; the condition of minorities is miserable i.e. Christians have been allotted the department of cleaning by society as well as by the state. Two Nation Theory never meant that we must throw garbage\trash on the streets because we are Muslim and Christians, and have to clean because we are minorities. The condition of minorities is so much miserable that they rarely or never get the opportunities to represent themselves on an internal level in sports, politics, and Pakistan is a country where the leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged who made Pakistan a nuclear power, and people like Altaf Hussain (leader of MQM) was escaped to London and raised the slogans, of Pakistan Murdabad. How can two in theory be justified in a nation, where one Muslim is the enemy of another Muslim? i.e. Sindhi/Muhajir Conflicts in As we see at the times of protest the state ordered police to shell at protestors, and protestors in return beat the policemen and other innocent citizens. (as happened during TLP’s protests against Imran Khan’s government). Furthermore, the meaning of a peaceful protest is merely violence in this country. The factor of trust is absent in the relationship between the state and the public for ages. Unfortunately, furthermore, the military also loosens the public’s trust since, for instance, Vigo transport used by army officers has become a symbol of fear for some citizens while for others it became a new meme material and a reason to go against the army.
The most significant question of today’s debate is How does religion plays a test on the state’s role in the political affairs of Pakistan? If we reciprocate this question; How Religion is exploited and destructed by misusing in political affairs?! We bring Muslims so much exploited Islam through our actions that its real essence has been abolished; for instance, we are defending the child abuse cases by blaming the dressing of film actresses, and we are defending the motorway rape case by questioning why the mother went out without a man? Why she did not choose a busier road? This kind of behavior ensures the deeply rooted rape culture that all such violent crimes are the results of women’s fault and violation. The two-nation ideology was never intended to create a state where the culprit would never be caught. Two Nation Theory is as justified as secularization in India.
References:
• Secunder (2017),“How Jinnah’s ideology shapes Pakistan’s identity – BBC News” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40961603.amp
• Hassan (n.d.),The Two Nation Theory and the Creation of Pakistan
https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJSSMS/article/download/1568/1482
• Şahbaz(n.d.),The Two Nations Theory and It’s Role In The Establishment of Pakistan https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1033923
